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.