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."