When I set out to have an environmental discussion this week, I had in mind that I wanted to discuss the issue with someone who had an opposing view on most environmental issues. The assignment was to listen as much as you talked. I wanted the opportunity to really sit down and think about the points made by those who are not as environmentally conscious.
I enlisted the help of my friend Dan, who is a business major. He believes in big business and making money. He has openly proclaimed that the ends justify the means in regards to money. I thought that I had my work cut out for me in calmly listening. We started our discussion on Saturday during the blazing heat, and of course he wanted to probe me regarding issues of global warming and sporadic temperatures. He started the discussion by stating that global warming is not as castastrophic as some claim, but that he did agree that there is something to be said of temperatures varying from 40 degrees to 90 degrees in the span of less than a week. We then accurately discussed the causes of global warming, both of us agreeing on the science. I then asked him what he believed the solution the problem to be. He remained silent for a few minutes, grimacing at me, you could read his thought process and frustration on his face. Though he was not an environmentalist in the least, he understood the complications of the problem. He then went on to say that government regulation has been ineffective thus far, and that big change lies with the weight big businesses. However, in his opinion big businesses will never jump on board unless they is something in it for them.
I was pleased with that answer. Even though he the epitome of the business type, he understands the weight of the issue and believes the science. Although the issue isn’t his biggest concern, he understands why people are worried. Moreover, I was thoroughly impressed that he seemed as disgruntled as I am with the daunting task of trying to fix of the earth’s environmental issues.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Don't back down
I talked with a guy waiting in line to get into the environment subcommittee hearings on a climate change and clean energy bill.
Make the polluters back down.
Make the polluters back down.
A Frustrating Conversation
I had a conversation with my roommate, who recently became a Republican during the election, and has made it clear to me multiple times before that she doesn't believe global warming is a fact. In the past, whenever we have started talking about the environment by chance, I tended to change the subject because I didn't want to get into an argument. Needless to say, we don't get along very well.
This time around I tried to listen and see what she had to say. She is from Portland, Oregon and made the argument that there are enough environmentalists in her state that it's okay for her to leave on the lights, heat, and TV at all hours and not recycle. I tried explaining the simple science of global warming and how consumption contributes. I tried telling her the consequences of climate change, but she would have none of it. She wouldn't listen and no matter what argument I made, she steadfastly disagreed.
After this conversation I learned that she won't listen to reason, although she is respectful enough not to tear down my Powershift and Eco-Sense posters from our door. I learned it is going to take a lot more than a conversation to convince a skeptic that global warming exists, let alone convincing someone to change their behaviors.
This time around I tried to listen and see what she had to say. She is from Portland, Oregon and made the argument that there are enough environmentalists in her state that it's okay for her to leave on the lights, heat, and TV at all hours and not recycle. I tried explaining the simple science of global warming and how consumption contributes. I tried telling her the consequences of climate change, but she would have none of it. She wouldn't listen and no matter what argument I made, she steadfastly disagreed.
After this conversation I learned that she won't listen to reason, although she is respectful enough not to tear down my Powershift and Eco-Sense posters from our door. I learned it is going to take a lot more than a conversation to convince a skeptic that global warming exists, let alone convincing someone to change their behaviors.
Monday, April 27, 2009
diverse perspectives, common ground
I have to admit that I am a moderate when it comes to environmental issues which means that few would really agree with me, but few would be completely opposed to my reasoning. For this assignment I could talk to someone completely skeptical or completely activist in environmental activism, but armed with arguments from this class and with ease of access, I chose to talk to my dad, a fairly ardent skeptic.
I let my dad open the debate mentioning that I am taking a class on environmental politics in which we are examining several different aspects of environmental protection. However, the issue quickly turned into climate change since it is the most publicized issue at the moment. I mentioned that I am somewhat inclined toward the environmentalist perspective that human activity contributes to environmental problems, but that I am not convinced that our activity as of now or in the near future spells imminent global collapse. I was impressed by my dad’s arguments. He refrained from disproved conjectures about the sun or claims that carbon dioxide is not a proven cause of warming. He mentioned the low percentage of total greenhouses gasses that are produced from human activity as opposed to all of the natural processes occurring globally, a fact which we discussed in class. In response I mentioned our discussion about natural sinks stating as more of a question than a rebuttal that if the Earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, our activity may overwhelm these natural sinks and destroy its ability to purify itself. He was not familiar with the sinks idea, but acceded to the logic only in so far as we could tell the limit of our natural sinks. He said that the Earth was getting warmer but not to an unprecedented extent despite the levels of carbon.
The point I returned to after that was that for the time being he appeared to be right, but the main question right now is how do we respond to an uncertain future. He said that was a bit of a loaded question. We rarely have an organized response to an uncertain future, and we are lucky when we have an organized, effective response to one that is short-term and certain. He is very skeptical about a top-down approach that is directed by government at the expense of populations particularly when it comes to achieving benefits that may never materialize and almost surely will not be felt in our lifetime. I have no argument there; we are certainly like-minded when it comes to political issues, but I mentioned Cradle to Cradle and the concept of redesigning. He was optimistic about this possibility as it fits with our approval of private innovation for a better lifestyle.
Through our differences we appeared to reach a compromise. Both of us believe that change has to follow practical objectives and be driven by hope of how life could be organized rather fears that are vague and uncertain. There are practical reasons to change our production and consumption behavior now, and these should be the message of the environmental movement.
I let my dad open the debate mentioning that I am taking a class on environmental politics in which we are examining several different aspects of environmental protection. However, the issue quickly turned into climate change since it is the most publicized issue at the moment. I mentioned that I am somewhat inclined toward the environmentalist perspective that human activity contributes to environmental problems, but that I am not convinced that our activity as of now or in the near future spells imminent global collapse. I was impressed by my dad’s arguments. He refrained from disproved conjectures about the sun or claims that carbon dioxide is not a proven cause of warming. He mentioned the low percentage of total greenhouses gasses that are produced from human activity as opposed to all of the natural processes occurring globally, a fact which we discussed in class. In response I mentioned our discussion about natural sinks stating as more of a question than a rebuttal that if the Earth has an ability to absorb a certain amount of naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, our activity may overwhelm these natural sinks and destroy its ability to purify itself. He was not familiar with the sinks idea, but acceded to the logic only in so far as we could tell the limit of our natural sinks. He said that the Earth was getting warmer but not to an unprecedented extent despite the levels of carbon.
The point I returned to after that was that for the time being he appeared to be right, but the main question right now is how do we respond to an uncertain future. He said that was a bit of a loaded question. We rarely have an organized response to an uncertain future, and we are lucky when we have an organized, effective response to one that is short-term and certain. He is very skeptical about a top-down approach that is directed by government at the expense of populations particularly when it comes to achieving benefits that may never materialize and almost surely will not be felt in our lifetime. I have no argument there; we are certainly like-minded when it comes to political issues, but I mentioned Cradle to Cradle and the concept of redesigning. He was optimistic about this possibility as it fits with our approval of private innovation for a better lifestyle.
Through our differences we appeared to reach a compromise. Both of us believe that change has to follow practical objectives and be driven by hope of how life could be organized rather fears that are vague and uncertain. There are practical reasons to change our production and consumption behavior now, and these should be the message of the environmental movement.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Optimistic book, interesting examples, complicated man
This time around I'd like you to consider the book we're reading at the moment. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
I think the idea of asking ourselves "What will a sustaining global commerce look like ten- or even a hundred- years from no?" is a ludicrous exercise. Planning for 10 years in the future is doable and humans may actually be able to follow that plan, but predicting what human society will look like 100 years from now is fruitless beyond a few broad parameters.
I did enjoy the notion that nothing inside the Earth system "goes away," something I've been telling people for years - whether it be sewage, trash or greenhouse gases.
I think they maybe a little too optimistic, particularly on page 149 when he brings up an apocryphal Henry David Thoreau story and uses it in a way I doubt Thoreau would condone.
Cradle to Cradle was written 7 years ago, and a lot has happened since then, and some of it could be attributed to this book. A few months back I found a very scathing article about Bill McDonough, but I think it did bring up some valid points http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/the-mortal-messiah.html
I think the idea of asking ourselves "What will a sustaining global commerce look like ten- or even a hundred- years from no?" is a ludicrous exercise. Planning for 10 years in the future is doable and humans may actually be able to follow that plan, but predicting what human society will look like 100 years from now is fruitless beyond a few broad parameters.
I did enjoy the notion that nothing inside the Earth system "goes away," something I've been telling people for years - whether it be sewage, trash or greenhouse gases.
I think they maybe a little too optimistic, particularly on page 149 when he brings up an apocryphal Henry David Thoreau story and uses it in a way I doubt Thoreau would condone.
Cradle to Cradle was written 7 years ago, and a lot has happened since then, and some of it could be attributed to this book. A few months back I found a very scathing article about Bill McDonough, but I think it did bring up some valid points http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/130/the-mortal-messiah.html
Cradle to Cradle
This time around I'd like you to consider the book we're reading at the moment. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
I was thoroughly depressed after reading the waterproof book. I understood that we have a lot of work to do and that we are kidding ourserlves if we think that we are just going to snap our fingers and expect the world to be healthy again. But I felt like the name of the book should have been cradle to cradle: the catch 22 of the environment...
I think that there can be a brigh future because of things like the actual book being an example of how we can manufacture essentials without taking more trees from the earth, the only question then is... will we be active in making that happen... i am not sure... I liked how the book was just bluntly honest but i feel like this was a little bit of a damper, because it was like... we have so much to do and from what we have been learning in class... it takes many different forums and conventions and meetings to make things happen that will make a susbstantial difference... and with this economic crisis... i am not sure if it will be in the radar of the governments and policy makers to change the habits of people...
Catch 22 of the environment... are we ready to change?
I was thoroughly depressed after reading the waterproof book. I understood that we have a lot of work to do and that we are kidding ourserlves if we think that we are just going to snap our fingers and expect the world to be healthy again. But I felt like the name of the book should have been cradle to cradle: the catch 22 of the environment...
I think that there can be a brigh future because of things like the actual book being an example of how we can manufacture essentials without taking more trees from the earth, the only question then is... will we be active in making that happen... i am not sure... I liked how the book was just bluntly honest but i feel like this was a little bit of a damper, because it was like... we have so much to do and from what we have been learning in class... it takes many different forums and conventions and meetings to make things happen that will make a susbstantial difference... and with this economic crisis... i am not sure if it will be in the radar of the governments and policy makers to change the habits of people...
Catch 22 of the environment... are we ready to change?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
I like waterproof books
I found Cradle to Cradle really inspiring, not just from an environmental standpoint but from a social organization standpoint. I have written before that for environmental solutions to be successful, there must be a way to incorporate them into the economic demands of consumers and industry. Redesigning things to be “upcycled” achieves exactly that.
I also liked the redesign idea because its benefits are more than purely environmental. This was not the first time that I heard that chemical components in water bottles can cause cancer. At that point I think I just got frustrated and said that basically everything causes cancer now. Why must we continue to make products that are harmful to us? Additionally, why must we continue to make things to be thrown away? I will probably have to replace my computer before grad school next year because the one I am currently using is becoming really slow, the CD drive doesn’t work anymore, and it makes some scary noises that lead me to believe it will break down at any minute. It is four years old and I get really annoyed that a $2000 piece of equipment can’t last longer than that. Their idea of leasing production capacity so that manufacturers retain the product to be reused when it is time for an upgrade could be a great innovation.
However, I am skeptical that everything we produce can eventually be upcycled in the same way. Furthermore, solutions may not come fast enough to produce the ecological benefits that people are demanding right now. The authors acknowledge that this process will last forever, take significant innovation, and require many failed attempts. I like the optimistic vision. I think more effort needs to be expended to make more products perfectly reusable, but more significant changes may be necessary in the shorter term.
I also liked the redesign idea because its benefits are more than purely environmental. This was not the first time that I heard that chemical components in water bottles can cause cancer. At that point I think I just got frustrated and said that basically everything causes cancer now. Why must we continue to make products that are harmful to us? Additionally, why must we continue to make things to be thrown away? I will probably have to replace my computer before grad school next year because the one I am currently using is becoming really slow, the CD drive doesn’t work anymore, and it makes some scary noises that lead me to believe it will break down at any minute. It is four years old and I get really annoyed that a $2000 piece of equipment can’t last longer than that. Their idea of leasing production capacity so that manufacturers retain the product to be reused when it is time for an upgrade could be a great innovation.
However, I am skeptical that everything we produce can eventually be upcycled in the same way. Furthermore, solutions may not come fast enough to produce the ecological benefits that people are demanding right now. The authors acknowledge that this process will last forever, take significant innovation, and require many failed attempts. I like the optimistic vision. I think more effort needs to be expended to make more products perfectly reusable, but more significant changes may be necessary in the shorter term.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Oh, The Skeptics
Both websites are very convincing. Friends of Science use various tools to persuade viewers of their position. The website has various video and audio files on the subject of climate change, a fact/myth section, as well as various articles. The website does a great job of presenting a plethora of evidence that appears to be a very scientifically based. Additionally, the Grist website is very user friendly and the outline format is easy to follow. The outline begins with skeptical frames of thought and moves into scientific based subjects with examples of types of arguments. Based on the layout and content the Grist website is more convincing and appears more credible.
I think that in order to evaluate and make sense of the scientific claims on the websites the reader must evaluate other viewpoints as well. Additionally, it is important to know where the websites are obtaining their information and if their sources are credible. In order for a controversial topic such as climate change to be fully evaluated all sides of the debate must be understood. Therefore, information from the skeptics as well as the believers should be compared and evaluated side by side.
I think that in order to evaluate and make sense of the scientific claims on the websites the reader must evaluate other viewpoints as well. Additionally, it is important to know where the websites are obtaining their information and if their sources are credible. In order for a controversial topic such as climate change to be fully evaluated all sides of the debate must be understood. Therefore, information from the skeptics as well as the believers should be compared and evaluated side by side.
Monday, April 6, 2009
seeing what sticks
The purpose of these sites is to convince people and sway opinion. People who may have heard of the concept of climate change/global warming will search the internet in an effort to inform themselves. In doing so they may stumble upon either of these websites and be treated to a framing of the truth. Anthropogenic Climate Change is an idea so massive in scale and scope that it is to be expected the issue would be debated. And because the data records and computer models show that the waste products of our civilization are altering the very climate, major political and socioeconomic decisions will have to be made. Originally, back in the 1970s, the scientific debate was raging on whether humans were altering the climate and if that was caused by the “greenhouse gases.” This debate meant more research was conducted, then new issues were raised so more research was done (such is the probing nature of science). This continued until about the late 80s early 90s when there was a basic scientific consensus. Of course more specific research continues, just like every other scientific discipline. There is still disagreement about ancillary causes/effects, but just as scientists agree in the premise of relativity or evolution there is still disagreement over the details of anthropogenic climate change.
The best way to evaluate the scientific claims of these sites is to read their references. Many times in “junk science” claims a clever argument-builder will purposefully misrepresent a source in order to build credibility. It takes careful study and a mastery of chemical and physical jargon to properly understand papers on climatology, and while I have been studying these things for my whole undergraduate career, I don’t understand the majority of papers.
I think the Grist site is more convincing because it is much longer, has more citations from more recognizable sources, and does not make purely counter-factual claims without explaining them. It is also hard to find what kind of skepticism the Friends of Science practice, but it seems to be natural variation of the sun coupled with CO2 not being a serious greenhouse gas. The most “credible” skeptics are those that have a set angle and do not throw up every last criticism (even if the criticisms contradict) and see what sticks in the public discourse.
The best way to evaluate the scientific claims of these sites is to read their references. Many times in “junk science” claims a clever argument-builder will purposefully misrepresent a source in order to build credibility. It takes careful study and a mastery of chemical and physical jargon to properly understand papers on climatology, and while I have been studying these things for my whole undergraduate career, I don’t understand the majority of papers.
I think the Grist site is more convincing because it is much longer, has more citations from more recognizable sources, and does not make purely counter-factual claims without explaining them. It is also hard to find what kind of skepticism the Friends of Science practice, but it seems to be natural variation of the sun coupled with CO2 not being a serious greenhouse gas. The most “credible” skeptics are those that have a set angle and do not throw up every last criticism (even if the criticisms contradict) and see what sticks in the public discourse.
Dealing with the Skeptics
I think both the websites "Friends of Science" and Grist's "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" present their information in a relevant and simple way. Friends of Science uses the classic, myth vs. fact layout while Grist uses each argument against the existence of climate change and lays out multiple articles to the contrary. The purpose of these websites is to educate the public with information (no matter how truthful it is) and gain supporters of their specific movement. Grist presents more complete information, however, with each question followed by multiple responses and supporting evidence.
As we read this week in Joseph Romm's piece, rhetoric is commonly used to refute global warming. Friends of Science uses this tactic with simple and short answers to the myths, as well as using very specific words that limit the scope of the issue.
As we read this week in Joseph Romm's piece, rhetoric is commonly used to refute global warming. Friends of Science uses this tactic with simple and short answers to the myths, as well as using very specific words that limit the scope of the issue.
Trying to navigate the bias
I though both of these websites were really slick. Both appealed to the scientific authority and appeared to present evidence to support their claims with very different conclusions. “Friends of Science” pokes holes in the arguments of climate change believers and “How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic” refutes the arguments of non-believers in a slightly more obvious way. Both are scientific and both are political, and looking at each issue side by side makes the issue more confusing for me.
I think the only viable way to evaluate the claims is to examine them very specifically and, assuming that neither completely misrepresents the evidence, look to the specific language that each uses to refute the other. To illustrate the point, I was surprised to read on friends of science that, “To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.” So, there are a couple of key words: “proof”, “man-made”, “cause”, and “significant”. We have to realize the statements limitation. It does not state that CO2 does not cause global warming, but it may be tempting to misconstrue that idea. There are refuting essays on How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic which address those key words. First, the issue of proof is difficult because scientific evidence can only show a correlation. Man-made is addressed in that although we contribute only slightly to CO2 atmospheric levels, that little bit puts more into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb. How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic places the burden on the skeptics to determine what would cause climate change if not CO2 and related gasses and significant is judged on the basis of our geologic timescale which would predict a significant period of cooling at the present time. However, it is also interesting to note that while the skeptics have the burden of explaining what would contribute to naturally warming at this time, the believers do know that natural cooling and warming has occurred outside of human industrialization. I have to conclude that that particular claim by friends of science is not false, but it is misleading in light of other considerations. Unfortunately, I think this type of analysis (constantly looking for different sides, slants, and conflicting claims) is necessary for each connected issue to truly understand the climate change debate and make sense of the raw data.
I think the only viable way to evaluate the claims is to examine them very specifically and, assuming that neither completely misrepresents the evidence, look to the specific language that each uses to refute the other. To illustrate the point, I was surprised to read on friends of science that, “To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.” So, there are a couple of key words: “proof”, “man-made”, “cause”, and “significant”. We have to realize the statements limitation. It does not state that CO2 does not cause global warming, but it may be tempting to misconstrue that idea. There are refuting essays on How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic which address those key words. First, the issue of proof is difficult because scientific evidence can only show a correlation. Man-made is addressed in that although we contribute only slightly to CO2 atmospheric levels, that little bit puts more into the atmosphere than the earth can absorb. How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic places the burden on the skeptics to determine what would cause climate change if not CO2 and related gasses and significant is judged on the basis of our geologic timescale which would predict a significant period of cooling at the present time. However, it is also interesting to note that while the skeptics have the burden of explaining what would contribute to naturally warming at this time, the believers do know that natural cooling and warming has occurred outside of human industrialization. I have to conclude that that particular claim by friends of science is not false, but it is misleading in light of other considerations. Unfortunately, I think this type of analysis (constantly looking for different sides, slants, and conflicting claims) is necessary for each connected issue to truly understand the climate change debate and make sense of the raw data.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wholly Unreasonable
"This week I've challenged you to go a week without eating anything containing corn or corn derivatives. On your blogs this week I'd like you to write about the experience. How easy or hard has this been for you? Did you come across anything particularly challenging or surprising? What did the overall experience teach you about the contemporary US food system?"
So while I contemplated sticking to this corn-free diet for a week, I gave up rather quickly. I would have had to buy an entirely new stock of food for my apartment. Time was a big factor last week, I was very busy keeping up with assignments and this was just too much. Corn sweeteners or extracts are in nearly everything! I would have to become a raw vegan in order to maintain a corn-free diet! So for me, it would have been improbable because I would have to buy all new food, not eat nearly any food from a restaurant, and turn my entire eating habits on their head at a moment's notice.
The US food system has been redesigned over a long period to incentivize the production of commodity crops like corn. My home state, Iowa, has been a big contributor to the lunacy and now it is paying severe environmental costs. There's so much corn that in the 1970s, in order to keep corn prices up without just throwing the crop away, farmers started making ethanol from corn. Now the world's hungry are paying some of those costs. Food manufacturers have replaced sugar with corn syrup because it is cheaper, and they use corn extracts because corn is plentiful. Corn is cheap and plentiful because the food system is set up to make it so, regardless of human health.
So while I contemplated sticking to this corn-free diet for a week, I gave up rather quickly. I would have had to buy an entirely new stock of food for my apartment. Time was a big factor last week, I was very busy keeping up with assignments and this was just too much. Corn sweeteners or extracts are in nearly everything! I would have to become a raw vegan in order to maintain a corn-free diet! So for me, it would have been improbable because I would have to buy all new food, not eat nearly any food from a restaurant, and turn my entire eating habits on their head at a moment's notice.
The US food system has been redesigned over a long period to incentivize the production of commodity crops like corn. My home state, Iowa, has been a big contributor to the lunacy and now it is paying severe environmental costs. There's so much corn that in the 1970s, in order to keep corn prices up without just throwing the crop away, farmers started making ethanol from corn. Now the world's hungry are paying some of those costs. Food manufacturers have replaced sugar with corn syrup because it is cheaper, and they use corn extracts because corn is plentiful. Corn is cheap and plentiful because the food system is set up to make it so, regardless of human health.
Wait I can't put ketchup on my organic scrambled eggs?
After last week’s class I went straight to my room to sort through my food to see what I could eat for the next week. I found four items out of probably 20 or so. That’s when I began to realize the impact of corn. The four items were oatmeal, whole grain pasta, organic yogurt, and bananas.I love food so I was really excited to be forced to make good decisions and excited to cook meals. After finding few items in my room that I could eat, I decided to go to whole foods. I stocked up on organic, veggie fed, free range chicken eggs, organic yogurt, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, hummus, more oatmeal, organic pasta sauce, and quinoa.
The first few days went really well, I found myself being more energized and feeling better. I was enjoying the food that I was eating and I had to be conscious on how to prepare the food. However, I was constantly hungry. I found that 6 small meals were in order to keep my stomach from constantly yelling at me.
I managed to be diligent all week. Although I had one minor slip up. I had a piece of Starburst candy. At a meeting, a bowl of candy was going around and without even thinking twice about it I ate the Starburst. After eating it, I chastised myself for not thinking before I ate.
This week of no corn helped me grasp how dependent our society is on corn. Also, I learned to be more aware of what foods I consume. I find now that I’m constantly questioning what’s goes into the food I’m eating and where it came from.
The first few days went really well, I found myself being more energized and feeling better. I was enjoying the food that I was eating and I had to be conscious on how to prepare the food. However, I was constantly hungry. I found that 6 small meals were in order to keep my stomach from constantly yelling at me.
I managed to be diligent all week. Although I had one minor slip up. I had a piece of Starburst candy. At a meeting, a bowl of candy was going around and without even thinking twice about it I ate the Starburst. After eating it, I chastised myself for not thinking before I ate.
This week of no corn helped me grasp how dependent our society is on corn. Also, I learned to be more aware of what foods I consume. I find now that I’m constantly questioning what’s goes into the food I’m eating and where it came from.
Monday, March 30, 2009
A week without corn...almost
I was surprised that this week was not as difficult as I anticipated. I figured it would be nearly impossible because basically everything has corn in it, but if you take the time to prepare meals from natural ingredients, it’s completely possible. Cooking is a hobby for me, so having to prepare all of my meals was not too challenging, just slightly more time consuming.
I did cheat a couple of times, however. I refused to give up washing my hair, brushing my teeth, or taking my daily medication. I also was stuck on campus all day Monday necessitating the consumption of prepared foods available here which I am sure all contain some sort of corn product. Also, I had a breakdown on Thursday night in which I was desperate for some junk food, so I ate a cookie.
One surprising discovery, which is a little gross and personal, I’ll share anyway because maybe someone else experienced this as well. Although preparing meals was not too hard, finding viable snacks to eat between meals was challenging. My go-to option for the week was chopped raw vegetables with hummus or a piece of fruit. I started getting really bad indigestion, and after a little reading on the web, I learned that this was a really common problem for people switching for the fashionable raw foods diet. Basically, the way we eat now has depleted our intestinal enzymes and ability to digest these foods. I had to start blanching all of my veggies just to avoid the pain of healthy eating! Although I don't plan to cut corn completely out of my diet, I think I walk away from this experience much more aware of the difficulties in avoiding preservatives and how to avoid excessive quantities. I won't criticize the eating habits of others, but I, for one, do not want to be putting so many of these additives into my body
I did cheat a couple of times, however. I refused to give up washing my hair, brushing my teeth, or taking my daily medication. I also was stuck on campus all day Monday necessitating the consumption of prepared foods available here which I am sure all contain some sort of corn product. Also, I had a breakdown on Thursday night in which I was desperate for some junk food, so I ate a cookie.
One surprising discovery, which is a little gross and personal, I’ll share anyway because maybe someone else experienced this as well. Although preparing meals was not too hard, finding viable snacks to eat between meals was challenging. My go-to option for the week was chopped raw vegetables with hummus or a piece of fruit. I started getting really bad indigestion, and after a little reading on the web, I learned that this was a really common problem for people switching for the fashionable raw foods diet. Basically, the way we eat now has depleted our intestinal enzymes and ability to digest these foods. I had to start blanching all of my veggies just to avoid the pain of healthy eating! Although I don't plan to cut corn completely out of my diet, I think I walk away from this experience much more aware of the difficulties in avoiding preservatives and how to avoid excessive quantities. I won't criticize the eating habits of others, but I, for one, do not want to be putting so many of these additives into my body
Monday, March 23, 2009
Food, Glorious Food
When I make choices about the food I consume, I think about health, price, and the environment. Since coming to college, I have made a pointed effort of trying to eat a balanced diet. When I shop for groceries, I go to Whole Foods or Safeway, and always look at the ingredient labels. Like Brittany said, sometimes a product is marketed as healthy, but really is not. In the dining hall, I always take home (steal) a few pieces of fruit for breakfast the next day or snack. When I have time and a little extra money, I go to farmer's markets for locally grown and organic food.
I have been trying to slowly cut meat out of my diet for the past month or so, but the hamburger I ate a few days ago probably had the highest environmental impact. Meat production is one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the United States. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions generated from raising animals for food is more than all greenhouse gases produced by transportation in the world combined. I think it is quite feasible for many people concerned about the environment to become vegetarians, if not vegans. Cutting meat out of your diet has a greater impact than switching to a hybrid car.
I have been trying to slowly cut meat out of my diet for the past month or so, but the hamburger I ate a few days ago probably had the highest environmental impact. Meat production is one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the United States. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions generated from raising animals for food is more than all greenhouse gases produced by transportation in the world combined. I think it is quite feasible for many people concerned about the environment to become vegetarians, if not vegans. Cutting meat out of your diet has a greater impact than switching to a hybrid car.
Food Choices
When making food choices I first and foremost think about nutrition. I try to make balanced food choices, as a result I’m cognizant of how much of each food group I’ve consumed in one day. It is important to me to eat lots of vegetables and foods while at school. In addition to food group classification, I’m a stickler for reading ingredient labels. Many products claim to be healthy for you, but really they’re not. As a student, it’s hard to afford organic foods, so I don’t usually take environmental concerns into account. However, sometimes when shopping at Whole Foods I can find great deals on environmentally friendly foods. At home my family only eats organic free range meats, my parents are definitely have the environment in mind when purchasing food for the family. We’ve found that the environmentally friendly foods are also more times than not more healthy for you.
The food item that I consumed in the past few days that has had the most environmental impact would mostly likely be kielbasa. Made from processed turkey meat, the production of kielbasa releases a large amount of nitrogen into the air, never mind the fact that the turkeys are probably kept in small pens. The turkeys are probably also pumped with antibiotics and fed a wheat/corn diet while standing in their own feces. Plus the energy that goes into feeding the turkeys is probably greater than the energy that the turkey provides me after its consumption.
Brittany
The food item that I consumed in the past few days that has had the most environmental impact would mostly likely be kielbasa. Made from processed turkey meat, the production of kielbasa releases a large amount of nitrogen into the air, never mind the fact that the turkeys are probably kept in small pens. The turkeys are probably also pumped with antibiotics and fed a wheat/corn diet while standing in their own feces. Plus the energy that goes into feeding the turkeys is probably greater than the energy that the turkey provides me after its consumption.
Brittany
1. What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff? 2. Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why?
1. I usually pick food based upon some amount of reverance to the USDA's food pyramid but with a lot of personal taste thrown in for good measure. Cost is also a major factor because I don't have much money for food. I do consider the environment when buying food, especially when it comes to picking local options when available and organic when it is reasonably priced. I do not eat as much meat as I used to, mostly because I have seen first hand how most meat is farmed very unsustainably. I no longer eat seafood I have not caught myself because of environmental reasons. I try to buy at farmers' markets when I have the time to attend them. I wish there was a closer co-op grocery store to campus.
2. I think the can of vanilla coke I drank yesterday had the most environmental impact. The water is from a source hundreds of miles away in Atlanta. The high fructose corn syrup is probably derived from a GMO monocrop of maize from the midwest. The aluminum can takes considerable energy to produce, some of which can be made up for by recycling. Considering the purpose of the can of pop is mostly hydration, which can be met with simple tap water, from an environmental perspective it is a luxury item. I should probably just cut pop out of my diet altogether for nutritional and financial reasons. My environmental impact will also be lowered because of it.
1. I usually pick food based upon some amount of reverance to the USDA's food pyramid but with a lot of personal taste thrown in for good measure. Cost is also a major factor because I don't have much money for food. I do consider the environment when buying food, especially when it comes to picking local options when available and organic when it is reasonably priced. I do not eat as much meat as I used to, mostly because I have seen first hand how most meat is farmed very unsustainably. I no longer eat seafood I have not caught myself because of environmental reasons. I try to buy at farmers' markets when I have the time to attend them. I wish there was a closer co-op grocery store to campus.
2. I think the can of vanilla coke I drank yesterday had the most environmental impact. The water is from a source hundreds of miles away in Atlanta. The high fructose corn syrup is probably derived from a GMO monocrop of maize from the midwest. The aluminum can takes considerable energy to produce, some of which can be made up for by recycling. Considering the purpose of the can of pop is mostly hydration, which can be met with simple tap water, from an environmental perspective it is a luxury item. I should probably just cut pop out of my diet altogether for nutritional and financial reasons. My environmental impact will also be lowered because of it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Environmental Unconsciously
Grocery store choices:
I certainly do not think at all about the environmental impact of my grocery store choices when I am shopping, but after watching the video this afternoon, I think my choices are more environmentally conscious than most alternatives. I usually consider health impacts, ease of preparation, and the taste of things, but I prefer light Mediterranean or Asian cooking to more traditional American food. I don't like prepared, frozen foods, and I generally shop the perimeter of the store buying mostly nuts, fruits and vegetables. I also buy a lot of beans, lentils and soy products, not for environmental reasons but because they are tasty, cheep, and really quick and easy to prepare and store. I am not vegan, but I don't eat that much meat or dairy on a regular basis.
Beverages:
I mostly stick to water, tea, and coffee. I don't drink soda or sugary fruit juices, but on occasion, I do drink alcohol. For me, that's probably the most environmentally harmful. Wine is probably not too bad because there are relatively few additives and process that go into its production, but the distilled liquor like gin and vodka require more energy.
I certainly do not think at all about the environmental impact of my grocery store choices when I am shopping, but after watching the video this afternoon, I think my choices are more environmentally conscious than most alternatives. I usually consider health impacts, ease of preparation, and the taste of things, but I prefer light Mediterranean or Asian cooking to more traditional American food. I don't like prepared, frozen foods, and I generally shop the perimeter of the store buying mostly nuts, fruits and vegetables. I also buy a lot of beans, lentils and soy products, not for environmental reasons but because they are tasty, cheep, and really quick and easy to prepare and store. I am not vegan, but I don't eat that much meat or dairy on a regular basis.
Beverages:
I mostly stick to water, tea, and coffee. I don't drink soda or sugary fruit juices, but on occasion, I do drink alcohol. For me, that's probably the most environmentally harmful. Wine is probably not too bad because there are relatively few additives and process that go into its production, but the distilled liquor like gin and vodka require more energy.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
Technology may help, but i do not think that it will save us. People have to chnage their habits in order for us to live a more environmentally stable life. People have to make sacrifices that they are not willing to make at this era in order to try to reverse some of the detrimental things we have done to mother earth. I am in the middle of this question because there are ways that technology has helped us, for example the Prius.... a more environmentally conscious car. Then there is also increase in population and the poverty around the world doesnt seem to be getting collectively better.
In environmental terms I think it means will technology minimize our ecological footprints therefore make less of an impact in the world so that it will last longer. I also thing that people that continue to waste willl do so because they feel that they will not be here anyway so why preseve the earth for more to come....
Technology may help, but i do not think that it will save us. People have to chnage their habits in order for us to live a more environmentally stable life. People have to make sacrifices that they are not willing to make at this era in order to try to reverse some of the detrimental things we have done to mother earth. I am in the middle of this question because there are ways that technology has helped us, for example the Prius.... a more environmentally conscious car. Then there is also increase in population and the poverty around the world doesnt seem to be getting collectively better.
In environmental terms I think it means will technology minimize our ecological footprints therefore make less of an impact in the world so that it will last longer. I also thing that people that continue to waste willl do so because they feel that they will not be here anyway so why preseve the earth for more to come....
Monday, March 2, 2009
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
To say that technological innovations alone will be able to save the Earth and humanity is a foolish prediction. Technology is not inherently beneficial or detrimental to the environment. Efficient energy use in everyday technology will be beneficial to the environment, while the technology associated with "clean coal" is really putting a band aid on a bullet wound.
I agree with Drew in that technology needs to advance to where it is helping humans understand ecosystems, the atmosphere and other environmental systems, as well as the detrimental effect humans have on the environment.
Technological innovations in the case of ozone depletion was the driving force behind the "saving" of the ozone layer. But this may not be the case with future problems. With the help of technology, a change in consumption habits, enforcement of international agreements, a change in humans' perception of the environment, and a strong political actions will ultimately "save us."
To say that technological innovations alone will be able to save the Earth and humanity is a foolish prediction. Technology is not inherently beneficial or detrimental to the environment. Efficient energy use in everyday technology will be beneficial to the environment, while the technology associated with "clean coal" is really putting a band aid on a bullet wound.
I agree with Drew in that technology needs to advance to where it is helping humans understand ecosystems, the atmosphere and other environmental systems, as well as the detrimental effect humans have on the environment.
Technological innovations in the case of ozone depletion was the driving force behind the "saving" of the ozone layer. But this may not be the case with future problems. With the help of technology, a change in consumption habits, enforcement of international agreements, a change in humans' perception of the environment, and a strong political actions will ultimately "save us."
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
Firstly, after a long weekend of working on environmental policy for Power Shift, I feel compelled to get my Devil's advocacy out of the way. Beyond a mere basic or intuitive sense of the environment, we need our technology to understand it better. Supercomputers are able to model everything from the climate to food webs. Collecting data and analyzing it with advanced technology can give us a better sense of the natural truth. Advanced technology allows us to launch satellites and study the Earth's systems from orbit. I realize that the use of technology for science is not the typical application of the T in I=PAT, but it is the part of T that must be preserved in any reformulation of society to be intelligently sustainable.
I'm afraid I have to give the trite answer that technology alone cannot save us. Such an immense dependence on technology alone to solve a problem would be unprecedented. I believe "save us" in environmental terms means conserving the ecological systems that make human life on Earth possible and fulfilling. Part of that are biodiversity and ecosystem services.
For Power Shift 2009, I spoke with the offices of each member of the Iowa congressional delegation. Dominant in the talks were the technological solutions to "save us" like renewable energy, transportation decoupled from fossil fuels, and greater efficiency. Maybe the question of "will it save us" is dependent upon humanity's "will" to make the hard technological choices, some of which have astronomical upfront monetary costs. One of the responses I kept using to monetary objections was that "Anything worthwhile is never free!"
Firstly, after a long weekend of working on environmental policy for Power Shift, I feel compelled to get my Devil's advocacy out of the way. Beyond a mere basic or intuitive sense of the environment, we need our technology to understand it better. Supercomputers are able to model everything from the climate to food webs. Collecting data and analyzing it with advanced technology can give us a better sense of the natural truth. Advanced technology allows us to launch satellites and study the Earth's systems from orbit. I realize that the use of technology for science is not the typical application of the T in I=PAT, but it is the part of T that must be preserved in any reformulation of society to be intelligently sustainable.
I'm afraid I have to give the trite answer that technology alone cannot save us. Such an immense dependence on technology alone to solve a problem would be unprecedented. I believe "save us" in environmental terms means conserving the ecological systems that make human life on Earth possible and fulfilling. Part of that are biodiversity and ecosystem services.
For Power Shift 2009, I spoke with the offices of each member of the Iowa congressional delegation. Dominant in the talks were the technological solutions to "save us" like renewable energy, transportation decoupled from fossil fuels, and greater efficiency. Maybe the question of "will it save us" is dependent upon humanity's "will" to make the hard technological choices, some of which have astronomical upfront monetary costs. One of the responses I kept using to monetary objections was that "Anything worthwhile is never free!"
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
I admit that I am generally optimistic about the ability of technology to develop and make our lives more environmentally friendly. I don't think it "saves us" in the sense that we can allow technology to develop without looking at our lifestyle and population growth and making changes in those areas as well. This argument reaches back to our discussion about the I=PAT model and which of the factors is most important. I came to the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that all of the factors must be affected at least a little bit in order to reduce impact.
However, I am also a bit more optimistic about technology than I am about consumption or affluence because better, cleaner technology is not an end adverse to market mechanisms. While arguments concerning the emptiness of GDP and market indicators are well-taken, I don't think arguments from a growth/development vs. environment prospective are in the long-term interests of environmental solutions. I hate the term sustainability because it has become a bit trite and meaningless in colloquial use, but there must be a way so serve man's comfort and acquisition interest without killing the natural resources. Tempering man's instinct is certainly important, but the readings for this week indicate that we are willing to trade only so much. We were able to reduce CFCs because we could find viable alternatives that did not destroy industry. Carbon emissions are a bit stickier because we are only starting to explore alternative options, and none have yet emerged as a clearly cheep and reasonable alternative. The unavoidable trend to me is if the question is development or environment, we choose development, but if we can create a development and environment solution, our outlook is much brighter. If there is a way to create the latter option, I think technology holds the key.
Alli Gerhart
I admit that I am generally optimistic about the ability of technology to develop and make our lives more environmentally friendly. I don't think it "saves us" in the sense that we can allow technology to develop without looking at our lifestyle and population growth and making changes in those areas as well. This argument reaches back to our discussion about the I=PAT model and which of the factors is most important. I came to the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that all of the factors must be affected at least a little bit in order to reduce impact.
However, I am also a bit more optimistic about technology than I am about consumption or affluence because better, cleaner technology is not an end adverse to market mechanisms. While arguments concerning the emptiness of GDP and market indicators are well-taken, I don't think arguments from a growth/development vs. environment prospective are in the long-term interests of environmental solutions. I hate the term sustainability because it has become a bit trite and meaningless in colloquial use, but there must be a way so serve man's comfort and acquisition interest without killing the natural resources. Tempering man's instinct is certainly important, but the readings for this week indicate that we are willing to trade only so much. We were able to reduce CFCs because we could find viable alternatives that did not destroy industry. Carbon emissions are a bit stickier because we are only starting to explore alternative options, and none have yet emerged as a clearly cheep and reasonable alternative. The unavoidable trend to me is if the question is development or environment, we choose development, but if we can create a development and environment solution, our outlook is much brighter. If there is a way to create the latter option, I think technology holds the key.
Alli Gerhart
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
No Stimulus Would Be Best for the Environment
As highlighted in previous class readings, I think that the United States is too invested in the idea of economic stability and stimulation. Too many people believe that specific numbers about the economy will directly affect their happiness and well being. The stimulus package restores a sense of calmness back into the minds of consumers. The stimulus also gives funds to environmental issues. The funds are a step in the right direction, but I believe that no matter how much funding you poor into a issue if people aren’t serious about it then the effect of the funds will be canceled by lack of action. The stimulus package is going to bring consumerism back up, thus adversely affecting the environment. I think that without the stimulus package Americans could try to break their addiction to consumerism as well as help the environment. Americans could save their money, increase nonmaterial happiness, and help the environment.
Brittany Stewart
Brittany Stewart
What the Stimulus Package Means for the Environment
I think the stimulus package was a step in the right direction for our government to start seriously thinking about the environment in tandem with economy. The future of jobs in America are in green jobs, not the auto industry or coal mining. Although the plan is not perfect (like the $3.4 billion for fossil fuel research as Drew mentioned) it is a start. If the plan was heaped in environmental spending, it may not have passed through Congress. Some environmentalists think Obama did not go far enough in his spending on clean energy and the environment, however, we need to recognize the parts of the plan (such as the money for smart-grid and clean up) as a stepping stone for a more comprehensive energy bill to be passed in the near future. The stimulus has some beneficial spending for the environment, but it is just a warm-up for what the country really needs to accomplish.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
maybe a colorless stimulus
Drew did a nice job of pulling apart some of the environmental provisions listed in the legislation, so in the interests of brevity I won't repeat them. It seems, on the surface, a positive. Perhaps if some of these projects are implemented effectively, especially those that involve reworking old infrastructure to be more energy-efficient, we will be able to recover economically with slightly less environmental impact. Nonetheless, it seems to fall short of what activists are hoping for. The unfortunate relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation seems to be direct. As one increases so does the other, so I have to conclude that no stimulus would be greener than any stimulus.
a light green stimulus
On Tuesday, President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan. What does this new stimulus package appear to mean for the environment?
The stimulus is mostly a continuation of Cornucopian-Promethean thinking, although some of the funds are allocated wisely in term of environmental protection.
Firstly, the $286,869,000,000 for tax cuts is bad for the environment because it further promotes cancerous overconsumption of resources. One of the goals is to stimulate consumer spending, and this is after a decade long binge of consumers overspending. Tax cuts without a serious restructuring of incentives is not a long term solution to the environmental and economic crises.
But in the short term, I like some of the investments the government is going to make in the environment. My favorite is the $8 billion allocated for high speed rail systems, because I would really really like to be able to take the train while I'm back home in Iowa. The $11 billion for smart-grid is also pretty good, except to actually get a smart grid nationwide will cost something like $200 billion. There's also some money for research in renewables, but like I said before, the incentives just need to be restructed - something that puts a price on GHGs. Also many pieces of the stimulus include money for all kinds of efficiency - my sincerest hope is that efficiency money is spent wisely and effectively because I think it would be easy for agencies to lie and waste the efficiency money (counter intuitive, eh?). I like the several billion set aside for old-school style environmental clean-up, but I would prefer that money to clean up environmental problems is along the lines of "polluter pays." Many things are somewhat related to the environment in the stimulus, like money for NASA research.
The worst thing is the $3.4 billion for fossil fuel research, which sounds to me like clean-coal, tar sands, and off-shore drilling.
The stimulus is mostly a continuation of Cornucopian-Promethean thinking, although some of the funds are allocated wisely in term of environmental protection.
Firstly, the $286,869,000,000 for tax cuts is bad for the environment because it further promotes cancerous overconsumption of resources. One of the goals is to stimulate consumer spending, and this is after a decade long binge of consumers overspending. Tax cuts without a serious restructuring of incentives is not a long term solution to the environmental and economic crises.
But in the short term, I like some of the investments the government is going to make in the environment. My favorite is the $8 billion allocated for high speed rail systems, because I would really really like to be able to take the train while I'm back home in Iowa. The $11 billion for smart-grid is also pretty good, except to actually get a smart grid nationwide will cost something like $200 billion. There's also some money for research in renewables, but like I said before, the incentives just need to be restructed - something that puts a price on GHGs. Also many pieces of the stimulus include money for all kinds of efficiency - my sincerest hope is that efficiency money is spent wisely and effectively because I think it would be easy for agencies to lie and waste the efficiency money (counter intuitive, eh?). I like the several billion set aside for old-school style environmental clean-up, but I would prefer that money to clean up environmental problems is along the lines of "polluter pays." Many things are somewhat related to the environment in the stimulus, like money for NASA research.
The worst thing is the $3.4 billion for fossil fuel research, which sounds to me like clean-coal, tar sands, and off-shore drilling.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A Non-Human World Experience
To pick one thrilling non-human engagement is really difficult. There’s a few that spring to mind. The most magical engagement for me happened a few summers ago, my family and I were vacationing on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. On one of the first nights there I went wondering by myself to the Cape Cod Bay. The tide was receding and you could walk on the sand for ages before you reached the water. The sun was setting and it was incredible to see all the colors. As I walked closer to the water and further from the shoreline, there were lots of shells strewn across the sand, I even came across a horseshoe crab. That showed me that by simply wandering around you stumble upon really awesome moments in nature.
Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.
Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.
A Non-Human World Experience
To pick one thrilling non-human engagement is really difficult. There’s a few that spring to mind. The most magical engagement for me happened a few summers ago, my family and I were vacationing on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. On one of the first nights there I went wondering by myself to the Cape Cod Bay. The tide was receding and you could walk on the sand for ages before you reached the water. The sun was setting and it was incredible to see all the colors. As I walked closer to the water and further from the shoreline, there were lots of shells strewn across the sand, I even came across a horseshoe crab. That showed me that by simply wandering around you stumble upon really awesome moments in nature.
Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.
Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Week 3 Questions
The most memorable engagements I've had with the non-human world came last summer when I worked as a Piping Plover Steward. The piping plover is an endangered species of shorebird, and my job was to educate the patrons of the beach about the birds and to keep them out of fenced areas where the birds nested. The main reasons for the plovers' decline is commercial development on beach fronts and human disturbance. One of my duties was to locate nests and build protective barriers called exclosures to keep out predators and humans. In the 10 to 15 minute race to get an exclosure up, the parents of the eggs would be close by performing their "broken wing" defense mechanism. An adult will flap its wings close to the ground and run around a predator so it thinks it is injured--therefore a predator will go after the weak adult rather than an egg or chick. These particular parents were extremely protective and they did their broken wing dance from the time we showed up at the site 50 yards away, to when we ran back to our truck to watch with binoculars if the birds sat back on the nest. While we were erecting the exclosure one parent was flailing right beneath my feet, and flapping its wings on my shoes and legs. It made the process frustrating and difficult, but in the end I was touched by the birds fearlessness of trying to attack something hundreds of times bigger and stronger, for its eggs. After these particular eggs were hatched, I monitored the chicks closely, but realized the parents of the chicks did not need any help in protecting their family.
Some other memorable experiences that I have to mention from this job--
covering a rouge squirrel with (harmless!) pink fluorescent powder, watching plover eggs hatch, seeing a pregnant pilot whale washed ashore, and rescuing a orphan baby plover from the wind and rainstorm.
I think "saving nature" is something people must engage in for the future of our planet, and therefore humankind. Directly contributing to this cause as a plover steward, I felt like I did make a difference in the well-being of this plover population. To save nature on a global scale, however, will take much more. We need to stop human encroachment into the wilderness and the overuse of natural resources. Fossil fuels must be phased out for a world powered by clean, sustainable energy. Humans need to realize that nature was here first, its sole purpose is not to meet the needs of human consumption.
I think this quote by Dave Foreman sums humans effect on nature very well: "Our environmental problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves as the central nervous system or the brain of nature. We're not the brain, we are the cancer on nature."
Some other memorable experiences that I have to mention from this job--
covering a rouge squirrel with (harmless!) pink fluorescent powder, watching plover eggs hatch, seeing a pregnant pilot whale washed ashore, and rescuing a orphan baby plover from the wind and rainstorm.
I think "saving nature" is something people must engage in for the future of our planet, and therefore humankind. Directly contributing to this cause as a plover steward, I felt like I did make a difference in the well-being of this plover population. To save nature on a global scale, however, will take much more. We need to stop human encroachment into the wilderness and the overuse of natural resources. Fossil fuels must be phased out for a world powered by clean, sustainable energy. Humans need to realize that nature was here first, its sole purpose is not to meet the needs of human consumption.
I think this quote by Dave Foreman sums humans effect on nature very well: "Our environmental problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves as the central nervous system or the brain of nature. We're not the brain, we are the cancer on nature."
Timeless Wild
What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
This is a really hard choice for me, because 4 or 5 different experiences come to mind. Above the others, I would say that the most enchanting experience I've ever had in the non-human world while I was fishing. It was the summer before college and my father took me to the river a dozen miles from our house. The day was calm, overcast, and warm, just before a light evening rain. In the middle of the stream, water flowing by my feet, wind in my hair, fly rod in hand, I felt connected to nature on a primeval level. The whole experience felt timeless, like the act of fishing was something that always existed and always will be. I caught the fish, and I let them go; it was an amicable game.
And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Yes, and I would agree saving nature is mostly an exercise in human restraint. If we are to save nature and thus save ourselves, we have to stop the cancerous expansion of human modifications to the ecosystem. I know that this is no longer completely in reason, due to the fact that man-made polution now permeates every corner of the globe, but there is still so much worth saving. We need nature for all of the ecosystem services it provides, in addition to the aesthetic, spiritural, and cultural values nature can provide. In order to save nature for future humans to understand what Earth was like, will require very active measures to increase efficiency and conserve wild places.
This is a really hard choice for me, because 4 or 5 different experiences come to mind. Above the others, I would say that the most enchanting experience I've ever had in the non-human world while I was fishing. It was the summer before college and my father took me to the river a dozen miles from our house. The day was calm, overcast, and warm, just before a light evening rain. In the middle of the stream, water flowing by my feet, wind in my hair, fly rod in hand, I felt connected to nature on a primeval level. The whole experience felt timeless, like the act of fishing was something that always existed and always will be. I caught the fish, and I let them go; it was an amicable game.
And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Yes, and I would agree saving nature is mostly an exercise in human restraint. If we are to save nature and thus save ourselves, we have to stop the cancerous expansion of human modifications to the ecosystem. I know that this is no longer completely in reason, due to the fact that man-made polution now permeates every corner of the globe, but there is still so much worth saving. We need nature for all of the ecosystem services it provides, in addition to the aesthetic, spiritural, and cultural values nature can provide. In order to save nature for future humans to understand what Earth was like, will require very active measures to increase efficiency and conserve wild places.
Week 3
1. My best experience with the non-human world was probably as a child when I would climb the big pine tree in the backyard. The branches were just high enough to prevent my little sister from following me, and I would go climb, read, or just sit around and think. Eventually I had the courage to climb the whole way to the top and I found an owl's nest. I didn't get close enough to disturb it, but it was an interesting discovery. T wouldn't characterize the experience as thrilling so much as peaceful, and, even though I don't climb trees anymore, being in nature during a nice day is a great way for me to relieve stress.
2. I'm not convinced by our ability to "save nature" through deliberate actions. We are part of nature, and we have a responsibility to reduce our impact on displacement. However, as discussed in the readings this week, collecting a few members of a threatened species, placing them in a conservation zone, and vowing not to touch them isn't particularly natural either.
2. I'm not convinced by our ability to "save nature" through deliberate actions. We are part of nature, and we have a responsibility to reduce our impact on displacement. However, as discussed in the readings this week, collecting a few members of a threatened species, placing them in a conservation zone, and vowing not to touch them isn't particularly natural either.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Response to “Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"
After reading the article “Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It” by Michael Maniates, I would say that I agree with the argument presented. Doing the little things to help the environment just doesn’t cut it anymore. More people do need to focus initiative on taking on a more prominent role in their green actions, but without enforcement I doubt people will get serious. Most people will argue that they don’t have the time or that it involves more effort to play a bigger green role. Without someone forcing individuals to tackle the bigger actions, they won’t. One could argue that people do the little things to clear their conscience, doing a little in their minds is better than not doing anything at all. At this point though, Maniates is correct, the time for doing little has passed and more people need to step up to the plate. People need some nudging though to get started, more would be interested or compelled to do greater things if the United States had more legislation devoted to decreasing our ecological footprint. Legislation would also set an example of what actions are expected in order to start truly making a greater environmental difference.
Brittany Stewart
Brittany Stewart
Monday, February 9, 2009
Response to Maniates
I agree with Maniates argument that the time for easy is over. Now is the perfect moment to take those strides for the environment that were not possible for the last eight years. However, we should realize that not everyone is as passionate as saving the earth as others. If celebrities and politicians can succeed in motivating those who were once indifferent to environmental degradation to recycle or conserve electricity--it is a victory for the green movement. Those people who are passionate about these issues need to be the ones to step up and take on the larger and more widespread goals of the movement. We cannot expect all people to understand and care about the earth in the ways that scientists and activists do. If we can get them to take small steps, that is a great accomplishment. However, we need to ask more of our politicians and international leaders to pass laws and agreements to slow climate change and take the issue of the future of our planet more seriously.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Week 2: Thoughts on "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"
After reading the posts from last week, I appear to be the black sheep of the group. Accordingly, I think Michael Maniates is largely correct. Easy doesn't fix the problem. I am not advocating that we collectively stop doing the little things. After all, less, even if just a tiny bit less, is preferable when it comes to negative environmental consequences, but these changes are not what we generally refer to when we talk about a lifestyle overhaul. We all laughed a Cameron Diaz, but she's just do exactly what she has been told and passing her wisdom to the rest of us.
So why is green living sold to us in this way? I don't think it's as patronizing as Maniates claims. Perhaps its just one way to get regular people engaged in the process on a regular basis. Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all extraordinary innovators who adopted a core mission as their life's work. Similar innovators exist and will continue to emerge in the field of conservation, so as the rest of us pursue other callings, lets support them in the ways that we can.
Alli Gerhart
So why is green living sold to us in this way? I don't think it's as patronizing as Maniates claims. Perhaps its just one way to get regular people engaged in the process on a regular basis. Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all extraordinary innovators who adopted a core mission as their life's work. Similar innovators exist and will continue to emerge in the field of conservation, so as the rest of us pursue other callings, lets support them in the ways that we can.
Alli Gerhart
Drew's Post
"This week I'd like you to read and comment on this piece, which appeared in the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day last year. The article was written by Michael Maniates of Allegheny College, one of the authors of the "Confronting Consumption" chapter we read a couple of weeks back. What do you make of Professor Maniates' argument?"
Firstly, I would like to say I completely agree with his argument that the time for easy is over. Being told to take shorter showers, use compact fluorescents, drive less, and get a hybrid {next time we buy a car} now borders on condescending. The situation demands much more than that. We should be able to do the small things while also doing the big things. Of course, some people will make careers out of doing the big things {thus, green jobs}.
Reading this article kept reminding me of a quote from President Kennedy when he proposed going to the moon:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Now it is time, and especially with this political climate, to demand the things that are hard because they are necessary. Nothing good ever came easy.
Firstly, I would like to say I completely agree with his argument that the time for easy is over. Being told to take shorter showers, use compact fluorescents, drive less, and get a hybrid {next time we buy a car} now borders on condescending. The situation demands much more than that. We should be able to do the small things while also doing the big things. Of course, some people will make careers out of doing the big things {thus, green jobs}.
Reading this article kept reminding me of a quote from President Kennedy when he proposed going to the moon:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
Now it is time, and especially with this political climate, to demand the things that are hard because they are necessary. Nothing good ever came easy.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Response to Question 2
I think Fish's article is largely a confession of laziness, and an attempt to make others like him feel that it's okay to be apathetic to the environmental cause. He is essentially advocating indifference to the biggest problems facing the world today. Fish could have used his blog in a more effective manner by writing about the problems he has with living sustainably, and then educate others on how to combat this laziness.
Fish complains that it is difficult and expensive to live sustainably. It doesn't have to be expensive to live in an environmentally friendly way--environmentalists know that everyone will not be able to afford a hybrid car or install solar panels on your roof. But there are small, simple things anyone can do that add up to a lesser carbon footprint, like using a reusable water bottle or turning down the heat. You can also promote a sustainable lifestyle by telling family and friends ways to help the environment. The phrase "every little bit helps" can really work when lots of people are doing these little actions. Supporting politicians who push clean energy legislation, participating in rallies and campaigns for the environment, and teaching your children about the environment are all ways to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle.
Lauren Krizel
Fish complains that it is difficult and expensive to live sustainably. It doesn't have to be expensive to live in an environmentally friendly way--environmentalists know that everyone will not be able to afford a hybrid car or install solar panels on your roof. But there are small, simple things anyone can do that add up to a lesser carbon footprint, like using a reusable water bottle or turning down the heat. You can also promote a sustainable lifestyle by telling family and friends ways to help the environment. The phrase "every little bit helps" can really work when lots of people are doing these little actions. Supporting politicians who push clean energy legislation, participating in rallies and campaigns for the environment, and teaching your children about the environment are all ways to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle.
Lauren Krizel
Response to Stanley Fish
I think that Stanley Fish’s piece offers great insight into the fact that many Americans are simply stuck in their ways. Many do not partake in eco-friendly activities because they do not want to change. One could blame the unwillingness to change on the fact that most Americans do not see visible advantages of leading environmentally friendly lives. Most cannot see how their choices affect the environment with their own eyes. As a result, they do not believe that their choice to recycle a plastic bottle really makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.
I agree with Drew’s post that living environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means reducing, reusing, and recycling as much as possible and that a culture change must take place in order to save the environment. In the meantime, while we’re trying to change society’s mindset, I think it’s important that individuals who find it hard to adjust to an eco-friendly life focus on one specific issue and try to stick to it. For example, if someone thinks it’s important to unplug all appliances then they should diligently stick to that and then try to change other aspects of their lives. It’s hard to do everything at once, therefore if individuals can focus at doing one environmentally friendly thing very well and then branching out, they might have a better chance at sticking to their new lifestyle.
Brittany Stewart
I agree with Drew’s post that living environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means reducing, reusing, and recycling as much as possible and that a culture change must take place in order to save the environment. In the meantime, while we’re trying to change society’s mindset, I think it’s important that individuals who find it hard to adjust to an eco-friendly life focus on one specific issue and try to stick to it. For example, if someone thinks it’s important to unplug all appliances then they should diligently stick to that and then try to change other aspects of their lives. It’s hard to do everything at once, therefore if individuals can focus at doing one environmentally friendly thing very well and then branching out, they might have a better chance at sticking to their new lifestyle.
Brittany Stewart
Thursday, January 29, 2009
what is wrong with the world?
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
I think the thing that we face, is people not understanding the gravity of the global crisis. Some people are not as fortunate to be able to do some of the things that will help the world and others cannot be bothered. For the United States to use a lot of the energy, it should have more of a plan to help reverse all the damage its done to the world. The picture about Florida nearly having most of the state submerged under water, is very scary, but a reality we must face.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
This does ring true for a lot of people that i know, I think I also fit in that category, but I have been more environmentally conscious the past 4 year, than i have been in my whole entire life. I think most people think if they recycle their cans, bottles and newspapers. They dont take into consideration, that maybe they don't need to take a 30 minute shower every day, or they should turn the light off when they are not using the room. It needs to be taught
I think the thing that we face, is people not understanding the gravity of the global crisis. Some people are not as fortunate to be able to do some of the things that will help the world and others cannot be bothered. For the United States to use a lot of the energy, it should have more of a plan to help reverse all the damage its done to the world. The picture about Florida nearly having most of the state submerged under water, is very scary, but a reality we must face.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
This does ring true for a lot of people that i know, I think I also fit in that category, but I have been more environmentally conscious the past 4 year, than i have been in my whole entire life. I think most people think if they recycle their cans, bottles and newspapers. They dont take into consideration, that maybe they don't need to take a 30 minute shower every day, or they should turn the light off when they are not using the room. It needs to be taught
Drew's Post
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Answer to 1: Climate Change, because it is the most far reaching and it will require our culture, our economy, and our society to change to stop it, or change to adapt to it. It also requires extreme diligence. Climate change is the "all-encompassing" environmental issue, because it seems that any environmental challenge one can think of, climate change or its solutions relates to it.
Answer to 2: I have to say it doesn't ring true at all for me. While the evidence he gives is interesting, he makes no constructive conclusion and ends up just complaining. I was also dismayed by his constant use of religious language such as "belief" and "sin" to describe his situation. Being "environmentally friendly" is not at all about belief or religion. It's about knowing the truth (the hard, testable, scientific realities) and then acting on it. In my mind, his conclusion should be something to the effect of "It shouldn't be this hard to be green, we must demand from our government, our neighbors, our families, ourselves that things must change so this can all be easier."
Being environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means to have reducing, reusing, and recycling integrated into life, as much as possible. But the problems are so large that they can't be solved with personal action alone, and so it takes lots of people all demanding something better. A few people living entirely off-grid and eating all locally grown organic vegan foods is not good enough to save the world. It takes everyone changing culture, economy, and society so they do not deplete the environment further.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Answer to 1: Climate Change, because it is the most far reaching and it will require our culture, our economy, and our society to change to stop it, or change to adapt to it. It also requires extreme diligence. Climate change is the "all-encompassing" environmental issue, because it seems that any environmental challenge one can think of, climate change or its solutions relates to it.
Answer to 2: I have to say it doesn't ring true at all for me. While the evidence he gives is interesting, he makes no constructive conclusion and ends up just complaining. I was also dismayed by his constant use of religious language such as "belief" and "sin" to describe his situation. Being "environmentally friendly" is not at all about belief or religion. It's about knowing the truth (the hard, testable, scientific realities) and then acting on it. In my mind, his conclusion should be something to the effect of "It shouldn't be this hard to be green, we must demand from our government, our neighbors, our families, ourselves that things must change so this can all be easier."
Being environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means to have reducing, reusing, and recycling integrated into life, as much as possible. But the problems are so large that they can't be solved with personal action alone, and so it takes lots of people all demanding something better. A few people living entirely off-grid and eating all locally grown organic vegan foods is not good enough to save the world. It takes everyone changing culture, economy, and society so they do not deplete the environment further.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Reply to Question 2- Stanley Fish
I hate to admit it, but this article did resonate with me. While I understand the merits of recycling, organic and locally grown food, green cleaning products, energy consumption reduction, these things are far from my mind on a daily basis. I don't have a wife hounding me about my habits, but as I sit here and reflect on my behavior, I can claim no valid excuse. As Stanly says, I just want to go about my life as comfortably and conveniently as possible.
I suppose convenience is my excuse, or at least the best most prominent behavioral influence. I, and I think most other people, have way too much to do in the allotted time frame, and engaging in an environmentally beneficial lifestyle is not automatic. It requires time to separate the garbage, wash old cans and bottles, go to a less convenient and more expensive grocery store, or spend 45 minutes to walk to a location that would take 15 minutes by car.
It appears that in answering the second question, I also answer the first. The biggest threats to our environment are people like me with too much to do and too little time. At the very least, I don't plan to produce more people in my likeness.
Alli Gerhart
I suppose convenience is my excuse, or at least the best most prominent behavioral influence. I, and I think most other people, have way too much to do in the allotted time frame, and engaging in an environmentally beneficial lifestyle is not automatic. It requires time to separate the garbage, wash old cans and bottles, go to a less convenient and more expensive grocery store, or spend 45 minutes to walk to a location that would take 15 minutes by car.
It appears that in answering the second question, I also answer the first. The biggest threats to our environment are people like me with too much to do and too little time. At the very least, I don't plan to produce more people in my likeness.
Alli Gerhart
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)