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
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Final question
Favorite Quotes
"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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Final Question
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.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Final Post: Favorite Quotes
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.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Second to Last
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
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
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.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Cradle to Cradle
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Question #7
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.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Nature
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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Environmental Conversation
Monday, March 17, 2008
Environment Discussion
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Environmental Discussion
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Question 5
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
Monday, February 25, 2008
Question #5?
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.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Food Choices
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.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Question 4
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
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- Can it really save us?
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.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Week 5 Question
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
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Week 4
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
Week 4 question
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
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.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Week 4 Question--Michael Maniate
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Week Four Question
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.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Week 3 question 2
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Week 3
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.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Week Three Questions
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
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
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."
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Week 2 Questions
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
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
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?
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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Question Week 2
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.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Question #1 Response
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.