Final question

On of the statements that really stuck in my mind was actually from a recent book, "Cradle to Cradle" by William McDonough and Michael Braungart:
“Most recycling is actually downcycling; it reduces the quality of material over time.” Although we have discussed this concept in class, this concept has really had an effect on me. The authors’ really put to rest the idea that recycling (in its current form) can really make much of a difference in the environment. Seemingly everything we recycle such as aluminum and plastics have either no use or very little use after being put in the recycling bin. Although I had thought about the idea before, I had never considered how inefficient our current system of production is before reading about downcycling. The biggest thing that the criticisms of “downcycling” did was explain it would be possible to make recycling an effective way to deal with waste if those who produced the products had these ideas in mind. I felt that we could really fix this problem if we were to actually recycle.
The second quote that stuck with me came from Michael Maniates in his piece, “Plant a tree, Buy a Bike, Save the World?”
He states:When responsibility for individual problems is individualized, there is little room to ponder institutions, the nature and nature and exercise of political power, or ways of collectively changing the distribution of power and influence… This statement is very powerful and really attacks the problem at its core. Without collectively solving environment problems, we will continue exacerbate the environmental predicament we have gotten into. That is not to say that the individual is powerless in doing his or her part, because individual decisions on a large scale can make significant changes possible. But turning off the water to shave will not be the solution to our problems. We all want to do our part

Favorite Quotes

One quote that surprised me was from the Watson and Caldwell reading, "Cultural Politics of Food and Eating":

"Some of the best tuna from New England may make it to New York or Los Angeles, but by way of Tokyo -- validated as top quality (and top price) by the decision to ship it to Japan by air..."

You would think it would be kind of silly to air freight a huge fish from New England to Japan just to sell it in New York a few days later. This quote kind of epitomizes the excesses of our times.

I was also really struck by William McDonough said about how the use and disposal of our products have unintended consequences that are bad for the environment. As we discussed throughout the class, the most obvious environmentalist actions revolve around our role as consumers. How much can I recycle? Which disposable cutlery is better for the environment? Paper or plastic?

Less obvious, but perhaps more effective actions relate to our role in society. Organize and petition for change. Open up new and better choices for consumers and make them enticing to everyone.

To me, Cradle to Cradle struck at the core of that, and even went a step further. Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart are using design to create new and appealing choices with the goal that they be completely harmless to the environment.

I am concerned that some problems we will not be able to design our way out of, but that design could be such a powerful agent of change was very new and exciting to me.

Final Question

One of the important quotes/ideas of the semester was when Michael Maniatas exclaimed that, environmentalists don't ask people to do enough because they don't want to offend. What we need are bigger actions and for these people to stop selling us short. I think that this is a very fair point that Maniatas makes because I believe that a huge reason why people are not doing enough is the simple fact that they already think they are. TV commercials tell us that if we buy a certain brand of bottled water or shirts made of recycled Coca-Cola bottles then are are caring for the environment when really we are continuously doing much harm. Environmentalists need to understand that people want to be educated as long as it is done in a respectful way.

I believe that the underlying idea behind Cradle to Cradle is also important. McDonough and Braungart are basically saying that, it is important to change the approach to design, not just to change technology with regulations, etc. They claim that the change need to occur in the brains of the designers. We approach, (or at least should approach,) life's problems by looking at the source of them. The problems facing the environment are no different in the sense that the best way to help lessen our adverse effects on the environment is to get at the sources of these impacts and fix them there rather than trying to clean up our never-ending messes.

Final Post: Favorite Quotes

Cradle to Cradle: "The Earth belongs...to the living...No man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeeded him in that occupation, to the payment of debs contracted to him." (Thomas Jefferson)

I choose this quote because it integrates the concepts of sustainability and personal responsibility. It shows that every human being has a personal responsibility to not burden the future generations with his/her own debts. In the cause of environmentalism, these debts consist of waste, land destruction, pollution, and others. Through the collective action of personal choices, a lot of progress could be made, though in the end this may not be enough.

Lifeboat Ethics: "If we satisfy a growing population's need for food, we necessarily decrease its per capita supply of the other sources needed by men."

I choose this quote because it shows the flawed system that currently exists. A new sytem needs to be created so that satisfying the needs of one person do not inherently take away from someone else. There should be away to grow and consume food so that this process will end up benefitting more than just those who consume the food. Without this type design, several limits on resources, space, and population could be realized.

Second to Last

When thinking about ways to solve the environmental crisis many have come up with various answers. But any kind of practical solutions have been somewhat lacking I think. The authors of Cradle to Cradle have done their research on this topic though and have developed a viable solution for people to consider when pondering methods to curb and eventually halt the effects of climate change. I find that two elements they mention are rather noteworthy. The first is the constant rhetoric to make industry "less bad" instead of just all good. They hit upon the fact that reducing and trying to minimize production is not the answer because that only continues to add to the cycle that results in waste. The other point that I found to be relevant to the entire problem is the notion that economic growth equals prosperity and therefore more growth or GDP equals progress. This is not true though when seen in context of the negative aspects that economic activity can also spawn. To help the economy consumers are encouraged to buy which is illustrative of the core problem that the authors highlight: the mindset that says, "I am the first and last to own this product." This type of thinking leads to more industrial growth and consequentially more waste over time.

The concept "cradle to cradle" is innovative and logical. It makes sense to not only reuse things but to send them back to their origins to maintain a natural cycle. What it really comes down to is the current design of products--their durability and overall sustainability. The authors introduce new processes by which products can be reused; the biological and technical metabolisms are solutions to such problems as downcycling and landfilling and instead keeping the "nutrients" in a closed-loop cycle. This mimics the type of cycle that things in nature do all the time. It's about not wasting any part of anything and instead fully appreciating it by using all of it.

Cradle to Cradle

The ideas of William McDonough and Michael Braungart are extremely innovative and pragmatic, but I believe the picture is a bit too rosy. However, while I do believe that their visions are not realistic in the near future, in 25 years these ideas may become more and more of a reality. Originally, I was a bit surprised by the studies used in the book that pointed to everyday household items which were suspected to carry chemicals and toxins that were not only harmful to animals and other living organisms, but were suspected to toxins that were suspected to cause cancer in humans. It made me wonder exactly what the effects of sitting by a computer for hours every day could have on my health in the future.
Setting these ideas up in the beginning and explaining how they can be practically erased (example with the 3 books, gardens on the roof buildings) had me convinced from the beginning. The books methods for reforming companies to transform them from the "cradle to grave" approach to the "cradle to cradle" way of business. The five steps companies could take in order to achieve eco- effectiveness were very interesting proposals and seem like achievable goals in the future.
Although I was impressed with the ideas in the book, I wish the author's would have gone a bit more in depth regarding obstacles to achieving this seemingly ideal society. How exactly would we get by the impediments of those who are content with the current status quo? It seems that many different companies and government officials see no need for change and will hold onto the system that makes them rich. Overall, the proposals seem like realistic goals as long as we can get past those who are committed to the current ways of doing business.

Cradle to Cradle

Much of the readings that we have done for this class have been well-researched and well-argued therefore I find myself being easily convinced by the authors' proposed theories and possible solutions/new lifestyles to take-on. This book, so far, has been no exception to the previous statement. I am inspired by their underlying theme of the importance of how and why you make things rather than how you dispose of these things. I am especially intrigued by the architect's view on how things built by humans should "flow" with the nature around them. Last year I saw a movie about another advanced-thinking architect who did projects in poorer areas such as one area in Mexico. The government had paid for poorly built housing to be constructed for a group of indigenous peoples who resided in the desert but had been internally displaced for centuries. They constructed neighborhoods of identical cement blocks where these people were supposed to live. The buildings were not only ugly but more importantly they were hot and inefficient. After only a few years in these houses the indigenous peoples could not afford them because they were either too cold or too hot and they could not afford for the electricity to keep them healthy enough environments to live in. The architect of the documentary instead came up with another design for their neighborhoods and houses that were specific to the people and their culture and surrounding environment. The buildings used material from the area that could go back into the earth many years from now when the houses were no longer in use. The buildings were not only much more attractive but they were much more energy efficient and suitable to the lifestyles of this indigenous group of peoples, including social outdoor courtyards that caught the breeze and created a situation cuitable for community.

Another interesting topic of the book Cradle to Cradle is the scary idea of how much dangerous and unecessary junk goes into what we use. We are so concerned about what goes into our bodies yet we do not have the important regulations and monitoring of the everyday products we use such as hand-mixers and swim wings. This book clearly explains that like in most problems, in order to find a solution you must get to the source. Whether it be; the necessity of focusing on the poverty of a 3rd world country to get to the bottom of immigration in a more developed country or the environmental degradation caused by the construction, transportation and use of the products in our everyday lives; it is so important for us to re-think the way we do things and how we tackle problems. Because of this I really like the idea behind the book and I hope that as a people we can start to really rethink how the system should be run and to understand how the things we are using are made and therefore change how we are making and using everyday products and resources.

Cradle to Cradle

The vision that William McDonough and Michael Braungart speak of in Cradle to Cradle is a very hopeful and optimistic one; however, I think it is also a very functional idea. For example, their idea of roof top gardens on buildings in cities would not be that difficult to implement, and the benefits (better building insulation, cooler cities, more plant life to absorb carbon dioxide) are numerous and needed. I like how they approach the problem differently by not trying to fix a flawed system but rather create a new one that accomplishes the goals of the flawed system without the bad side effects. It is sometimes easier to start from the beginning than to try to fix something with some many issues.

One of their proposed ideas that I did not quite understand was the concept of completely reusable products. They believe products can be desgined so that they can be used and then recycled completely, with the end product being just as good as or better than the original. While this is very easily implemented for some products, such as books which can be made out of plastic instead of paper, many products do not have available, more eco-friendly substitutes. In the beginning of the book, they talked about computers, all the different parts and metals that go into them, and how it is very difficult, if not impossible, to recycle a computer; however, they proposed no such way of making a recyclable computer. Also, in regards to plastic books, most conventional pens do not write well on plastic, so it would be very difficult to take notes in a plastic book. They idea of completely recyclable products is impressive, but the implementation could be impossible.

Week 7

I guess you could say that I'm not really into the natural world that much. I went to the Grand Canyon once, and it was all right.

That said, there are many good reasons to preserve nature. As Meyer discusses in The End of the Wild, natural environments support diverse life systems, many of which we have little understanding of. The species preserved in nature can be useful to us psychologically, pharmaceutically, and through their relationships with other species. Biodiversity helps us and enriches our lives, so contemporary environmentalism should focus on natural environments as it does on sustainability and climate change.

After hiking 5k, the last thing my classmates and i wanted to do was leave the trail to the nearest lake and climb to the top of a steep hill, but our tutors wouldn't let us continue until with did. The hill wasn't too tough, but roots and branches from eucalyptus tress obstructed the small path to the top. Each person paused when they reached the peak, forcing everyone behind them to grab onto the nearest tree to keep from sliding back to the bottom of the hill. Still, no one could stop themselves from pausing in awe once they saw the view. At the top of this hill, the forest we had been hiking through abruptly turned into massive sand dunes that peaked at just the right angle that we could leap from the top and roll all the way to the bottom on the finest sand I had ever felt. We played in the dunes for hours, forgetting how tired we were, simply enjoying the purity of the setting, and leaving, as cliche as it may sound, only our footprints.

With that in mind as well as countless other experiences, saving nature is certainly worthwhile. The fees we paid to enter the preserved area were fairly minimal, but the simply joy and awe of moments like that are priceless. Nature, even ignoring consumptive services, has value in the fact that it exists, that it can bring sustainable yet infinite enjoyment to many.

My most thrilling experience with nature dates back a few years ago when I decided to climb Mt. Fuji in Japan with a good Australian friend of mine. Although before the climb I had my doubts of the beauty left in that industrialized country, the further I got up the mountain the more I realized that this mountain was cliimbed my hundreds of thousands of people per year for good reasons. Climbing to the summit and watching the sun rise was one of the most unbelievable experiences of my life. Growing up in the city, climbing Mt. Fuji taught me that beauty truly does still exist in the world and that it is often right around the corner. I began to look at the environment in a different way from that day on.
Saving the environment should obviously be a chief concern. If not for the the great things the environment provides us with every day, it should be protected solely based on the fact that we do not know what will happen if the environmental situation gets any worse than it already is.
Why not protect what makes human life so great for us all? This needs to be of great concern for contemporary environmentalism and as time passes, we are slowly beginning to see that it is becoming more and more of a concern every election year. Eight years ago no one could have imagined Bush even mentioning the environment in a serious way, but now all candidates seem to make mention of the issues as much as they can afford to. That being said, I don't promote setting SUV's on fire or extremism.

Question #7

It is hard to pick THE most thrilling/magical/enchanting experience I have had in nature because I feel like I have had so many. I love the ocean and always have. I was born on the shore and I have always felt a great connection to it. I don't get to go to the ocean nearly as much as I would like to (aka every day) but when I do that is when I feel the most comfortable and happy. This may seem weird to other people but one of my favorite things is getting caught up in a bigger sized wave and having it toss me around to the point where I am not even sure which was is up or when I will get out. When humans talk about nature, many times it is what part of it they own or would like to own or how they are going to use it for their benefit, (for example, making a house out of wood.) When I am getting thrown around by a wave it is more than clear to me who is actually more powerful and I like that physical reminder that nature is ultimately what dictates our lives and it should not be the other way around. A lot of people who travel out into the ocean away from the shore unfortunately do not know how the ocean works and how incredibly powerful it is. I have seen a man die on the beach because he had a heart attack out in the water because he got stuck out there by the current and didn't know how to get back in. People try to fight the ocean currents because they think they can over-power it when in reality they can't. The rip-tide and the currents move in a specific way that no one person could change and therefore in order to survive a situation like that you must not fight the force of the water, instead you need to go with it. Again this seems to sum up what the relationship between humans and nature is or at least should be. People are constantly trying to fight nature when in the long run it is better to just go with it.

something worth saving because if for no other reason, without nature there is no "us". Of course we humans and animals and plants, etc are not going to be here forever but for as long as we can be here we should make sure that we are here. What I mean by that is that billions of years from now the earth will be engulfed within a SuperNova and will be destroyed and this is something that we cannot prevent, (like our death). But for as long as we humans are in this world or for as long as we individuals are alive, we should make sure that we are as healthy as possible and in order to be healthy we need to take care of ourselves and therefore the environment that nurtures us. The more I have read in this class the more I have been worried by the possibility that we cannot do anything to save the earth because we have already done too much damage. Especially from reading The End of the Wild I have become discouraged but if anything maybe we can at least work to make the human-caused destruction of nature and the world slower than it is at the moment.

Nature

It is hard to pick the most thrilling experience I have had in nature, but one near the top is probably the time I climbed to the top of a mountain in New York state. It wasn't a big mountain and only took about two hours to get to the top, but finally reaching it and seeing the view was amazing. While this particular experience did not teach me much about the world or myself, except perhaps the feeling of accomplishment, this experience combined with all my other experiences in nature have taught me a lot about life. The main thing I have learned from growing up in one of the last remaining rural sections of New Jersey is how just one small human action can affect an entire ecosystem in that area.

Saving nature is definetly something worthwhile. For those who believe that humans have the right to everything, one good reason to save nature is that scientists believe dozens, if not more, cures for common diseases are still out in nature, mainly in the rainforests, waiting to be discovered. By losing nature, we lose these cures forever. Another reason to save nature is that it keeps the natural cycles of the planet in balance and regulates the planet much better than humans ever could. Without trees, plants, and wild animals, the entire planet would suffer fromt he vegetable-industrial complex. For me, nature is worth saving because it is the most important thing on this planet and is responsible for the continuation of all forms of life.

Over break, I got into a conversation with my roommate about the human impact on environmental change. She knows I'm an environmental studies major, and since we disagree on some fundamentals of environmentalism, she tends to moderate her own opinions and avoid arguments on the subject. This time we discussed the ability of technology to compensate for human impact. This debate is complex, I even know some environmentalists who believe technology is the answer. As the conversation evolved, it turned more specifically to alternative energies, which made me realize that though we disagree fundamentally, we both have the same goals. We both want to move away from dependency on oil. I promote alternative energy because of the negative impact of fossil fuels on the environment. She promotes it because our gas is expensive. Same end goal, different motives.

In all, perhaps one of the most essential techniques in environmental advocacy is framing the debate. Environmental issues effect every aspect of life: social justice, economics, politics, education, culture... the list goes on. The more flexible environmental advocates are when framing the discussion, the more we find common goals. We may have different reasoning for striving for these goals, but these differences should not distract us from getting things done.

Environmental Conversation

Over break I had a surprising conversation about environmental issues with an unlikely person. However, she did not disagree with my position on the matter but instead suggested some ideas that I had not fully considered before she mentioned them. While sitting down to lunch at a Whole Foods cafeteria, my dad's friend's older sister from Ohio, without any kind of prompting by me to discuss the environment, began to talk about the concerns she has for her family's health with regards to food packaging and treatment in the agricultural industry today. One example she gave was her fear of the effect that plastic could be having on food when, coincidentally she looked down and noticed that the salad she was eating was in a plastic container. As a possible solution to this she told me about her plans to start her own garden because she was tired of driving all the way to the supermarket where the produce was bound to be suboptimal anyhow. I thought this rather progressive from someone who grew up in a different era and who is part of a generation that did not consider environmental concerns to the extent that mine does now. It gives me some kind of hope that, if the issues being advocated by younger folks can somehow transcend generations, there is the possibility that they can also span across other societal gaps as well.

Environment Discussion

I was unable to talk to anyone over break about the environment who had really different views than mine. I did however talk to my mom and sister about the sustainable living communities. When I was abroad in Costa Rica I got to stay at one called Durika for a few nights one weekend and I had a great time there. I really respected the way in which they lived and the fact that they were a hard-working a tight-knit group of individuals who seemed very interested in the environment and in touch with nature. I discussed this type of living with my mother and sister and mentioned how I might like to live in one of these communities at some point in my life. My sister gave me a website to visit that was about one she knew about in Montana where she lives. Through my mother's facial expressions and comments I was able to see that she was quite skeptical of these types of places. She had joked with me when I was in Costa Rica and about to go and visit Durika that I better not join their "cult." She was just joking but the truth is is that she does have some skepticism about communities like those who claim to live off of the land and refrain from wasting water aka taking showers. She told me how my father used to live on one of those hippie communes up in New Hampshire. He eventually got sick of it because that sort of lifestyle ended up being an excuse for people to be lazy and he was the only one with a job and was therefore financially supporting everyone else. She was not saying that every community like this is full of lazy individuals but it is something that you have to be careful about it. After bout ten-twenty minutes of quiet thinking I ended up telling my mother and my sister that I was not going to live in one of those communities. My mother asked why and I said that I didn't want my nieces and nephews at family reunions to be asking why Aunt Neile's kids were so weird and why their names were plankton and mulch. When it comes down to it, if I were to become seriously interested in living in a self-sustaining community, I would have to do much more than look into how they were living in a sustainable way, I would also have to do some serious research on the group dynamics because the social life would end up being just as important especially since there would be very little privacy amongst the individuals of the community.

Environmental Discussion

Over break I went to Cairo, Egypt. While on a tour, I had a chance to speak with our tour guide about the subject of agriculture and water in Egypt. Since a lot of the traditional agricultural land is being converted into residential land, the Egyptian government is working on an initiative to "reclaim" the desert and grow crops on land that was never meant to grow food. This struck me as odd since it would require a vast amount of water to accomplish such a project, not to mention energy in pumping the water and building the infrastructure to do such. A much more logical plan, in my opinion, would be to keep traditional growing land for growing and put houses in the desert. I saw no good in trying to convert a desert to a farm.

My guide, being Egyptian, had a different opinion. He viewed this "reclaimation" of desert as a step forward for Egypt to become economically strong and not as dependent on other countries for food supply. He seemed to think there was nothing environmentally wrong with reclaiming desert and exhausting the Nile River to do so. In his opinion, the Nile was endless and even if it ran dry, he assured me the high dam held enough water to keep Egypt going for 14 years.

We were able to converse with each other respectively; however, I found the whole conversation very frustrating. I don't understand how one can believe farming a desert sounds like a good or natural idea. Building housing in the desert and saving the fertile land for growing seems like a much better and pratical plan. At the end of the conversation, neither one of us had changed our views though I did learn a bit about urban, rural, and desert development.

When I purchase food I try to be environmentally conscious, but sometimes my budget just won't let me. I purchase organic as much as possible, and try limit the amount of meat in my diet. Still, as the case if with a poor college student, I can't afford to pay more simply for organic. So I have to make the choice to purchase less environmentally friendly foods more often than i would like. I would also like to purchase more local foods, but until spring comes around, that option is greatly limited.

In the last few days, the corn oil i use to cook has probably had the greatest environmental impact. Corn products in general are overproduced in this country, draining fossil water and degrading soil. Also the process of converting corn to oil uses a great deal of energy and creates further waste.

Question 5

To be honest, before taking this class, I did not pay much attention to the choices I made at the supermarket. Until recently, the only thing I was concerned about was the price, the size and the nutritional value. The price has not and probably will not change my decision on whether to buy a product or not. Although I now have the environment in mind, it is difficult to take action when I have been accustomed to such a convenient and enjoyable lifestyle regarding food. However, recently I have began to actually think about the pesticides used for the fruit I eat as well as the environmental effects of a diet which is focused on meat and dairy products. Although I have not taken any action regarding these problems, the fact that I am more aware of the effects I have as a consumer is a good start.
Over the last few days, I have probably caused the most substantial environmental damage by eating many meat products such as beef and chicken. By making things such as meat sandwiches, I also use cheese, which has a surprisingly damaging effect on the environment. Meat products are especially inefficient and damaging to the environment. The long process from raising animals to putting them in supermarkets requires a substantial amount of feed for the animals, excess pollution, packaging and shipping among other things.

Question #5

As I pick up a sandwich to bite into it I am usually thinking about how satisfying it will be to enjoy its flavor, not how environmentally friendly the sandwich is. However, being a vegetarian and one who has never eaten meat, the topics of alternative dietary choices and consequential environmental impacts have always occupied a steady presence in my life. When I was younger I never fully analyzed what I was eating and simply listened to what my parents told me. This I feel is no different than most children who accept what their parents feed them, both literally and figuratively speaking. Now that I am older and have had many discussions with people about the diverse choices concerning people's diets I have concluded that my current diet, the same I grew up with, is one that I believe is the best-suited, not just for me but for the environment as well. Talking with people, reading pertinent articles and conducting research have all led me to evaluate what it means to be a vegetarian-- what are the benefits, the drawbacks and most importantly, is it truly a good way to behave in relation to the environment? At times I have pondered if I may be causing eventual harm to my body because I voluntarily choose to omit protein, a major element necessary to the human diet, but then I remember it is something that I believe in doing. Over the past week I have eaten what I normally do, a diet consisting of pasta, veggies, bread, dairy and protein (soy). To isolate one item in particular that had the most environmental impact is very difficult. At the moment I am thinking that, generally speaking, everything I ate needed to be transported which obviously has an environmental impact. However, when delving into the specifics: the eggs I ate came from chickens who were fed a certain type of grain which must be taken into consideration, along with the lettuce, tomato, peppers, onions, broccoli, mushrooms that were most likely sprayed with pesticides. In addition to that, the other dairy products I consumed originated from animals who were produce methane gas. This exercise serves as a great model to illustrate just how inconvenient it is to take into account the environmental impacts of an every-day activity such as eating.

Question #5?

1. When I buy food I definitely think about quality and where it, (mainly meat,) is coming from but it is not necessarily for environmental reasons. Even though some people may think that it doesn't make much of a difference, I choose to buy eggs from free-range chicken and I try to avoid buying food that has been genetically enhanced. I do this mainly for my own health and to support farms that treat their animals right, even if they are ultimately going to be killed. It may seem hypocritical to some but we are all going to die eventually and I would rather be treated well and enjoy my life before I died or was killed then be shoved into a cage that was too small for me with excrement up to my knees and my legs breaking from my own weight. After reading many of these readings, however I do admit that I have been thinking more and more about where my food and other resources come from and where they go when I am done with them. When I have boughten local food in the past I have done it to support local farmers and to get food that was fresher and therefore more delicious. Now I see the energy and environmental benefits to buying locally. Last week I went to buy a mango from Whole Foods because it is a fruit that I love. I looked at the sticker on the mango and it said that it was from Peru. Obviously I was not going to be able to buy a local mango that was anywhere decent but reading the label marked "Peru" after learning about how much energy it takes to transport food, I began to doubt the environmental-friendliness of my food purchases in general. I have to admit that I still bought the mango so I don't even know if my awareness has gotten me much further on my actions towards becoming a more responsible purchaser.

2. Why? I am not a fan of fast food but yesterday after our indoor soccer tournament my teammates and I went to Chipotle to get some dinner and bond. I purposefully did not get any meat in my "burrito bowl", mainly because I am a bit of a food snob and assumed that the meat was not coming from the greatest source. I still realize, however, that their ingredients are most likely grown and bought in the cheapest possible way and because of this, probably come from one or more of the largest corporations who no doubt use GMOs and are uninterested in their effects on the environment. Also, they probably use one main distributor who must then transport the "goods" to the thousands of Chipotles around the country. I do not know how many Chipotles there are or where they are located but I am sure that a whole lot of energy is used on fuel for trucks and more energy to cool the trucks to turn them into the right environment to keep food over long time periods. Because of this, Chipotle and other fast food places are probably some of the worst companies with regards to environmental degradation.

Food Choices

I tend think about the environmental impact of my food choices; however, not to the extent that it would prevent me from buying certain foods. My main concern is centered around meat, the treatment of the animals before slaughter, the immense amount of methane produced by the exorbitant number of cattle we now keep, and the energy efficiency of eating meat versus plants. Though, after reading the article, “The Oil We Eat: Following the Food Chain Back to Iraq,” the last of my concerns may not be justified as modern crop production and processing may be just as energy inefficient as meat production. I also consider things such as amount of pesticides applied to produce and the amount of excess packaging in packaged foods. However, these things are merely concerns and do not tend to limit my choices as I believe the real solution to these negative environmental side effects of food production is to stop them at the source, since everyone needs to eat.

Of the food I have eaten over the past few days, the one with the most environmental impact has probably been past with Parma Rosa sauce because it required dairy, grains, and several seasonings and spices to create one meal. This meal could not have been very environmentally friendly due to the number of different ingredients found in it.

Question 4

The question of whether or not technology can save us is a very loaded one. At this point in time I believe it is impossible to answer this question with any certainty. Market liberal environmentalism could fail in the long run, but it may be our only chance at combating this global tragedy. I believe strongly in the power of humans to solve problems but everyone must collectively realize that the problem exists in order for us to be “saved.”Moreover, as this class emphasizes, environmentalists need to stop trying to scare people and attempt to show that there is hope for the world.
Up until now, technology has done much more harm than good for the environment. However, in recent years, with surprisingly little investment by governments and corporations, green technology has made progress. I believe that if we were to commit ½ the resources into green technology that we commit to oil and natural gas, we would make progress that has never been seen before. That being said, it is unlikely that technology will be able to solve all our problems and market liberals seem to miss this point. Technology will probably be our only realistic chance in the future, because population seems to be on the rise for at least the next half century and consumption is getting worse as well. However, we must collectively reduce consumption if we are to give the earth a chance. There are so many adjustments that humans, and especially Americans, can make in order to reduce our consumption. By recognizing the consumption problem and attempting to combat it while simultaneously promoting green technology we will be doing much more good than if we rely only on technology innovation.

Discussion Question #4

I think technology is an essential part of dealing with environmental problems. Although the industrial revolution was responsible for environmental destruction on a large scale, we can use technology today to devise cleaner sources of energy, methods of production, and waste disposal. Emphasis on "green" technology is an important way that we can reduce our environmental impact.

In response to the question, "Will technology save us?" I would say that alone, technology probably won't be able to. Our collective effect on the environment is so great that we can't continue to consume extravagantly and assume that people in lab coats are going to make everything better. For technology to save us, we would have to invent techniques so efficient that we could continue our current consumption trends indefinitely without ruining the planet. Altering our consumption behavior is most likely going to be at least as important as green technology in warding off disastrous environmental change.

It's also important that we actively fund green technology initiatives. Green technology can be costly, and may not be able to compete in a market economy against dirtier alternatives initially, or ever. We should invest resources into these technologies to make them viable and at the same time find a way to factor the costs of externalities into products that damage the environment.

Week 5 Question

Technology is definitively a nice option when considering solutions to our current environmental problems, however, it can be relied on too much. Market liberals who feel that we shouldn't worry about finding the answers to the environmental problems cite technology as the ultimate key to solving future dilemmas. In my opinion this would be foolish because it only addresses one part of the problem. As we can see now, efforts toward becoming more sustainable and environmentally friendly are being taken using alternative energy sources such as solar panels and hydroelectric energy but it takes a certain desire in order to install those types of new technologies. Some technology can be helpful and effective in controlling our impact on the environment but I don't feel that can completely clean up after us. Before sufficient progress can be made there must be a genuine willingness expressed toward improving our environment which requires a change in people's values. Honestly, despite the potential machines or instruments that can be invented for the purpose of caring for our environment I do not believe anything will be able to reduce the already entrenched footprint we have made on the planet, short of a disappearing machine. I think technology, if done responsibly, could be a very useful tool in bringing about environmental change but it will not save us if that is the only thought running through people's minds.

speaking of technology-NYTimes Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Technology- Can it really save us?

Technological advancement has always played a part in human acheivement, but has also played a large role (especially post Industrial Revolution) in environmental degradation. In the past technology was hailed as being revolutionary and as an agent of change for the course of human advancement. But today when in my option most environmental degradation can be in some way contributed to technology, is it possible that technology which has been part of the problem can also be the solution?

Throughout the past century new innovations were created which revolutionized the way humans lived. These innovations were usually executed with little regard for the future effects they might have on the environment. For example, when CFCs were introduced in areasol cans and appliances, it was unknown that they would eventually lead to the destruction of the ozone layer. However in the 1980s, when the problem became aparent new technology was able to replace the chemicals in appliances and products which has led to the slow regeneration of important ozone.

Although humans have the capacity to create new technologies at rapid rates, I don't think technology will advance fast enough to save humans and the planet from catastrophe. If the drive for more eco-friendly technology had occured maybe 10-15 years ago I think there would have been a better chance to make changes in how we live our lives and how good are created. Change cannot happen overnight and unforutantely in my opinion we have gone to far down the path of destruction to rely on technology to save us.

Technology can be good or bad. It is necessary to think into the future and fully explore new technologies before mass producing them. Only through thorough insight will technology change the path of humans for the better.

Week 5 Question

I believe that technology started to be viewed as a bad thing when environmentalists began to look back at the catastrophic effects that the industrial revolution had on the environment. The industrial revolution can be seen as the beginning of what we know of today as technology. At this point in history the focus was on the efficiency of production through the speed and cost-effectiveness of the machinery invented. The world which we, in the industrial and developed countries, know today has been drastically affected by the industrial revolution. Our mindset is no longer one of survival but of production and consumption and always staying one step ahead of our neighbors. We continuously want more and more things and through life experience we expect these things to be invented and sent to our door rapidly. We are consequently more concerned with "keeping up with the Joneses" than what effects these fast-paced and technology-driven lifestyles are having on the environment.


The world we see and have grown up with is one based on production and consumption where those who think at the fast-paced rate of technology are the ones who prosper and are therefore the ones we look up to. Because of this it only makes sense that when we are confronted with a problem, whether it be environmental or economical or anything else, we choose to deal with that problem in the best way we know how; through the modern use of technology. We have seen technological achievements that people could never have imagined and therefore with reference to technology, anything seems possible. Technology never holds people back, it only brings people forward and that is where the optimistic view that it can save us comes from. It is easier for people to put money into something that has continuously surprised them than to try and go back to a time that they don't remember and a time in which technology had no part.

Even "green technology" is still technology and therefore requires energy input that continues to hurt our environment. The nano car that is supposedly being introduced to China is an example of green technology yet if it becomes the success that it is aimed to become, it will have catastrophic effects on the earth. The problem with technology is that even green technology has an initial purpose that is more important than that of saving the environment. In order for people and governments to put money into technology they must see potential economic gains so using technology as a tool for saving the environment does not seem hopeful. On the other hand, it may be our only hope. Like I wrote earlier, people are going to be a lot more willing to put money into technology than to actively change their lifestyles to become more eco-friendly. As was stressed in the Anand article on ozone depletion, the most powerful nations must feel vulnerable in order to make changes that are going to be great enough to reduce impact. If the industrialized nations of the world can get to the point where they feel vulnerable enough for a real change, then they may be able to use technology to help this change but they must use it in a way that makes the environment the main priority and not something else like the economy or world power. Only time will tell what technology will do to either help or further harm the environment.

Week Five Questions: Technology

The debate of whether or not technology will save us from environmental catastrophe is a difficult one. Technology saving us means inventing ways of reducing our impact on the planet and fixing the problems we have all ready created. There is no doubt in my mind that technology could save us as it is impossible to predict what will be invented in the future. For example, if some day a machine is created that could take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere at massive levels and replace it in the ground (perhaps creating oil in the process) then one large aspect of the environmental crisis will no longer exist. The question is the feasibility of this and similar inventions. In my opinion, if we can create an atomic bomb, than all we need is a very advanced team of highly trained scientists, a ton of government funding, and a very, very pressing timeline (a time where within a matter of years extreme environmental decline will be visible to everyone) and a machine such as the one mentioned above could be created.

However, even if such a machine is invented, it may do more harm than good. As this machine does not exist yet, we can not know of any possible negative side effects, but there does not yet seem to be any perfect technology. In this example, perhaps a calculation was wrong and the machine takes out too much carbon dioxide and we all freeze instead of burn. Or perhaps the carbon dioxide is not properly replaced in the ground and poisons all the fish and water mammals. These are all hypothetical of course but show possible negative effects and why technology might not be our answer.

One thing is certain, however, and that is that humans are growing at an exponential rate on a finite planet. No matter how good technology gets, it cannot change this. The earth can only produce so much food, clean water, and living space for the human population. Without population control, we could solve every other environmental crisis and still destroy the planet. Therefore, I believe technology can save us from certain problems but not all. Even if the carbon dioxide extractor is never invented, ways of reducing emissions will be refined and utilized to limit our carbon dioxide pollution. Unfortunately, technology can not save us from too many people (unless another, uninhabited earth is discovered with a high powered telescope and a giant space ship invented to take people there). This, I feel, is even less feasible than the carbon dioxide extractor and only a temporary answer to the problem. In order to stop environmental destruction, the human population must be sustained at a much lower number than what exist today.

Week 4

In "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," Michael Maniates focuses calls for simple solutions as though they are the only calls for action, rather they are part of a variety of actions at various levels. These simple solutions are not single answers. They are essential elements to solving a greater problem, where every little bit helps. Not only do these private actions do a small part to help the environment, but they frame the issue in terms that people can understand.
Unlike the social movements Maniates references, actors in environmental change do not always see their actions as having direct or prompt results. These previous movements were problems with fast results that were obvious improvements on relationships between people. However, people do not understand that their actions effect environmental quality and decrease quality of life. Calling for simple personal actions establishes a connection between human action and improving the environment. This connection challenges traditional thoughts about the environment and frames the issue in terms that people have a greater frame of reference for.
Furthermore, personal action pinpoints results. The Revolutionary War lasted only 8 years. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote letters from Birmingham Jail in 1963, and today, an African-American is running for President. Environmental improvement occurs over decades, even centuries, rather than years. People cannot conceive that their actions have such a long term effect. However, breaking greater change into smaller actions, people can associate their behaviors with results direct results.
These actions are by no means absolute solutions, but they do play a crucial role in changing public opinion about environmental action. If there is to be any environmental change on any scale, the first step is connecting people to the issue. At least these proposed solutions provide a starting point and encourage individuals to start thinking about their effects on the environment.

Week 4 Question

The underlying theme to Michael Maniates article is that even if we think we are doing enough to help lessen our current and future environmental crisis, we are not. In our discussion groups last week we went over the idea of how many people think they are doing their part by recycling, unplugging electronics, and doing other small tasks when in fact the impact we humans in developed countries have on the world is much greater and must therefore be dealt with on a much broader and more committed scale. I myself, (although educated otherwise,) like to think that I am doing "my part" when I am consciously "saving energy" by turning off the water when I shave my legs, turning off lights when I leave the room, and other various simple procedures. We as individuals must not only do individual things, but we must ask as a group for the much needed global change. Maniates explains that we need to make huge changes in the energy, transportation, and agricultural systems which would require all of us to be changing at the same time, not just concerned individuals. It sounds hopeful, however, when he writes that Americans are "best when they are struggling together." I agree with this statement although it is also worrisome because it means that we must be actually struggling to make a change instead of making a change to prevent the future and imminent struggles.

Week 4 question

I believe that Michael Maniates is right on in his argument. As he stated, taking the “easy steps” will at best reduce our environmental impact which is out of control. If, as celebrities suggest, we simply reuse and recycle, the world will continue to suffer due to our consumption. Moreover, it will be our children who are left with the bill from our $5 radios in the form of an uninhabitable planet.
On the other hand, I do believe that the average citizen will have to give up some of the luxuries we have taken for granted for decades. If everyone uses electricity use by doing simple things such as turning off computers when not in use, reducing use of gasoline, and turning off air conditioning for part of the day, we can big changes. The problem is that these things have not been promoted or enforced by the government. If the government had given the option of catalytic converters, no one would have used them because they would not have benefited the individual. I believe Collective problems require collective solutions.
He mentions a “fundamental change” in our energy which in the long run will likely be the most important challenge for Americans. Although up until recently, the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy market has never been questioned, melting ice caps and strange weather combined with the likes of Hugo Chavez have made changes in energy a political issue. Some politicians have even mentioned similar strategies to the ones mentioned in the article.

being green isnt easy

In response to the Michael Maniates Washington Post article, I would agree with most of the statements he makes. Saving the planet from catastrophy is not going to easy, but I would disagree and say that everyday people can do 'easy' steps to make an impact. Recycling, and cutting down on waste and personal compsumtion can help, but it is not a panecea for the problem. The small steps suggested by the numerous books on the market are not going to save the planet alone. It will take large radical steps by governments, and industries to really make a difference.

As we saw in the Story of Stuff the consumption wheel was created, it is not inherent. Corportations and governments drive people to consume at high rates. People will always consume, but companies need to work harder to create environmentally safe products that don't just take from the environment but actually positively give back.

Average citizens cannot make the types of large scale changes needed. It will be the responsibility of the governments and corporations to make the changes. They have the power to influence consumers and the environment. Social change only occurs when large actors make changes. Average persons can start to spread consciousness of the harmful effects of consumption, and growing emissions but it will take the policy makers and industry leaders to make changes.

Week 4 Question--Michael Maniate

In his article Michael Maniate describes several popular perspectives on current environmental issues. He refers to how various authors, researchers, and scientists have attempted to make light of climate change and the necessary steps humans have to take in order to maintain a stable and enduring environment. I really enjoy his frankness in the call on U.S citizens to think and act like responsible, conscientious adults who know how to be strong when there is resolute and unyielding need for it. In attacking the laziness and lethargic attitudes that the average American expresses in his/her self-centered actions, Maniate addresses the major problem facing us today: the need for social change when it comes to thinking about the environment. On a daily basis we continue to scrimp on our responsibilities and duties to save the planet, or minimally repair some of the damage that has already been wrought upon the earth. However, it is not just our fault. Maniate cites earlier times in which the cry for social change was much larger and filled with more intensity than any of the rhetoric flowing from any of the modern-day leaders in the field. He points out that so little has never before been asked of us which clarifies the current dilemma a bit more for me in that it faults the environmental elites for not asking more from us to change our habits and behavior. If the leaders of today and tomorrow are not willing to travel outside the realm of safe conversation in regards to pressing environmental matters the public cannot act in correspondence to it. Without proper guidance people will not be able to respond properly to the pressing need for fundamental social changes. It reflects poorly on current political leaders as well as so-called environmentalists to only go so far as to ask for the minimal sacrifice from people since it is clear that so much more is required in order to make a difference. They are the ultimate decision-makers on the country's priorities and by sidelining the environment they are telling the people of the U.S that their current lifestyles are not entirely harmful, just somewhat. I really agree with Maniate because I feel that, in order for the move from awareness to action to occur, there needs to be a push from those in positions of power to urge the masses to make those changes happen.

Week Four Question

In his op-ed “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Cut It,” Michael Miniates makes several good points about the lack of coordination and far-reaching effects seen in the current environmental movement. His main argument states that environmentalists are treated adult Americans as children by not believing they have the ability to come together and work in unison for a better planet. Instead of trying to change the societal thinking and values that fuel pollution, environmentalists offer X # of easy ways one can individually help save the planet. His most convincing point in this article is that even if the entirety of America made these easy steps, such as using better light bulbs and taking shorter showers, their collective impact would only slow the current environmental disaster. In order to have a useful effect, societal values need to be changed so that limiting pollution and protecting the planet takes precedence over consumerism. The current trend of take all you can afford must be changed to use only want you absolutely need, recycle and reuse as much as possible, and conserve nature. Miniates also believes that Americans, due to their heroic and powerful past, deserve more credit than they are given. Surely if Americans can win their independence from an oppressive country or mobilize a generation to fight for civil rights, they can do far more than change a light bulb to stop global destruction.

Of course, the best and most effective ways to have a quick and meaningful impact on global warming is through policy changes at the local, state, and national levels. However, this understanding should not lead the average person to believe that the destruction of the planet is a problem for some one else to deal with; after all, the basis of the United States government is that the voice of the people is heard. Therefore, the people must work to show their leaders that they care about this earth and want anything and everything to be done to try and save it.

Week 3 question 2

John McCain, in my opinion, is an institutionalist. He seems to be caught up in the weaknesses of the Kyoto Protocol. He suggests entering the protocol is useless without the participation from developing nations such as India and China. Moreover, he says that even if China and India and China do sign on that it would still have to be on “America’s terms.”
Reducing dependence on foreign, especially from hostile countries such as Venezuela and Russia is also something that Mr. McCain seems to feel is important.
He does not see the problem as happening now, but that it could get out of control if something is not done to fix the problem. This is quite different from what democrats such as Hillary Clinton have proposed.
Clinton’s plan to improve the economy while improve the environment would probably make her a market liberal. She recognizes transportation as being 70% of US oil company and to fic that problem she proposes more strict standards for automobiles. By 2030, she proposes fuel standards of 55 miles/ gallon which would be a dramatic change.
Hillary Clinton would probably be the better choice if environmental conservation were the only issue. Clinton is able to recognize the most important problem and proposes strict standards in order to fix it. Automobiles in the United States are probably the most substantial problem and by taking the lead in cutting car emissions, other countries such as India and China will eventually have no choice but to follow in our footsteps. Refusing to do anything without the participation of India and China will probably exacerbate the situation.

Week 3

I looked at the energy and environmental platforms of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Governor Romney's energy plan is much shorter than Obama's. His objective is to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil, which he says threatens our prosperity. To accomplish this, Romney would invest in technology that increases energy efficiency as well as alternative sources of energy such as nuclear. Romney is also interested in taking advantage of our domestic energy reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. These goals fall short of being "environmentalist," and for this reason I don't think he belongs in any of Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, proposes a much more robust set of environmental policies. He pledges to invest large amount of money in environmental causes beginning with $150 billion over ten years on clean energy. He wants polluters to participate in a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions and for America to meet benchmarks in reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Obama would lead the United States towards a broader international role in combating climate change as well. I see Obama's platform as being a mixture of market liberal and institutionalist. His proposed cap-and-trade system seems like a market liberal scheme to me and there is no doubt that he wants more international cooperation on the issue.

I think that the environment is a non-issue for Mitt Romney. He has intentionally crafted his energy policy to be based on ending energy dependence and not any environmental cause. In fact, on his energy policy webpage the words "environment," "climate," and "change" are nowhere to be found. Barack Obama addresses environmental issues wholeheartedly and I think makes more sense on the environment.

Week Three Questions

Barack Obama’s environmental plan consists of lowering carbon emissions, reducing fuel use and dependence on foreign oil, using alternative, clean energy such as solar, and creating buildings that are environmentally friendly. For the most part, Obama falls into the category of social greens. Some of his proposed programs include giving farmers and forest owners incentives to plant more trees and allowing grants early on to allow people to build more environmentally friendly buildings. Additionally, he wants to end America’s dependence on foreign oil and convert to cleaner energy. These moves show promise to reverse economic globalization and promote ecological justice.

John McCain, on the other hand, appears to be a bioenvironmentalist, though it is difficult to judge from his website as it contains very little specific information. Overall, he wants to preserve green space, sensibly reduce carbon emissions (I’m guessing that does not mean 80% by 2050, which is needed), use alternative energy such as nuclear, and ensure sustainable use of the land. It seems he believes this can all be accomplished by harnessing market powers and using the economy to reduce pollution. McCain’s proposals are much more focused on economic prosperity; whereas, Obama’s proposals are centered around fixing the problem with the economy coming in second.

While I can see how categorizing candidates into environmental categories can help sort through the leaders, these categories offer little in the way of concrete policies. A social green candidate could have policy proposal that are not feasible or very weak; whereas, a bioenvironmentalist could have a plan designed to be put into effect tomorrow. The categories are helpful, but it is more important to look at the proposals each candidate is making to reduce negative human impact on the environment.

I believe Barack Obama makes the most sense when it comes to environmental policies. While some of his proposal may be difficult to implement and cause a lot of public outcry, he designed the policies with saving the environment as the goal. McCain’s policies seem more concerned with the economy’s well-being; helping the environment is just a good side-effect. It is obvious, giving the content shown on each candidate’s environmental page, who is more concerned about the environment. Obama had quite a bit of text outlining policy proposal, showing numbers and what would happen when, going into detail on a lot of issues, and showing what he has all ready done. McCain simply had a couple of paragraphs talking about how great America is and how we should keep green spaces. He talks about pollution just long enough to say we should limit carbon emissions by switching to nuclear energy. However, he fails to address where the radioactive by-products of nuclear energy will be stored. Obama’s policies are stronger, more numerous, and created to save the environment; therefore, he makes the most environmental sense.

Week 3 Questions

1.) Current presidential debates revolve around several topics, including the hotly contested issue: the environment. There are various perspectives that candidates can choose to take on this issue, according to Clapp and Danvergne. However, I find it not altogether surprising that both Democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton and Republican candidate, John McCain appear to have similar sounding platforms when it comes to addressing climate change. Clinton's primary concern is to create a more efficient or "green" economy while increasing the number of jobs for the American people. By concentrating on the economy she hopes to improve the environment in the long run, just as most market liberals hope to do. Not unlike her is McCain with his ideas to strengthen the economy as a way of remaining "caretakers of creation." On his website the environment is something that is also consistently linked with the economy. These two topics go hand-in-hand since fostering economic growth will eventually lead to solving the global environmental problems. Why these two politicians do not seem to differ much to me is explained by Clapp and Danvergne's categorization of environmental worldviews. Both Clinton and McCain fall under the market liberal category due to their strong belief that research and development will prevail as the main initiatives to alleviating the present and future environmental problems, either by investing billions of dollars into a Strategic Energy Fund or utilizing the market forces to insert technologies like nuclear energy into the market faster.

2.) In terms of sense and who is talking the most of it, I believe that Clinton may have a set of clearer and more defined policies that she may be willing to follow through on if she were to be elected as the next president. However, that is not to say that she has a better outlook on environmental problems than McCain does since her discourse on the environment or sustainable development consistently involves the economy as a primary focus, particularly in the creation of new jobs. When considering new and alternate ways to solving global environmental problems, a completely revolutionary perspective must take shape, one that differs from the angle that has been taken up until now which has typically been either to emphasize the potential improvements made possible by technological advances or stressing the importance of a strong market economy that fosters economic growth.

Questions for Week 3

1. For the democratic side I looked at Barack Obama. After reading over his material and the four categories of environmental perspectives I have decided that Obama seems to be a combination of an Institutionalist and a Bio-environmentalist. He is a bio-environmentalist because he believes that humans are over-using and using inappropriately the resources available to us and because of this the world is in a crisis environmentally. Obama suggests that changes in lifestyle are necessary for us to turn the environmental clock around. An example of this is through his promise to reward "forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere." Obama does however also believe strong in technology and what that can do to help us restore the planet. Through his plan on investment in technology and clean energy he is falling under the Institutionalist category by saying that we can act now and prevent environmental crisis if we all work together. Barack Obama wants to use the international community and engage them on topics such as global energy and other environmental issues.

John McCain, like other Institutionalists believes that "climate change is real" and "that it is devestating" and that "we may someday reach a tipping point where we cannot save our climate" but that we are not there yet. Like Institutionalists, he also believes that it is important to support international measures on climate change and the environment, such as the Kyoto Protocal, in order to reduce green house gases. However, he believes that we should only consider doing this if China and India join. McCain also seems to be a bit of a Market liberal based on his strong belief in the connection between the economy and the environment and the belief that if we destroy the environment then we are destroying the country's economy as well.

2. To me, Barack Obama is clearly talking the most sense on the environment and obviously talking about it more in general. Even without reading in detail about the two candidates, you can tell by the length of information available from each one how important environmental issues are to them. Barack Obama has a clear and seemingly doable plan for the environment, including dates and goals for increasing energy efficiency, a plan for the re-engagement with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, and much more. The little information that McCain gives on his website is vague and he provides no concrete plans for the necessary change. To me, he was also controversial. McCain claims that, "ignoring the problem reflects a 'liberal live for today' attitude" yet he supports the use of nuclear energy which is only beneficial at present and creates potentially huge problems for future generations in dealing with the waste. Barack Obama talks in extent about environmental issues and plans in his speeches and physically shows support for students and others who are working hard for issues such as climate change. Like his slogan says, Barack Obama is the "change we can believe in."

Week 2 Questions

1.Our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels is obviously our most important problem. The fact that Americans do not have a realistic alternative creates many problems. Although only a small percentage of our economy is actually based on the oil industry, the American economy is pretty much dependent on oil. The extracation and use of this extremely important commodity is causing problems for the planet like never before. Although we are all aware of this problem, it is difficult to change without any support from the government. Especially when many officials have a stake in the commodity. Our economy is based on oil, and to make the necessary changes could slow down the economy or take away power and wealth from many in government and the private sector. Change must be gradual, but I do not believe that we can afford to put this off any longer. This has created environmental and political problems arond the world (due to a foreign policy based on oil). We can solve two problems by starting to make gradual changes using technology that is already here. A little more support from the private and especially the public sector would help us all in the long run.

2.Living in an "environmentally friendly" way obviously means different things to different people. While to one person, living environmentally friendly may not require much of a change in lifestyle. To others, living in an "environmentally friendly" way may require that we live in a way that takes the environment, as well as damage done to the environment by our everyday ways of life into consideration when making choices. The goal of living an "environmental friendly" way of life should be to leave as little damage on the environment as possible in order to provide for our children and grandchildren.

I cannot call myself environmentally friendly because I do not do enough. Although I have been willing to make small changes in my life style, I have not been willing to give up things such as my car because although I do not need a car, it would make my life less convenient. I cannot call myself "environmentally friendly" for reasons such as these. However, taking a course such as this one at least makes you think about your choices, which is a start.

Week 2

1) Dependency on fossil fuels is the most important global environmental problem. From cradle to grave, fossil fuels cause an array of environmental issues. The extraction of fossil fuels adds to further environmental degradation. Techniques like mountaintop removal and oil drilling devastate habitats and weaken ecosystem stability. Still, most frequently this problem is credited with the production of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. However, the combustion of fossil fuels also contributes to acid rain and increased rates of asthma. In these few examples, the consequences of our dependency on fossil fuels clearly affect overarching issues ranging from environmental justice to ecology.

Unfortunately, many industries, like energy and transportation, have built themselves on fossil fuels. There are alternatives, but implementing them requires a massive change in infrastructure, a long and costly process that many industries are not willing to take on. This obstacle is not only economic, but political as well. No politician wants to be responsible for harming an industry, and lobbying groups from fossil fuel based industries have historically provided funding to political campaigns. These factors lead to a great resistance to any movement away from fossil fuels.

There is potential for change, but there is a variety of obstacles which must be overcome. Once we advance to cleaner resources, environmental quality will be greatly improved.

2) To live in an environmentally friendly way is to live in a way that does not impair the ability of future generations to provide for them selves in a similar manner. People find infinite ways of being environmentally friendly, and there are varying degrees of environmental friendliness.

In fact, many make environmentally friendly choices without being conscious of it. For example, people who walk rather than drive, may simply be doing so because they do not have any other form of transportation. Similarly, many people make environmentally friendly choices without understanding why they are beneficial. However, lack of knowledge does not mean these choices are any less valuable to the environment.

The benefits of conscious environmentally friendly practices include consistency. If people are aware of what actions are environmentally friendly and why, they are more likely to continue practicing them. Also, being well informed can encourage people to take on environmental actions, they would not otherwise do.

Week 2 Questions

1. One huge global environmental problem is climate change. It has accelerated so much recently and we as humans are contributing greatly to this. Like other environmental issues it is one that adversely affects the entire globe yet some are contributing much more than others to it. The coal industry and its wealthy adversaries include some of the greatest forces behind this problem. The issue here is that they may be gaining financially from these actions that are ultimately harming the rest of the world and may have permanent damage on the planet. This is an example of the "ecological shadow" that was discussed in one of the readings. Although the pollution and release of toxins may be mainly coming from one area, there are no boundaries to hold them in therefore the surrounding societies many times must deal with the negative effects even though they may not be contributing them. This is what is happening with climate change although the entire world is changing because of it and the effects, such as extinct species, will be irreversible. One of the other articles brought up the issues that environmental movements face due to the strong universal belief in state sovereignty. Although the entire world is being affected by the economically driven and environmentally careless actions of the people, no one wants to give up their sovereign rights in order to create norms and standards that the whole world must follow. As more developed nations, it is especially hard and hypocritical to ask nations, such as China, who are only just going through their own industrial revolutions, to cut back on emissions when we ourselves have already been there and caused irreversible damage to the world because of our economically driven technology. It is hard to pinpoint the one most important global environmental problem because they are all interrelated.

2. Living in an "environmentally friendly" way is probably something different for everybody. I believe, however, that it is more based on intent than actual actions. If your intent is to be "environmentally friendly" then you will strive to fulfill your duty based on what you know. Being a college student and having taken a few courses on the environment I might be more aware then someone who has not been lucky enough to have the same education as me. Even little things such as unplugging my computer when I am not using it is perhaps something that would not even cross other peoples' minds. At the same time, someone who has extensively studied the environment and our human impact on it is probably more likely to think about their own impact on it and will perhaps therefore do things in an environmentally conscious way that would not even cross my mind to do. Being "environmentally friendly" can also be based on personal opinion and one's own priority. Some may believe that big industries can be "environmentally friendly" if they use "greener" technology to run their businesses while others may think that industries in general, not matter how much money they put into technology that is less harmful to the environment, are always going to be unnecessarily harmful to the planet. I believe that being "environmentally friendly" is listening to your environmental conscience and at times going out of your way to avoid doing things that may ultimately negatively affect the environment. I try to do little things such as unplugging appliances and using canvas bags to shop in and choosing to walk over driving when possible. But these, like I said, are little things and ultimately I don't think I am doing that much to help our negative human impact on the environment. It is hard to ask people to dramatically change their lifestyles even though it may be just what we need.

Why care about the environment at all?

When reading this week's questions for ponder, I thought back to when I started to take notice of the environment and my impact on it. I remember being about 10 years old and in my fourth grade class where we were talking about recycling and how important it was in saving the rainforest. Being an observant little girl, I looked around and took note of all the paper around the room: my notebooks, the display boards, the numerous books filling our class library, our tests and quizzes stacked neatly on our teachers desk, etc... As a 10 year old my life was already consumed by paper.

As time passed my realization of the enormous amounts of paper surrounding me, turned into a love for being in the forest. As a teenager I loved hiking, camping, backpacking, and basically anything that allowed me to be in the woods and my love for trees became a life mission. I began to reduce my use of paper, I became a vegetarian, and spent as much time outdoors as possible. The forest became my passion and my cause.

Why the forest? I see the forest as the cradle of life. Trees create the clean air we breath, the shade we sit in, the nutrients for the food we eat, and help sustain global biodiversity. In my mind if trees cease to exist so will life as we know it. The importance of trees crosses every physical and metaphysical boundary, and should be realized by every human. It is not just their practical role that needs to be considered but also their beauty. We need trees, therefore the
needless deforestation occurring globally to feed human consumption needs to be slowed and ultimately stopped.

My contribution is the same as when I was a teenager; reduce my footprint on the forests. As an adult I try to inspire others to do the same and alter their habits in order to ensure the lasting presence of our forests. Even a small change like printing doubled sided can over time make a significant impact our future. In today's world our consumer driven lives have a huge impact on the environment and threaten our very existence. It is time for each person to make personal changes to their behavior and reduce their footprint by making more informed choices.

Question Week 2

1. I believe the most important environmental problem in the world is the desctruction of habitats and nature. Plants especially play a huge role in the renewing cycles that take place on earth. Plants are responsible for converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, which the animal kingdom depends on for life. Plants also take harmful molecules out of the air where they can cause damage to the atmosphere or the beings that breathe them in, and place these molecules in a cycle where they are not harmful but rather beneficial. As more and more plant life is destroyed, the important cycles of life begin to break down and can not meet the depend placed on them. In additon, destruction of habitat forces animals from their homes and into communities of people where they cause problems. People then go on the offensive against these "invasive" animals and end up completely eliminating them from the area. We need better protection for the open space that remains in order to sustain the earth and its natural cycles.

2. Living in an "environmentally friendly" way means living a life in which one conciously tries to limit one's negative impact on the environment. This can include recycling more, consuming less electricity, buying energy efficient products, or walking or cycling instead of driving a car. In order to have the greatest impact on the environment these steps should be taken by everyone; however, it is not moral to try to convince others to change their lives to help the environment if you do not make the same changes. It is more important to do the change yourself than to try to convince others to do the same as you can only control the actions of one person (yourself) and people are more likely to listen to example than speech. "Be the change you wish to see in the world" is a quote everyone who wants to live an "environmentally friendly" life should live by.

Question #1 Response

1.) I believe that the worst global environmental problem is the overabundant amount of carbon emissions being emitted into the earth's atmosphere. This problem is so complex since it involves multiple contributing factors such as the need to change certain life style preferences. It is very difficult, almost borderline impossible, to convince others to alter their attitudes regarding particular environmental issues; ideas that correspond directly to their behavior. In addition, while environmental studies is still a relatively up and coming science, it is also one that cannot produce concrete results which will immediately illustrate to the masses the full impact that humanity has on the environment. Therefore scientists and environmental advocates encounter obstacles in persuading people to reduce their carbon emissions in order to protect the environment.

2.)To live "environmentally friendly" is to live within reason of one's available resources and his or her ability to utilize those resources responsibly. People, especially most from the U.S, do not do this. To think about caring for the planet requires more thought and consideration than the average U.S resident is willing or able to give. Choices involving public transportation as a possible substitute for driving a car to work or remembering to carry a reusable water bottle is not on the list of priorities as they go about their daily activities. Living environmentally friendly really means to think environmentally friendly. Taking into account the location in which your food is grown, produced and eventually transported is just one consideration that leads to thinking and living environmentally friendly. Other considerations are using alternative sources of energy or even reducing the amount of energy used to maintain a comfortable life at home, such as electricity and heat. In the attempt to convince others to make some of these changes, I have suggested to friends that taking more efficient and/or shorter showers may be a wise choice. At other times I have tried persuading them to ride their bikes places instead of driving. Additionally I carry around a reusable water canister as well as thermos.