Like everyone else, I thought Cradle to Cradle was a really interesting book. The authors seem radical - though not necessarily in a bad way - in that they aren't advocating for greater efficiency or crazy technology but, rather, in a complete overhaul of the way we produce almost everything we consume. One of their main premises is that this shift to a more cyclical form of production which honors nutrient and technological flows is really the only way we can hope to continue producing the goods we've become accustomed to in a world of increasing resource scarcity.
At the same time, though, their book kind of freaked me out. All of the parts about off-gassing from upholstered chairs and books was definitely a bit scary and made me wonder what sort of substances I'm inhaling on a daily basis that I don't even know about. Given the recent uproar about BPA and phalates, it's kind of scaring to think about the harmful and even toxic stuff we're sitting on and drinking from and writing with and wearing.
So I think another main premise of their book is that this sort of cradle-to-cradle production is healthier, not only for the planet but for us, as well. While their book is certainly compelling, I do wonder if they could have pushed their case a bit further - for example, reading Bill McKibbon really scared the crap out of me. Cradle to Cradle inducing only a mild stirring of unease, and I wonder if they had pushed their argument further - if they had included a few more scary facts about the products we use every day - if their book might have been a bit more compelling and gotten a few more people on board (although environmentalists have reputations of fear mongerers, so maybe that would have been a self-fulfilling prophecy and turned people off). Regardless, I do think they're on the right track, and I think their book provides some fascinating solutions that we're going to have to take a hard, critical look at in the coming years.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
I also found Cradle to Cradle to be an interesting and even refreshing read. It was not like other environmental books that I have read that just evoke fear because the world is going to end and it is our entire fault, it just was not as depressing for me. The concept of “being less bad” instead of being good, I believe, is a brilliant way to portray the idea that the little acts we take in favor of the environment is not enough and really is not making much of a difference. Bigger and longer term changes need to be made so instead of living “less bad” we can live “good” and they do suggest that people reconsider their lifestyles all together to really make a difference.
I think the fact that McDonough is an architect and that Braungart is a chemist translate in the writing of the book. They are not just simply giving facts but practical approaches that they have created or designed. They argue that waste is a product of bad design, so the best way to reduce or even eliminate waste is to create a better design , for example the SIS building. Better design leads to this idea of cradle to cradle instead of cradle to grave in that we need to create products have a continued life and are used as resources for other products, instead of just turning into waste. It is an interesting concept but it may take too much time or money or lack of interest of people to really make a push towards actually eliminating waste.
Cradle to Cradle
I found Cradle to Cradle to be an extremely interesting read, starting especially with the introduction. I think the way that the book was presented, that it is not a tree, gave it an immediate presence that this will not be a typical environmental critique, but instead a thought provoking one with true insight. I think the main point of the argument in the book was that as a society we need to refocus our thinking on a more cradle to cradle process rather than a cradle to grave one. In other words we need to limit or, on the most extreme side, eliminate our waste because we are in essence killing something (bringing it to it's grave).
I think that the inclusion of the chapter on the industrial revolution is a great idea before entering into the logistics of consumptive behavior. It is important for society to realize how it came to be that we as whole became such a consumer driven force who creates an overwhelming amount of waste without ever really realizing what we're doing. This led nicely into a part of the book he called the 4 Rs, and this is where I think the authors make their main points. The practices of Reuse, Reduce, Recycle, and Regulate that we base our idea of environmentalism off of today is simply not enough. These ideas are not long-term solutions, they are a way to reduce the amount of waste not but it is just delaying the problem for the future. When we recycle we simply create a new product with a new life cycle that will eventually come to an end later but will still in the end become waste. Cradle to Cradle urges the public to reconsider this lifestyle, a suggestion I think we all should listen to because they are definitely on the right track, its the the practicality of this that I find myself at a loss to comprehend.
I think that the inclusion of the chapter on the industrial revolution is a great idea before entering into the logistics of consumptive behavior. It is important for society to realize how it came to be that we as whole became such a consumer driven force who creates an overwhelming amount of waste without ever really realizing what we're doing. This led nicely into a part of the book he called the 4 Rs, and this is where I think the authors make their main points. The practices of Reuse, Reduce, Recycle, and Regulate that we base our idea of environmentalism off of today is simply not enough. These ideas are not long-term solutions, they are a way to reduce the amount of waste not but it is just delaying the problem for the future. When we recycle we simply create a new product with a new life cycle that will eventually come to an end later but will still in the end become waste. Cradle to Cradle urges the public to reconsider this lifestyle, a suggestion I think we all should listen to because they are definitely on the right track, its the the practicality of this that I find myself at a loss to comprehend.
Cradle to Cradle
The Authors of Cradle to Cradle make a number of fascinating arguments in their book. Their premise that the way in which industrialized society manufactures and consumes products is out of balance with nature and harmful to humans is well supported. More interestingly than their diagnosis of the problem however is their prescription to solve it. Instead of a traditional environmental approach that advocates for people to use less and by extension enjoy the things they like less, the authors argue that simply being less bad is not enough to solve our environmental problems.
They say that human beings can be a force for good and ecological renewal on our planet if we change the way we design and use things. I found their example of ants having a larger total biomass than humans and being a net benefit for ecosystems by enriching soil quality to be very interesting. If humans could help enhance biodiversity instead of harming it, our world would be fundamentally different. I think this fresh perspective for advocating things to be better instead of just ‘less bad’ is at the very least a far superior message from a PR standpoint for the environmental movement. While putting these ideas into action seems difficult, it seems more hopeful to see the new SIS building as a real life example of McDonough’s work to construct a building that is sustainable, functional, and beautiful. While only time will tell what the best approach to solve our environmental crisis is, the author’s insights into getting rid of the harmful chemicals in everyday materials and building things with common sense and eco effectiveness in mind is a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
When I first looked at each of the sites, without having to even scroll down the page at all, I saw the little donate bar on each page. I already became skeptical of each site without reading anymore. As Lisa already stated, there is no list of sponsors or other organizations that are affiliated with either site, which led me to question the legitimacy of the sites. Money and politics are what drive the competition around the science of climate change. There is a lack of money in our government to deal with climate change so political leaders are not going to take a stand to make change, especially when they are backed by companies or CEOs that would be hurt if certain changes were made. When it comes to changing the minds of normal citizens, there is just so much information trying to prove climate change doesn’t exist. While I think climate change is indeed a real problem, I can understand with all this anti climate change “stats”, that is almost easier to believe that our actions are not causing these changes in the climate.
As for the two sites, I agree with everyone else, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic is more legitimate to me. I find Friends of Science’s opinion, a bit amusing. It states that “It is our opinion that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change”. As Lisa states, I am biased about these sites as I believe climate change is real but I think it is interesting to have these different views. However it does add to the complexity of the issue and trying to take action against it.
What are numbers anyway?
I have to echo what Stephen, Lisa and Emily have said thus far. I think the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic (HTCS) website was more convincing. Though like my fellow bloggers, a fair amount of this could be because I believe climate change is real and caused by CO2, not solar flares. I find HTCS to become a little confusing because it is an aggregate of so much data. You have to click from link to link to link, whereas on Friends of Science (FS) you are immediately hit with confusing graphs when you click on the link.
The two websites really show how numbers can be manipulated to prove completely opposing points. Though one thing to note is that the graph on FS about the earth is cooling uses a best fit line. Best fit lines are made to ignore outliers. Which is problematic as we saw in the Ozone debate. For a while there seemed not to be a hole in the ozone layer because the machine was programmed to ignore outliers. For this reason FS is not convincing for me. Though I can see how they're immediate graphs might be more convincing to someone who wants a quick answer and is uninterested in clicking multiple hyperlinks.
I think it is important to look at each website's methodology in order to make our own decisions about climate change. The numbers can be skewed in a variety of ways. So, what is their reason behind each decision to keep or toss out a piece of data?
Until we get at this we cannot really know how to decide for ourselves. Especially because the debate around climate change is so contentious due to the wide reaching implications of accepting either position.
Consider, why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change? How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific claims these two competing websites make? Is one of the sites more convincing than the other? If so, why?
The two websites really show how numbers can be manipulated to prove completely opposing points. Though one thing to note is that the graph on FS about the earth is cooling uses a best fit line. Best fit lines are made to ignore outliers. Which is problematic as we saw in the Ozone debate. For a while there seemed not to be a hole in the ozone layer because the machine was programmed to ignore outliers. For this reason FS is not convincing for me. Though I can see how they're immediate graphs might be more convincing to someone who wants a quick answer and is uninterested in clicking multiple hyperlinks.
I think it is important to look at each website's methodology in order to make our own decisions about climate change. The numbers can be skewed in a variety of ways. So, what is their reason behind each decision to keep or toss out a piece of data?
Until we get at this we cannot really know how to decide for ourselves. Especially because the debate around climate change is so contentious due to the wide reaching implications of accepting either position.
Consider, why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change? How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific claims these two competing websites make? Is one of the sites more convincing than the other? If so, why?
Climate Change Debate
First of all I would like to state that I may sound completely biased in this post because I do believe that climate change is real. Therefore, I found the Friends of Science website both confusing and disturbing. I wish I could say it was shocking, but unfortunately I've seen enough of similar websites to know that they exists. Yet it is very confusing, I noticed how everyone of their main points included a graph, because a graph somehow adds legitimacy, but I found those graphs so hard to follow that for most of them I just gave up trying to. I also noticed that they used climate change and global warming interchangeable, which they're not. I liked that they were upfront with their message and mission statement, I've seen organizations that try to trick people into thinking they're pro-environment but I like that FoS are upfront in saying they're against the Kyoto protocol and their goal is to make a mockery of it. But I am slightly upset that I cannot find a page of their partners or major sponsors. They are a non-profit organization but most still have a page that list their biggest sponsors and I think that's something very important to look at when informing yourself.
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic is a website that I have much more respect for. Although there is still a lack of information about who funds the project, I feel like overall its a much more clear and supported argument. I like the way that its broken down into arguments and counter-arguments and I think the author given adequate support for his statements. Flipping through some of the debates I see he has either quoted or linked highly esteemed scientific organizations as part of his proof, i think that's extremely smart. Of the two I think this is the more convincing site.
I think the debate around climate change right now stems around the politics. Climate change will involve a great deal of money, money that people are ready to give up right now because they don't feel like climate change is an eminent threat. To protect this you will see a like of data falsification and austro-turfing, it is the job of the public to sift through and decide what they think is correct. I think the first thing to do when looking at these websites is to determine their mission statements and goal, often their listed but sometimes you need to determine them for yourself. Then it is extremely important to find out who is funding them, because the information will be swayed in a way in which they're supporters want, so if an oil company is funding a group that says climate change doesn't exist that should be a red flag. The next step is to sort through the data and come to your own opinion if it makes sense and you agree with it. It's a long process but its worth it to be informed.
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic is a website that I have much more respect for. Although there is still a lack of information about who funds the project, I feel like overall its a much more clear and supported argument. I like the way that its broken down into arguments and counter-arguments and I think the author given adequate support for his statements. Flipping through some of the debates I see he has either quoted or linked highly esteemed scientific organizations as part of his proof, i think that's extremely smart. Of the two I think this is the more convincing site.
I think the debate around climate change right now stems around the politics. Climate change will involve a great deal of money, money that people are ready to give up right now because they don't feel like climate change is an eminent threat. To protect this you will see a like of data falsification and austro-turfing, it is the job of the public to sift through and decide what they think is correct. I think the first thing to do when looking at these websites is to determine their mission statements and goal, often their listed but sometimes you need to determine them for yourself. Then it is extremely important to find out who is funding them, because the information will be swayed in a way in which they're supporters want, so if an oil company is funding a group that says climate change doesn't exist that should be a red flag. The next step is to sort through the data and come to your own opinion if it makes sense and you agree with it. It's a long process but its worth it to be informed.
Climate Science
The debate over climate change has always puzzled me personally. Its consequences threaten humanity’s ability to survive on this planet and this fact alone seems significant enough to transcend any partisan or political divisions. The unique challenge of climate change and the pervasiveness of its causes throughout our economy may explain why it meets so much resistance. Some may seem threatened by policy prescriptions to fight climate change that ask society to fundamentally change the way it functions. Any challenge to an economic mindset of growth, expansion, and increased consumption can understandably be viewed with skepticism as it contrasts with free market orthodoxy. As a result, a false choice has been created between investing in our economy and protecting our environment leading many who are hard hit by the recession to question measures aimed at curbing greenhouse emissions.
Both websites are interesting. While I am biased towards the Grist perspective, I think the very existence of the Friends of Science website speaks to the difficulty surrounding dealing with climate change. With so many interests so invested in maintaining the lucrative status quo, any challenge to the current economic structure and addressing climate change, any debate between climate skeptics and advocates provides effective fuel for their misinformation. The politicization of science is extraordinarily unfortunate especially considering the ‘climategate’ controversy and other episodes of the climate debate. I hope that skeptics and advocates can resolve their differences in time to make the changes necessary to confront climate change and forge a more sustainable future.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Climate Change Debate
I almost had to laugh looking through the "Friends of Science" website, it sounded so rote and simplistic. Of the two websites, I found the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" one more believable - I thought it had more (complete) information and more detailed explanations for its positions - i.e., when FoS said that severe weather hadn't been increasing, the only marker they gave was tropical storms. Comparing the two, however, I was struck by the degree to which data can be manipulated to prove one point or another. For example, where FoS says that climate change isn't causing more violent weather and that the number of hurricanes has actually been decreasing since the 1970s, How to talk to a Skeptic argues that we have been seeing an increase in, if not the number of tropical storms, than at least an increase in intensity. It really is amazing how you can take a single set of numbers and come to such different conclusions.
Obviously the debate around climate change is critical. I think part of the reason it exists is that people do honestly disagree with one another about what various scientific findings could mean. I do think there exists a place in the scientific community for constructive and honest debate about what scientific findings really mean and how they can be interpreted. On a larger scale, though, I think the debate is motivated by fear - climate scientists and environmentalists spout all these doomsday prophesies about what we're doing to the Earth and what it's going to look like, and who honestly wants to believe that? On some level it might be easier to disagree with all your might than to open-mindedly face what we've done to the planet. I also think that climate skeptics seriously downplay the role of feedback loops in the planet's climate. Our Earth is a vast, complex mechanism with systems we've barely even begun to understand, and I think one of the real dangers of climate change is that it will act as a catalyst for processes we haven't even yet connected to the central issue of global warming. I also think it's incredibly difficult, given the vast amount of information (and data manipulation) that's out there, to objectively sift through findings and evaluate scientific claims. Some of the most important factors to look at, however, I think involve who's conducting the study, the strength of their research findings, if those findings have been backed by other independent studies, and what other, relatively non-partisan scientists are saying about these studies. Obviously this is a lot of work to do for every single piece of climate change evidence we come across, and it's much easier to just pick a website or newspaper we like or trust and let them inform us. Personally, I believe that climate change is real, that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for it, and that all this bickering over interpretation is really just a way for those who don't believe in it to waste the time of those who do; constructive debates certainly have a role to play, but at this point we should be arguing about solutions, not getting into petty squabbles about whether or not climate change is really happening.
Obviously the debate around climate change is critical. I think part of the reason it exists is that people do honestly disagree with one another about what various scientific findings could mean. I do think there exists a place in the scientific community for constructive and honest debate about what scientific findings really mean and how they can be interpreted. On a larger scale, though, I think the debate is motivated by fear - climate scientists and environmentalists spout all these doomsday prophesies about what we're doing to the Earth and what it's going to look like, and who honestly wants to believe that? On some level it might be easier to disagree with all your might than to open-mindedly face what we've done to the planet. I also think that climate skeptics seriously downplay the role of feedback loops in the planet's climate. Our Earth is a vast, complex mechanism with systems we've barely even begun to understand, and I think one of the real dangers of climate change is that it will act as a catalyst for processes we haven't even yet connected to the central issue of global warming. I also think it's incredibly difficult, given the vast amount of information (and data manipulation) that's out there, to objectively sift through findings and evaluate scientific claims. Some of the most important factors to look at, however, I think involve who's conducting the study, the strength of their research findings, if those findings have been backed by other independent studies, and what other, relatively non-partisan scientists are saying about these studies. Obviously this is a lot of work to do for every single piece of climate change evidence we come across, and it's much easier to just pick a website or newspaper we like or trust and let them inform us. Personally, I believe that climate change is real, that humans are overwhelmingly responsible for it, and that all this bickering over interpretation is really just a way for those who don't believe in it to waste the time of those who do; constructive debates certainly have a role to play, but at this point we should be arguing about solutions, not getting into petty squabbles about whether or not climate change is really happening.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Atacama Desert
Last Fall I spent the semester studying abroad in Santiago, Chile. One of my most memorable moments was our trip to the Atacama Desert, the driest place in the world. After spending the day trekking over dunes we climbed to the top of some cliffs and watched the sun set. As there were no clouds in the sky was fairly unimpressive. But watching the sand change color in front of us as the sun set was amazing. Then the stars began to come out and it was breathtaking. I could see more stars there than I have ever seen in my life.
It was a truly humbling experience. I truly realized the massive extent of nature in terms of size as well as time. I also realized how helpless I was when left exposed to the elements. It really let me feel the brevity that is the length of a human life. Being 5'2" I've never thought I was very large, but standing in the sand dunes with sand as far as the eye can see, stretching all the way to the shadows of the Andes mountains in the distance, truly allowed me to feel microscopic.
"Saving nature" makes it sound as though we're far more important than we are. The truth of the matter is that we are trying to preserve something that could tear us apart if the weather continues to become more volatile. Furthermore, it is something upon which we all depend. In saving nature, what we are actually attempting is to save ourselves. Though we can continue to impact our environment, it will continue long after we are all gone.
It is vitally important that we conserve, reduce, reuse, and recycle, but it is for ourselves that we do these things. Conservation is in our best interest. It is what will ensure that the earth can provide for future generations. However, it will continue long past human existence.
It was a truly humbling experience. I truly realized the massive extent of nature in terms of size as well as time. I also realized how helpless I was when left exposed to the elements. It really let me feel the brevity that is the length of a human life. Being 5'2" I've never thought I was very large, but standing in the sand dunes with sand as far as the eye can see, stretching all the way to the shadows of the Andes mountains in the distance, truly allowed me to feel microscopic.
"Saving nature" makes it sound as though we're far more important than we are. The truth of the matter is that we are trying to preserve something that could tear us apart if the weather continues to become more volatile. Furthermore, it is something upon which we all depend. In saving nature, what we are actually attempting is to save ourselves. Though we can continue to impact our environment, it will continue long after we are all gone.
It is vitally important that we conserve, reduce, reuse, and recycle, but it is for ourselves that we do these things. Conservation is in our best interest. It is what will ensure that the earth can provide for future generations. However, it will continue long past human existence.
The Meadow
Growing up my entire life in a city, true encounters with nature were really rare. I love living in cities and my city is very green (its called the city of the oaks) but I do wish that I had more opportunities to experience real nature. That being said, the most magical encounter with nature that I've ever had was in the center of my city, in a huge meadow tucked away that I never knew about. It was my Senior year in high school and I was with my friends walking around NC State college in downtown Raleigh. Although we've been to NC States Campus thousands of times, we've never noticed the meadow that's in the middle of it. It was this huge grassy area outlined by flowers and trees, with the brick buildings of the school surrounding it. It was the perfect combination of the peace of nature with the excitement of the city. I have no idea how we ever missed it before but we took full advantage of it. Running down hills, taking pictures, and playing frisbee, we were kids again. We knew it was one of the last times we would all be together before we left for college and we were so glad we found this magical place in the middle of the city where we could just play.
I do think "saving nature" is something we should concern ourselves with. If we didn't save nature we would have no chance at making memories like the ones we're putting in these blog posts. I can't imagine a life that did not have a park full of trees, a rose garden, or a hidden away meadow. Without all this, life would be dreary. Not to mention all of the different plants and animals that call nature home, we are visiting their home and it is our duty to protect it for them. We need to save nature and we need to keep biodiversity thriving.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Beauty in your own Background
I really enjoyed reading your posts, Ciara and Stephen! The pictures were great to look at. Unfortunately, I don't have any to share for my favorite nature encounter. While I wish I had a cooler experience than this to relate, I'd have to say my most magical experience with nature was a few years ago on a clear summer night in my backyard. My entire street used to be a farm, so my house backs up against two pretty dense fields. Normally, the most you ever see are some rabbits, deer, a hawk or two, and the occasional pheasant, but I remember one night my dad called me out in the backyard, saying there was something I had to see. I walked with him out past our pool and his shed to a point where two fields converge and saw a breathtaking sight: The entire field, which slopes downward and looks sort of like a valley, was filled with what looked like thousands of lightening bugs, all flashing furiously. At first it seemed to me like I was at a movie premier and a hundred paparazzi were flashing their cameras, but as my eyes adjusted to the darkness I was able to make out the farm down the hill from my house and the tree line and an old church off in the distance. I just sat there with my dad for a good twenty minutes taking in this unexpected but incredible view. I think what I like most about this story is that it happened right in my own backyard - it seemed to me like Aldo Leopold, when we read excerpts of "A Sand Count Almanac" for class this week, was making the case that the beauty of nature can be found most places you look, and I definitely relate to that. I realized that night (or maybe remembered is more accurate) that I live in an incredibly beautiful place, and I was reminded to keep my eyes open for the thousand little natural wonders that surround me every day.
To that effect, I absolutely think saving nature is something humans need to be concerned about. As much as this might be a cliche, I think that we have a responsibility to save nature if not for ourselves, than at least for the generations who come after us. They should have every chance we have had, if not more, to experience what an amazing planet we live on, to get caught by surprise in the beauty of an unexpected vista driving down the interstate or even just to realize how magnificent our own backyards can be. I also really like what Paul Wapner says about being members of an ecological community rather than masters of it. We are, as much as we might think otherwise, a part of this planet, and I think we have a duty to keep it as beautiful and vibrant as we can, for ultimately it isn't our earth to destroy. We're just borrowing it, and we should take the best care of it we can.
To that effect, I absolutely think saving nature is something humans need to be concerned about. As much as this might be a cliche, I think that we have a responsibility to save nature if not for ourselves, than at least for the generations who come after us. They should have every chance we have had, if not more, to experience what an amazing planet we live on, to get caught by surprise in the beauty of an unexpected vista driving down the interstate or even just to realize how magnificent our own backyards can be. I also really like what Paul Wapner says about being members of an ecological community rather than masters of it. We are, as much as we might think otherwise, a part of this planet, and I think we have a duty to keep it as beautiful and vibrant as we can, for ultimately it isn't our earth to destroy. We're just borrowing it, and we should take the best care of it we can.
Haliburton
Wow Clara! The African Safari looks incredible! While I’ve never had any experience like that, the most incredible encounters I have had with the non-human world took place in Northern Ontario. Growing up in Toronto, Canada, on holidays I would visit my Grandparents who lived about three hours north of the city in a town called Haliburton, Ontario. They lived in a cottage on an isolated bay of Koshlong Lake. In the midst of the vast and beautiful Canadian forest, I found my love and appreciation for nature. The leaves and the mosses, the streams, and the stones are vivid in my mind every day. While the area was not particularly full of biodiversity, I spent great portions of my childhood there hiking, exploring, and discovering hidden sections of the woods on the lake. In periodic clearings formed by ancient rocky moraines, deer would flock together along with loons on the lake and other wetland creatures. In these woods I found some of the most incredible sights and had some of the most amazing experiences of my life.
I believe that nature is something that we should be very concerned about as we humans are fundamentally part of nature. We depend on nature for sustenance, water, and countless other resources. In fact, it is nearly impossible to think of a thing that humans use that does not come from nature. But more than simple survival, nature reminds us where we come from and the simple beauty of life. I think this journey of self discovery and adventure must be preserved so future generations can enjoy the beauties of Northern Ontario and other sacred places just as I did.
Magical African Safari
The most magical moment that I have ever had with the non-human world occurred when I was studying abroad in South Africa. During spring break, I took a safari/camping trip where we travelled to Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. It was just an amazing experience with nature all round. One part of the trip, we were literally in the middle of nowhere in a place called the Okavanga Delta. We had to take a 45 minutes mokoro (boat made from a local tree) ride to this place. We went on walking safaris where we saw all different animals. The most amazing thing we saw walking around was the interaction between the giraffes and the zebras. We were told that they hang around together because the zebras feel protected by the giraffes because lions, hyenas, and other predators are actually afraid of giraffes. The most amazing part of this trip was when I was able to ride an elephant through another safari. I am normally completely against riding animals because really I just think it is odd and unnatural. However this was a tourist attraction and the money (supposedly) went to help elephants in the area and preserving the safari area which really needed help.
I obviously think saving nature should be something we concern ourselves with; otherwise I would not have had such an amazing experience for one. Nature is also very inspiring for people such as in the arts, whether is it writing books or painting portraits, or photography. Those reasons however are not very important for everyone. The idea of saving nature plays into the idea that we need to get everyone on board to care. In order to do these we must frame the issue as saving nature will help the human species. Saving nature, whether it is the rainforests, the coral reef, or your backyard, is very important. Scientific reasons to save nature include biodiversity or the fact that we rely on these ecosystems in various ways. For example we obtain certain resources for medicine or agriculture and can thank the rainforest systems for maintain certain weather patterns and the supply of fresh air and water. While I wish people would just have an appreciation for nature, it just is not that way. People need some more magical and enchanting time with the non-human world – I am posting pictures to share mine!!!
I obviously think saving nature should be something we concern ourselves with; otherwise I would not have had such an amazing experience for one. Nature is also very inspiring for people such as in the arts, whether is it writing books or painting portraits, or photography. Those reasons however are not very important for everyone. The idea of saving nature plays into the idea that we need to get everyone on board to care. In order to do these we must frame the issue as saving nature will help the human species. Saving nature, whether it is the rainforests, the coral reef, or your backyard, is very important. Scientific reasons to save nature include biodiversity or the fact that we rely on these ecosystems in various ways. For example we obtain certain resources for medicine or agriculture and can thank the rainforest systems for maintain certain weather patterns and the supply of fresh air and water. While I wish people would just have an appreciation for nature, it just is not that way. People need some more magical and enchanting time with the non-human world – I am posting pictures to share mine!!!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
I Like Turtles
One of the most popular stories of this year the Gulf Oil Spill. Besides the fact that they finally plugged the pipe, there has not been much positive news in the media about the cleanup of that disaster. I always fall for cute animal stories so this one caught my eye. Animal rescue networks have discovered that a common condiment is a great way to clean the sea turtles being rescued from the Gulf - mayonnaise! 525 turtles have already been found dead, and that does not include the amount that are stuck in the oil on the ocean floor.
Discovering the effectiveness of this condiment has already saved hundreds of sea turtles lives, however hundreds of turtles that have not been rescued are still in danger. The oil is trapped in sargassum which is seaweed that provides food and shelter for sea turtles along with other animals. Some other positive news that came from this article was that scientists believe due to currents and weather forecast the ecosystem of the Gulf will not suffer too badly. Obviously there is still so much clean up to be done but it is nice to read about some positive articles coming from such a catastrophe.
Wind Power
While riding the metro to work, I read a Washington Post story about google financing a “superhighway” for wind power. I was uplifted by the story for a number of reasons. First, in the article, google acknowledges the enormous demands its company places on the electrical grid of the United States and plans to take a concrete action to reduce the impacts of its electricity generation. Second, it shows that a major company is willing to take a risk and potentially sacrifice profits on an initiative that will dramatically expand offshore wind power in the United States using a model that can be exported around the world. Finally, this is an example of how technology can be used to minimize impact in the I=PAT equation. By eliminating the need for transmission lines from offshore wind farms with the “wind superhighway” constructed on the continental shelf, google is using technology to lower America’s environmental impact.
While it might be even more encouraging to see google launch a conservation initiative in tandem with the wind power investments or new server technology that would consume less energy, this is a step in the right direction towards a clean energy future. For better or for worse, the actions corporations are vital in confronting the climate crisis and google’s actions will hopefully lead the way for a new era of businesses doing the right thing and protecting our environment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101202271.html
Finally, we can stop drinking
For my positive article I decided upon the successful cleanup of the Thames. In 1957 the Thames River in England was so intensely polluted that it was "declared biologically dead." Now because of an intensive cleanup effort and stringent regulations. There are also anti-dumpling regulations and sewage treatment instead of direct runoff into the river. They have also reintroduced a number of species back into the river. Now it's the cleanest it has been since the industrial revolution.
I think this is a great story of how regulation and careful planning can restore the environment even after it has seemingly been destroyed by man. It makes me hopeful that we can still reverse the effects of our ever more intense resource consumption. However, it has been a 50 year long cleanup project. I recognize that we have a long road in front of us, but it sure is nice to see that there could be light at the end of the tunnel.
You can find the whole article at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8059970/The-clean-up-of-the-River-Thames.html
I think this is a great story of how regulation and careful planning can restore the environment even after it has seemingly been destroyed by man. It makes me hopeful that we can still reverse the effects of our ever more intense resource consumption. However, it has been a 50 year long cleanup project. I recognize that we have a long road in front of us, but it sure is nice to see that there could be light at the end of the tunnel.
You can find the whole article at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8059970/The-clean-up-of-the-River-Thames.html
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Small Company, Big Impacts
First of all I would like to say to Emily that I’m a little jealous that you got to Wangari Maathai first. I was talking about her in my Environment and Development class earlier today and she’s such an inspirational leader, great choice! I’m going to take a different approach and focus on a new upcoming company, rTerra. rTerra is a consulting firm based in the Rhode Island/Massachusetts area, it was established earlier this year. They are an in-between man for government and commercial institutions to create greener working practices. Basically they help and teach people how to use clean energy, specifically wind and solar power.
What I find really interesting about this company is that it has such a diverse group of employees, not all who come from an environmental field. My uncle is the CEO of the company and he is new to the environmental world. I like the concept that it shows anyone with the initiative can go out and make a difference. And I believe these small companies like rTerra are going to play a huge role in converting our society to a greener and healthy one.
It's a pretty cool company and I encourage you all to check them out! http://rterra.com/
What I find really interesting about this company is that it has such a diverse group of employees, not all who come from an environmental field. My uncle is the CEO of the company and he is new to the environmental world. I like the concept that it shows anyone with the initiative can go out and make a difference. And I believe these small companies like rTerra are going to play a huge role in converting our society to a greener and healthy one.
It's a pretty cool company and I encourage you all to check them out! http://rterra.com/
Wangari Maathai
Hey all,
So glad we're finally talking about something positive! The upbeat environmentalist I chose to spotlight for this entry is Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman who was the impetus behind the country's Green Belt Movement. Basically, she saw that women suffer as much (if not more so) than men from environmental degradation, even if they're partly responsible, so she encouraged women to start planting trees all over Kenya to both make people better off and help the environment. You can read more about her at the GBM's website: http://greenbeltmovement.org/w.php?id=59
Basically, she kicks butt. She's run for president (more as a statement than to actually get elected) and has been imprisoned before for vocally protesting Kenyan policies. She's a great example of a grassroots, on-the-ground environmental activist who's truly making a difference, and she's also a great role model for women in low-income countries, inspiring them to take initiative and fix the things they see going wrong.
So glad we're finally talking about something positive! The upbeat environmentalist I chose to spotlight for this entry is Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan woman who was the impetus behind the country's Green Belt Movement. Basically, she saw that women suffer as much (if not more so) than men from environmental degradation, even if they're partly responsible, so she encouraged women to start planting trees all over Kenya to both make people better off and help the environment. You can read more about her at the GBM's website: http://greenbeltmovement.org/w.php?id=59
Basically, she kicks butt. She's run for president (more as a statement than to actually get elected) and has been imprisoned before for vocally protesting Kenyan policies. She's a great example of a grassroots, on-the-ground environmental activist who's truly making a difference, and she's also a great role model for women in low-income countries, inspiring them to take initiative and fix the things they see going wrong.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Food Choices are Money choices
Food choices are something that I try to be conscious about but I find it increasingly difficult to do while I’m at college. There are a number of things that can be considered, for instance- where it’s grown, if pesticides were used in the production, the personal health implications of the product, and if there are any other environmental impacts from the production. I try to keep all of these in mind, eating meat only once a day and trying to by local organic products. (American made this a little easier when they started bringing the local farmers market to campus). At home this is easy because these products are easily accessible and I’m not the one who is paying for it, but at school this all changes. Not only is it more difficult to get to a farmers market, or just a grocery store in general, I have to also be conscious of the money spent on food and unfortunately organic products are expensive. Often times I am left simply eating what is available, which is never very satisfying, but unfortunately money is the biggest consideration that determines what I eat.
What makes things worse is often times college students must eat at a dining hall or a restaurant. In these venues it is more difficult to determine the eco-friendliness of a product. You are not sure where the product was purchased from, if it’s organic, or how it was prepared. There is a certain amount of trust that the consumer places in the venue to articulate the correct information to them or to assume that they have a set practiced standard. The same argument can be made about the supermarkets, because often times a label on a product is misleading, so the consumer is placing trust in the corporation that they are giving them what they want.
Over the past two days I would probably say that the beverage items that I’ve consumed have had the greatest impact on the environment. Typically my diet consists of mostly vegetables and proteins, and yesterday I (unintentionally) used all fresh vegetables. The meat I ate had an impact, I’m not entirely sure how it was raised but I know that the slaughter process was not environmentally friendly. I’m not sure where the meat came from, or how far it was shipped, but I do know how it was cooked and it was done in a way that caused little environmental damage. But there are is so much about beverage production that I don’t know, which is frightening. Typically I drink in terms of beverages water, milk, juice, and coffee. I don’t drink soda which cuts down a lot of health risks, but high levels of sugar in juice and caffeine in coffee can cause issues. The treatment of these beverages is where the real concern lies. I know that the tap water in DC is not safe and must be filtered, because it is treated with chemicals which must have some environmental impacts. The milk must be pasteurized which is another process that most likely takes some kind of toll on the environment. The juice comes from fruits, and after reading a report on the pesticides used on pineapples in Costa Rica a few days ago, it frightens me as to what type of pesticides are used and what the effects could be for my health and the health of the environment in the farm. And the production of coffee has caused a stir among many developing nations who are attempting sustainable development because of the corruption and destructive nature. This doesn’t even take into consideration the bottling of any of these products, even if they use recycled bottles there is still a degree of degradation that occurs. It’s frightening to think about the potential that one bottle of orange juice in the morning can do.
What makes things worse is often times college students must eat at a dining hall or a restaurant. In these venues it is more difficult to determine the eco-friendliness of a product. You are not sure where the product was purchased from, if it’s organic, or how it was prepared. There is a certain amount of trust that the consumer places in the venue to articulate the correct information to them or to assume that they have a set practiced standard. The same argument can be made about the supermarkets, because often times a label on a product is misleading, so the consumer is placing trust in the corporation that they are giving them what they want.
Over the past two days I would probably say that the beverage items that I’ve consumed have had the greatest impact on the environment. Typically my diet consists of mostly vegetables and proteins, and yesterday I (unintentionally) used all fresh vegetables. The meat I ate had an impact, I’m not entirely sure how it was raised but I know that the slaughter process was not environmentally friendly. I’m not sure where the meat came from, or how far it was shipped, but I do know how it was cooked and it was done in a way that caused little environmental damage. But there are is so much about beverage production that I don’t know, which is frightening. Typically I drink in terms of beverages water, milk, juice, and coffee. I don’t drink soda which cuts down a lot of health risks, but high levels of sugar in juice and caffeine in coffee can cause issues. The treatment of these beverages is where the real concern lies. I know that the tap water in DC is not safe and must be filtered, because it is treated with chemicals which must have some environmental impacts. The milk must be pasteurized which is another process that most likely takes some kind of toll on the environment. The juice comes from fruits, and after reading a report on the pesticides used on pineapples in Costa Rica a few days ago, it frightens me as to what type of pesticides are used and what the effects could be for my health and the health of the environment in the farm. And the production of coffee has caused a stir among many developing nations who are attempting sustainable development because of the corruption and destructive nature. This doesn’t even take into consideration the bottling of any of these products, even if they use recycled bottles there is still a degree of degradation that occurs. It’s frightening to think about the potential that one bottle of orange juice in the morning can do.
Food Choices
I agree with Quinn and the others that making food choices for the benefit of the environment is extremely difficult in college due to cost and lack of knowledge about the subject.
Recently however due to what I have learned in this class and others, when making food choices, I have been increasingly taking into account environmental considerations. From a trophic perspective in the Pollan article and other sources, it is clear that eating a secondary or tertiary consumer such as an animal is at least ten times more energy intensive than eating a primary consumer such as a plant. While sometimes it can be rude to disrupt social norms at family dinners or when others have prepared food for guests, when I am in sole control of my food choices, I often try to make food choices that will be the least bad and most efficient for the environment. Affordability and convenience are also factors in these decisions. While this 'fair weather' foodie perspective may seem as though it lacks courage, I feel relatively new at understanding the true impacts of food and hope to develop more in the future.
I think the food with the greatest environmental impact I have eaten was probably the top ramen packet I had for dinner last night. In the process of its contents being processed, plastic wrapped, and transported around the globe, it likely made an enormous environmental impact. It is extremely difficult for college student to eat healthily let alone sustainably given the time pressures of class, work, and other commitments along with the high price of healthier fare. I hope that we can start to change this in an effort to green our agricultural system and our eating habits.
Money, Money, Money
The first thing I think about in regard to my food choices is the price. First and foremost I am a broke college student. When I go to Giant I always buy generic and can rarely afford break the bank for fresh produce instead of canned or frozen produce. The next thing I consider is convenience. Is this something I can make quickly? Is it something that I can pack in my backpack without needing refrigeration. Long days on campus make for the need for on the go meals. When I get home after studying all I really want is to eat, not to spend an hour preparing a meal.
I really don't have environmental considerations in mind when choosing my food. I know that what I eat impacts the environment. But I tend to think of my environmental impact more in terms of the waste I produce or my mode of transportation. Things that cross my mind before the environment when purchasing food are cost, convenience, and even how heavy the item is (as I carry my groceries home).
I think the thing I've eaten in the last few days that had the greatest environmental impact is a bundle of grapes. I say that because though they are not processed, they did come from Chile. I think that the distance they had to travel is absurd and probably very detrimental to the environment. Furthermore, that means that a number of Chileans are using their resources to create things they have an international competitive advantage in producing, but that leads to them trading more. This sort of national specialization in different goods increases trade, which also increases effects of transportation of all of these goods.
Food's Environmental Impact
Much like Ciara said, before I came to AU, the thought that food and the environment could somehow be linked had never crossed my mind. I knew that the corn we bought every summer from the local farm was always the best and that the veggies we picked from my dad's garden always tasted better than anything we bought in the grocery store, even fresh produce, but somehow I never linked the two. Now that I'm at AU, though, I'm starting to see more and more how our food choices can affect the environment - everything from reusable shopping bags to cage-free eggs to local produce to grass-fed beef; concepts like this have been bombarding me for the past two years. Now that I'm more aware of these issues, I do try to buy more of my fruits and veggies from the farmer's market at AU or up by the National Cathedral on Mass. However, when I'm at the grocery store the environmental impact of my food is usually the last thing on my mind - and the first is price. Organic food, even at Safeway, is so much cheaper than the normal stuff that it's difficult to justify buying it (although my room mate and I have started buying organic milk; for some reason, it lasts longer before going bad). While I've read all the articles about how grass-fed beef is better, it's also more expensive, and I just can't bring myself to buy it at the store.
That being said, though, I think I have this sort of perverse attitude towards food, especially meat; I'll eat it, but I really hate knowing where it comes from. For example, my dad is a pretty passionate hunter, and he usually brings home at least one or two deer every year (usually from the field past our back yard). Eating venison is probably one of the most environmentally friendly things I could do - the deer are wild, so they eat sustainably; the environmental cost of transporting the food is the 20 yards my dad walks from the field to our house; and the deer population is a big problem in PA, so hunting deer actually helps prevent car accidents with them (or so my dad tells me). However, I've always thought shooting those deer was so cruel, and I always refused to eat any burgers or jerkey he made with the venison. I know the conditions the cows I eat live in are so much more cruel, but for some reason, because I don't have to see that, I can disconnect myself from it. I know that probably doesn't make any sense, but there it is.
Getting to the second part of this question, the food I've eaten in the past few days that probably has the most environmental impact is any of the meat I've eaten - either the chicken I had for dinner Sunday, the sausage on my pizza last night, or the ham I'm having tonight. The chicken probably had the most impact, though, because in addition to any original transport costs, it was from a frozen ready-made meal my room mate's mom had made, so the chicken also had associated with it the transportation costs is took my room mate to drive from Connecticut to DC. I think transportation associated with meat and produce is probably the biggest factor when considering environmental impact, but for meat, especially, we also have to look at methane emissions from cows, the pollution generated so many animals living in such close proximity, and other issues. None of these things are easy to think about, though, and I feel like a good proportion of people (myself included, at least partly) just ignore them.
That being said, though, I think I have this sort of perverse attitude towards food, especially meat; I'll eat it, but I really hate knowing where it comes from. For example, my dad is a pretty passionate hunter, and he usually brings home at least one or two deer every year (usually from the field past our back yard). Eating venison is probably one of the most environmentally friendly things I could do - the deer are wild, so they eat sustainably; the environmental cost of transporting the food is the 20 yards my dad walks from the field to our house; and the deer population is a big problem in PA, so hunting deer actually helps prevent car accidents with them (or so my dad tells me). However, I've always thought shooting those deer was so cruel, and I always refused to eat any burgers or jerkey he made with the venison. I know the conditions the cows I eat live in are so much more cruel, but for some reason, because I don't have to see that, I can disconnect myself from it. I know that probably doesn't make any sense, but there it is.
Getting to the second part of this question, the food I've eaten in the past few days that probably has the most environmental impact is any of the meat I've eaten - either the chicken I had for dinner Sunday, the sausage on my pizza last night, or the ham I'm having tonight. The chicken probably had the most impact, though, because in addition to any original transport costs, it was from a frozen ready-made meal my room mate's mom had made, so the chicken also had associated with it the transportation costs is took my room mate to drive from Connecticut to DC. I think transportation associated with meat and produce is probably the biggest factor when considering environmental impact, but for meat, especially, we also have to look at methane emissions from cows, the pollution generated so many animals living in such close proximity, and other issues. None of these things are easy to think about, though, and I feel like a good proportion of people (myself included, at least partly) just ignore them.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The health and environmental impact of food
When I am grocery shopping for the week, I never think about how the food I am buying if affecting the environment. What I do normally think of is first what these groceries are going to cost me and then I think about how healthy/unhealthy this food is. Until my College Writing food writing seminar, I never even linked what I eat and the environment. It is just so easy to lift food off the shelf and not even wonder or care where it came from as long as I am not going hungry. I never think about how far these vegetables may have travelled or the preservatives or chemicals that have made it so they lasted the journey.
Over the past couple of days, the steak dinner that I had on Sunday night probably had the biggest environmental impact. The meat industry has huge negative impacts on the environment from green house gas emissions, methane being the largest, to large amounts of water use to feed livestock. There was an interesting article published by Cornell University that actually stated the US could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat. This means that cutting down our meat intake could not only improve the environment but could also help feed millions of starving people around the world. Besides steak, along with my dinner I had some broccoli which according to the USDA probably came from either China or India because they are the two largest exporters of broccoli. If you think of the travelling that broccoli had to do in order to get on my dinner plate used a lot of oil and preservatives to make sure that it was still fresh by the time I ate it. I also ate some mashed potatoes which did come from Idaho because I saw the label but obviously still had a bit of a trip to make it to Washington, DC.
While I do realize the negative impact our food choices has one the environment, it is definitely not something I really think about. I think it is safe to say that it is also not something the general public really thinks about as well. Buying local and cutting back on a few things we eat are very easy ways for people to lessen their environmental footprint but just don’t know enough about it. I think it is something that should be brought up and discussed more so people really know about the impact of what they are eating. I think it would be effective to link personal health and environmental impact when it comes to making choices about food in order to get the public on board. For example realizing that buying local fruit or bread that does not contain preservatives or chemicals is better for your health as well as the environment. Changing decisions on food is just another lifestyle change that is going to require people to change their attitudes toward the environment.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
What Will Save Us?
We have been discussing the impact of technology on the environment for a couple weeks now. While we all seem to recognize that technology has been very harmful for the environment, there are also some technologies that have proved beneficial such as developing clean energy. Another point that has been brought up several times throughout these blogs is that not only that we must change our attitude about the environment but we must also change our lifestyles. No technology is going to be able to replace the earth’s resources at the rate we are consuming them. The issues with the environment are very complex and therefore the solutions are going to be even more complex. There is no one answer; so technology won’t save us alone and changing our attitudes won’t save us alone. We have to take many different approaches as to how we are going to solve as the issues of the environment.
One approach is getting everyone involved on a global scale and that is what happened with the Montreal Protocol. I have studied it before and I remember it was the most successful international environmental agreement in history. I think it was so easy for countries to commit to was because there was a plan to replace CFCs with other substances. While it has been proven over time that these substances may be just as harmful, at the time they were available right after CFCs were not. In terms of technology, it helped countries get on board with this agreement because new technologies replaced the old CFCs. In today’s terms, it is more difficult to get countries to sign onto agreements because there seems to be no substitute for what we have. For example the United States would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because we had to commit to reductions in carbon emissions as well as other greenhouse gases and according to ex President Bush we were just not capable of doing that. He explained in an interview that although we are putting millions of dollars into research we are still dependent on foreign oil.
In all technology could definitely help to “save us” however it is not the only answer. As Emily stated, more fuel efficient cars would be helpful, however it would be even more helpful if fewer of them are on the road. As these new technologies develop hopefully more countries will be in agreement to make changes because we all live on this one planet and everyone needs to do their part.
Technology: The Default Savior
Technology has become so intricately wound into every aspect of our lives that it will have to be our savior. To expect that we will abandon our use of cell phones, computers, I pods, and even stoves is ludicrous. We have become so dependent that we cannot imagine a world without these things. As such, technology will have to be the thing that saves us.
However, technology does not have to have a mind of its own. I believe we can shape technology. We do not have to wait for it to get to a point where it is good for the environment. We can spend our energies innovating in a certain direction, such as eco-friendliness.
Here I would like to agree with Emily and Stephen. While we can direct technology to be more environmentally focused, that is not enough. We also have to conserve and moderate our lifestyles. Technology can assist us with these goals. It's like the Kuznet curve. As a nation increases in wealth it is more able to decrease its impact on the environment. It can focus its energies on developing "greener" technologies. This is how technology will assist us.
However, like my group members, I agree that technology cannot save us without our own initiative. We have to put our energy into shaping technology. We have to show a commitment to conserving our resources. At the end of the day, this paired with technology will be what saves us.
However, technology does not have to have a mind of its own. I believe we can shape technology. We do not have to wait for it to get to a point where it is good for the environment. We can spend our energies innovating in a certain direction, such as eco-friendliness.
Here I would like to agree with Emily and Stephen. While we can direct technology to be more environmentally focused, that is not enough. We also have to conserve and moderate our lifestyles. Technology can assist us with these goals. It's like the Kuznet curve. As a nation increases in wealth it is more able to decrease its impact on the environment. It can focus its energies on developing "greener" technologies. This is how technology will assist us.
However, like my group members, I agree that technology cannot save us without our own initiative. We have to put our energy into shaping technology. We have to show a commitment to conserving our resources. At the end of the day, this paired with technology will be what saves us.
The limits of technology
I think both Lisa and Stephen did a great job pointing out some important points answering this question, and I'd like to address what they said a bit. I agree with Stephen that, even if we suddenly all became technological genuises tomorrow and started devoting ourselves to aligning technology with environmental issues, technology will never be enough. We must take an honest and critical look at our lifestyles and how we can change them if we're serious about solving the environmental problems the world is facing. I think I spouted off about this in class last week: Even if technology could "save us," the notions of what we would have to do to the planet (geoengineering like "farming" oceans with iron) are sort of ludicrous and make me wonder what other sorts of problems we would inflict on this poor planet in the name of saving it from global warming.
I also think Lisa had a really great insight - what do we mean when we say technology can "save" us? Save us from global warming? At what cost? If we infer "save us" to mean keep our consumeristic lifestyle while not trashing the planet, then we're in trouble. It's not plausible to think we can have our cake and eat it, too. The overwhelming majority of the time, that doesn't work. I think the environment is a lot like a diet - stuff in has to equal stuff out, or bad things happen. Even with increased technological efficiency, if we keep using up the planet's "stuff" (resources) at a rate faster than the planet can replace it, that's a problem. Technology, as Stephen said, can help, but it's in no way the only answer, and if we think it is we're probably kidding ourselves.
To answer the part of ozone depletion, it seems to me like the success of those agreements was actually based as much on cutting back technologies which contained CFLs as it was about finding new technologies to offset or make more efficient our CFL use. I think what that tells us is exactly what Lisa and Stephen have hinted at - we simply can't rely on technology alone to save us. CFLs were great because they were cheap and convenient, but when we realized the harm they were doing to the environment really the only solution was to cut back on them, and doing so has obviously helped. That same example can be applied to a lot of the technologies today which are, in part, contributing to global warming. More fuel-efficient cars would be helpful, but ultimately it's not going to be better efficiency but, rather, fewer cars that will be the solution, as difficult as that is to accept.
Now, if only we could get the rest of the country (and the politicians, Obama included!) to feel that way.
I also think Lisa had a really great insight - what do we mean when we say technology can "save" us? Save us from global warming? At what cost? If we infer "save us" to mean keep our consumeristic lifestyle while not trashing the planet, then we're in trouble. It's not plausible to think we can have our cake and eat it, too. The overwhelming majority of the time, that doesn't work. I think the environment is a lot like a diet - stuff in has to equal stuff out, or bad things happen. Even with increased technological efficiency, if we keep using up the planet's "stuff" (resources) at a rate faster than the planet can replace it, that's a problem. Technology, as Stephen said, can help, but it's in no way the only answer, and if we think it is we're probably kidding ourselves.
To answer the part of ozone depletion, it seems to me like the success of those agreements was actually based as much on cutting back technologies which contained CFLs as it was about finding new technologies to offset or make more efficient our CFL use. I think what that tells us is exactly what Lisa and Stephen have hinted at - we simply can't rely on technology alone to save us. CFLs were great because they were cheap and convenient, but when we realized the harm they were doing to the environment really the only solution was to cut back on them, and doing so has obviously helped. That same example can be applied to a lot of the technologies today which are, in part, contributing to global warming. More fuel-efficient cars would be helpful, but ultimately it's not going to be better efficiency but, rather, fewer cars that will be the solution, as difficult as that is to accept.
Now, if only we could get the rest of the country (and the politicians, Obama included!) to feel that way.
Savior or Destroyer?
We have put ourselves in an interesting position in that we cannot live without technology, but if it will ultimately save is us a question that remains unanswered. It is an extremely loaded question, from the vagueness of the terms to the uncertainty of the future, there is no easy way to answer.
The use of the words “save us” is unclear in this question. What exactly does that mean? In environmental terms it can mean save us from a world of environmental degradation. It would mean using technology to create clean energy initiatives, to find new ways to reduce the amount of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and to replace habitats that have been loss or destroyed by climate change, etc. There are so many different things that we hope that technology has the ability to do, but would the completion of one of these goals be considered saving us? In think in part it would be, it is saving us from an impact that, had the technology not been created to help, we would have surely felt (although we shouldn’t forget that it was technology that created most of the environmental issues today, think Industrial Revolution). But solving one issue doesn’t save us completely, it may by us more time but that’s a far stretch from saving us. There are so many current (and I’m sure future) environmental issues that it would be naïve to think that a single technological innovation would solve them only. But that is what we would need to be truly saved, without this we’re just saving ourselves from little issues while avoiding others. We’re just buying time.
There is also a sense of uncertainty about technology. We have no idea what technological will like 10 years, 5 years, or even 3 years from now. We assume that it will lead to advances in our lifestyles. The cornucopian view has taught us that in the end someone will come up with a response using technology to get us past whatever hardship is before us. Historically this is what has happened and this is what we all hope deep down will happen, so even if it’s just the slightest bit, we like to believe it. But we really have no idea. It is as possible that the new technological would be detrimental to the environment as it is helpful. Technology could mean a faster way to harness oil or to retrieve mountain top coal; this technology could also be the same one that causes an increase in air pollution because the poor yet speedy removal methods are less inefficient. Technology has the possibility to be our savior but also our destroyer.
I realize that I did not exactly answer the question of will technology save us with a yes or no that it deserves. At this point I don’t think it’s possible to know if technology will save us because there are chances that it could do the exact opposite. I like to think that it has a capability of at least helping us (save might be too strong of a word) to work through many environmental issues. I think it will help to shape the future of environmental policies and practices, as new technologies come into place then new policies can enforce the use of more efficient technologies. But none of this is guaranteed because the future is too unpredictable.
The use of the words “save us” is unclear in this question. What exactly does that mean? In environmental terms it can mean save us from a world of environmental degradation. It would mean using technology to create clean energy initiatives, to find new ways to reduce the amount of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and to replace habitats that have been loss or destroyed by climate change, etc. There are so many different things that we hope that technology has the ability to do, but would the completion of one of these goals be considered saving us? In think in part it would be, it is saving us from an impact that, had the technology not been created to help, we would have surely felt (although we shouldn’t forget that it was technology that created most of the environmental issues today, think Industrial Revolution). But solving one issue doesn’t save us completely, it may by us more time but that’s a far stretch from saving us. There are so many current (and I’m sure future) environmental issues that it would be naïve to think that a single technological innovation would solve them only. But that is what we would need to be truly saved, without this we’re just saving ourselves from little issues while avoiding others. We’re just buying time.
There is also a sense of uncertainty about technology. We have no idea what technological will like 10 years, 5 years, or even 3 years from now. We assume that it will lead to advances in our lifestyles. The cornucopian view has taught us that in the end someone will come up with a response using technology to get us past whatever hardship is before us. Historically this is what has happened and this is what we all hope deep down will happen, so even if it’s just the slightest bit, we like to believe it. But we really have no idea. It is as possible that the new technological would be detrimental to the environment as it is helpful. Technology could mean a faster way to harness oil or to retrieve mountain top coal; this technology could also be the same one that causes an increase in air pollution because the poor yet speedy removal methods are less inefficient. Technology has the possibility to be our savior but also our destroyer.
I realize that I did not exactly answer the question of will technology save us with a yes or no that it deserves. At this point I don’t think it’s possible to know if technology will save us because there are chances that it could do the exact opposite. I like to think that it has a capability of at least helping us (save might be too strong of a word) to work through many environmental issues. I think it will help to shape the future of environmental policies and practices, as new technologies come into place then new policies can enforce the use of more efficient technologies. But none of this is guaranteed because the future is too unpredictable.
Technology
In contrast to the mainstream media and prevailing conventional wisdom, a closer examination of historical trends shows an undeniable link between increased technology and more environmental degradation. The inherent contradiction between a society collectively clamoring for more, better, and advanced products and a planet that is rapidly approaching or has already passed its biological limits creates an enormous problem for society. Humanity is truly at a crossroads. It can either take drastic steps to cut down on consumption and resource exploitation or place its faith in technological advancement to solve the problems of massive population growth, environmental damage, and climate change. What is far more significant than my views on whether technology will save us are the views of a man who arguably has more influence on the fate of the planet than any on Earth. The de facto Chief Executive Officer of the largest economy the world has ever known had this to say in a recent Rolling Stone interview regarding climate change and technology [emphasis added].
President Barack Obama, 9/17/10
“When I talk to [Energy Secretary] Steven Chu… nobody's a bigger champion for the cause of reducing climate change than he is. When I ask him how we are going to solve this problem internationally, what he'll tell you is that we can get about a third of this done through efficiencies and existing technologies, we can get an additional chunk through some sort of pricing in carbon, but ultimately we're going to need some technological breakthroughs. So the investments we're making in research and development around clean energy are also going to be important if we're going to be able to get all the way there" [1].
President Obama’s commitment to fighting climate change is admirable and his administration’s efforts have arguably gone farther than any in history (which truthfully is not saying a lot). Even so, in the President’s diagnosis of the problem and solutions of climate change, he mentions technologies several times but never advocates for conservation or any measure to reduce consumption. While investments in clean energy are a step in the right direction, this strategy represents a serious gamble and puts the future of the planet in the hands of the human ingenuity that helped us reach this environmentally perilous era. Only time will tell if technology will be a force of minimizing the size of human environmental footprints or if it will bring about widespread devastation. Hopefully, it is the former.
[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=4
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Can We Keep Up
In the NY Times article Friedman’s article argues that the US is falling behind in a competition against China to create positive climate change. I think the idea is framing this issue within a competition construct is really beneficial to promote change. The whole idea could possible change the attitudes of the American public towards living a more sustainable life. As Emily discussed changing people’s attitudes is very important and this seems one way it can actually be achieved. Once people realize the thousands of jobs and opportunities being created in China through “green jobs” and clean energy technologies, I believe that we may actually push towards the same.
While I do not believe in the cornucopian idea that technology will save all, it will save a lot. The technology we have created in the past greatly polluted the environment, but that was really only because we didn’t know any better. No one had planned on really wrecking the environment this much. In creating new technologies (not the planned obsolescence products) we can build them to be more environmentally friendly.
I am glad Quinn pointed out that international summits have really led to more restrictions on developing countries while not including developed ones. I think it brings up a great point. Would this competition with China even exist if it was not told it had to do take this action? They have definitely achieved a lot either way, hopefully we can keep up.
The Global Race to be Green
Thomas Friedman’s article in The New York Times argues that the United States has fallen behind China and other nations in developing a clean energy economy. In our current economic model, competition is a powerful driver to motivate industry and citizens to do their part to build a better, brighter, and more sustainable future. Ultimately, our fate as a people does not obey artificial boundaries drawn by man. The United States, China, and every nation of the world must take rapid and significant steps to stem the tide of climate change. Whether through economic competition or collaboration, these actions must be taken.
Friedman does not point out in the article the billions of dollars allocated for clean energy in the 2009 recovery act that some have characterized as the largest single piece of environmental legislation in American history [1]. Also, the proposed renewable electricity standard in the US Senate has the potential to mobilize the clean energy economy in the United States [2]. While Emily and others in class have made a persuasive argument that technology can cause more environmental harm than good, this hopefully will be a scenario where this correlation turns around. Instead of enhancing our ability to exploit the Earth’s resources, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and other technologies can make a serious impact on decreasing greenhouse gases and limit pollutants that would be emitted through the burning of fossil fuels.
By recharging and stimulating the US and global clean energy sectors, we can build a truly green economy that harnesses the positive part of the ‘T’ in the =PAT equation. The scope of the problem of climate change is so vast that a market mechanism may be the only way to move rapidly enough towards a sustainable society. Ultimately, whether or not 'green' manufacturing and the competitive global race to create more environmentally friendly products lead to a truly sustainable society is less important than these initial steps to jump start the clean energy economy and start moving us on the path towards ecological balance.
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Competition is Our Friend
In his piece, "Aren't We Clever," Thomas Friedman gives a shocking realization that America is losing the race on climate action to China and other countries. Shocking actually is not the right word, in the past year or so China has made enormous strides at becoming a greener country. Before Copenhagen in 2009, China released their plan to reduce their carbon emissions (or as they call it "carbon intensity") by 40-45% by 2020. Added to that is their creation of a green dam project and a green technology sector that has collected investors from around the world. All of these projects create jobs, jobs that are part of the green revolution and will be sustained in a green world. The United States on the other hand is having difficulties just passing simple legislation and creates a public uprising over the idea of banning offshore drilling. So why is it shocking that China is ahead of the United States in this race to be green? I don't think it's shocking, I think it's upfront and I think it's and article that needed to be published so the American people can realize the lack of progress that we have made.
Emily brings up a good point, Americans are motivated by competition, we have been historically and we will continue to be as long as we have a market based economy. So talking about action on climate change as a race between the US and other countries does make sense. It allows us to see what we have accomplished and what we need to improve, it creates a standard. Even more so, competition creates a drive to win. The United States is a world power, whether it be in the Olympics or on the world stage, American want to win. So if we look at the action in terms of a race we are currently losing, but this realization of failure could be the motivation we need to really enact change.
We cannot rely solely on technology, it's plain and simple. We do not know what technology will be in the next decade or even in the next few years. It could be our saving grace or it could be our destroyer. We must focus on other aspects of the I=PAT equation while simultaneously focusing on technology. Yet if that technology has the purpose of promoting and creating "green" manufacturing it is much more likely that it will be beneficial to our future. I think, currently, we need to focus on more "green" manufacturing, after all we are still a country dependent on oil and there is nothing green about that. Greener products could lead to less of an impact of affluence since consumers would be purchasing products that were made with limited environmental harm and could be operated and disposed of with limited harm. But all of this is speculation and we are not at the point where we can afford to leave anything up to speculation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)