Quotes

The first quote is from Cradle to Cradle and I thought it expressed the "Next Industrial Revolution" that the book is about.

"The key is not to make the human industries and systems smaller, as efficiency advocates propound, but to design them to get bigger and better in a way that replenishes restores and nourishes the rest of the world."

The second quote that I enjoyed was from earlier in the class from the "Confronting Consumption" piece that we read. I thought the unit in the class where we talked about the North and South divide about environmentalism was very interesting.

"In global environmental policymaking arenas, it is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the fact that the overdeveloped North must restrain its consumption if it expects the underdeveloped South to embrace a more sustainable trajectory."

Quotes

"Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment... We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss. Which is a pity, since Americans are at their best when they're struggling together, and sometimes with one another, toward difficult goals."
-Michael Maniates, Living Green? Easy Doesn't Do It.

How is it that Congress talks about stimulating the economy when much that will actually be stimulated is the destruction of things it says it cares about on other days? How did the notion of economy become so totally uneconomic?

Our Phony Economy, Rowe

2 Quotes

The first quote I chose was from Stephen Meyer's "The End of the Wild," page 8.
"Fundamental is the nation of a landscape where the handprint of humanity is invisible and specifically where the forces of natural selection smother those of human selection. The problem is that there is virtually no place on Earth that fits this description."
I'm not sure if we're supposed to explain why we chose these, but basically I lived in Washington state this summer and did a lot of hiking. I was surprised that even at altitudes of 8,000 feet on Mount Rainier, there were tourist shops and litter and other degradation. This was kind of shocking and also eye-opening to the fact that humans are everywhere! I don't think that we need to move out of these natural places, but we just need to be more conscious of our actions.

The second quote is from Meghan's blog post about "The Story of Stuff." I really believe that "The Story of Stuff" should be showed in schools, even if just for its' basic take home message of excessive consumption, and the chain that goods come from. I also think that all of the uproar over this video was really unfounded, which is why I liked this quote. It basically sums up my feelings on the matter very effectively:
(Meghan was blogging about the impacts/potential negative influences on kid from the movie)..."Frankly this underestimates the intellectual capacity of our children and the instructional skill of our teachers, and overestimates the potency of classroom learning tools. While the conservative pundits who lash out against this film may have had the intellectual capacity of an amoeba in grade school, most children are perfectly able to critically analyze and pull out "take-home messages" of popular, accessible works without the vicious and often irrational partisan bias that seems to permeate contemporary political debate."

The future...

As it stands, the future of the environmental "movement" is bleak. Fractured, unable to truly work cooperatively or communicate effectively, and fairly ineffective in the face of huge, game-changing issues, the movement stands to lose in the long run. The sad part is that we have it easy: there is a single, identifiable issue to rally around (climate, duh); the scientific case for this issue is virtually unassailable by sane people; and we have an unprecedented opportunity to relate climate to a variety of disparate and engaging ideas like poverty eradication, global security and health. Unfortunately this ideal situation has been squandered, thus far. Why?

In the wake of Climategate, I think that the environmental movement needs to stop isolating and ridiculing people who disagree with us. Okay, so maybe climate skeptics are stupid, close-minded, and ornery. Maybe their science is fixed, misrepresented, and just plain wrong. But shutting them off and refusing to talk with them just makes matters worse. When left to scheme and simmer together in their collective ignorance, skeptics just get more stupider, more close-minded, and more ornery. I'm aware that the science is clear. The American public doesn't care.

The fact is that we need to add some PIZZAZ to environmentalism! Example: in a climate debate on NPR two years ago, climate skeptics battled climate scientists. Guess who won? That's right, not the people with the unimpeachable data, but the people with charisma, appealing arguments and Michael Crichton on their side. The skeptics made global warming sound fun: new beaches reaching into the midwest, longer summers to lounge around on those new beaches, and the expansion of the wine growing market to England. Instead of telling those losers that the English can't handle wine and that nobody wants to see Midwesterners in bikinis anyway, the environmentalists got flustered and implied that the audience couldn't handle the available information. Really? There are so many amazing reasons to avoid global warming and these guys couldn't come up with one, instead choosing to stutter about the science and isolate the audience. Michael Crichton (RIP. And really. He was a panelist...) said that climate change shouldn't be a priority because development work would suffer. Not one of the climate advocates suggested that climate adaptation and mitigation work can facilitate development. We need to seriously get it together and present appealing, glamorous, and imaginative views of what the world could look like if we made positive enviromental reforms. (It's not that hard, solor panels are very sparkly and pretty, Manhattan as Atlantis...not so much).

Thanksgiving discussion

I probably chose the wrong person to seriously sit down and discuss climate change for the first time: my uncle. He's incredibly intelligent, quick witted and, it seems, knowledgeable about every issue. His one fault is that he's horribly opinionated and very biased; he's a staunch Republican who watches only Fox News (and can also be frequently seen sporting many different Rush Limbaugh tees) and is famously obstinate about his beliefs. I tend to not discuss any 'controversial' topics with him because of just how intense and personal he gets. However, he's the only one in my family who is 'familiar' enough with the subject to have a solid opinion and I knew he would be an eager participant.

I learned much from our discussion - especially about how to prepare myself for future conversations on the subject. I was not surprised when my uncle played the politics card (he views it all as Democratic propaganda), or when he pulled the 'lack of science' card - I had rebuttals for those (having recently looked over the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" article again to make sure I had my facts straight before our chat I was able to counter many of the points he made about there being a 'lack of evidence' and his assertion that this was just another one of our planet's natural fluctuations), and was able to raise counter points to the Democratic propoganda. However, I really was stumped when he brought religion into it. When we began discussing alternative energy sources his response was simply that God had put fossil fuels in the earth for us to use and aid in our progress, so we should use them as long as we could. In addition he was also certain anything created by God could have no negative effects, so he saw no connection between the two. Having never discussed climate change from that perspective, I was stumped. Religion is obviously another one of those 'better left alone' topics and who am I to judge or potentially insult anyone else's beliefs? I tread carefully, asking what we would do after fossil fuels ran out, and but the conversation fizzled.

In order to discuss the subject with someone like my Uncle, I realized I needed to learn the facts more thoroughly so that I would be able to sound more like I really, really knew what I was talking about. In the future, if he brings up one point, I want to be able to instantly have a rebuttal. I also realized how important it was to stay calm, hear him out and not get too worked up. I think it's something that will get better with practice!

One thing I will bring up next time are the ideas within Cradle to Cradle. I think he'd actually be really interested in the text and it'd be a great way to show him that economics and environmentalism actually can go hand in hand. Maybe it would help take the 'taint' off environmentalism for him. But that's a project for Christmas break!

Final Blog Post! Thanksgiving Debate...

The environment-themed conversation I had over break was mainly with my uncle, who runs the public works (facility management?) for a town in southern New Jersey. We’ve always butted heads (in an amiable sense of the word) over environmental issues. He would write me off because I was interning at Greenpeace, and therefore, apparently, my opinions are invalid. Anyway, at Thanksgiving, he actually brought up the topic of environmental technology because he was complaining about how his city council voted to put in solar panels on public buildings, and the community is working towards LEED-certifying many public buildings. (He was complaining about the cost). I then put in my input about the holistic approach to development that we read about in Cradle to Cradle without framing it as my opinion, but rather more as just a discussion topic. I found that as soon as I presented the idea of this approach of cradle to cradle products, my uncle and father both immediately agreed with the idea. When I then threw out there that it was for my International Environmental Politics course, my uncle kind of scoffed at it, but I still had an admission.
I moved on from there and talked to him about the problems with LEED certification, because he was clearly not on board with the program. It was really important for him to hear from someone who is working towards LEED certification (through the class here at AU) that it is not a perfect system. This led to an actual dialogue, because he was much more responsive when I talked to him about the environment and problems with initiatives within it, such as LEED problems. I learned that it is much more important to converse with people instead of talking down to them. By the end of the conversation, we had both learned something - he learned about the different solar technology his county was implementing as well as the benefits and downfalls of LEED building. I had learned about all of the hurdles that a city must go through in order to present a new environmental initiative, such as solar panels. I have to give a lot of credit to the individuals who actually go through the work of okay-ing these projects within their cities - it seems very un-democratic and frustrating.
I moved on to talk about the Story of Stuff, mainly because my parents and my cousin are both in the education field. My father was the only one who had heard of it, and he wholeheartedly agreed that the video should be showed in schools. He had worked as superintendent of one school district where the video was widely accepted by teachers, but at his current school district there was a debacle over showing the video, and in the end it was up to individual teachers’ to decide. My mother and uncle did not agree with the general message we conveyed to them. I think it is a matter of upbringing - both of my parents and my uncle worked extremely hard growing up to get to the positions they are in now and enjoy the money they now have (because it wasn’t always there). I think that it’s hard to relate to this because I grew up in a comfortable wealthy middle-class home (because of their dedication) and didn’t experience what they had to work so hard for. It’s hard for me, who seems to have everything, to tell them that they should stop consuming so many goods because of the environment. It seemed almost disrespectful, so I veered off topic to different political actions that they thought were most effective.
Overall, the conversation about Cradle to Cradle resonated most with my family. My father admits that we are continually degrading the environment and our reach is too far into nature to NOT be causing things such as global warming. My uncle was harder to persuade, but he also conceded that we must be causing climate change. It’s hard to debate where I live though; we have an advantage of viewing ocean waters rising. I live on Absecon Island, a barrier island off of South Jersey and the end of our island ends at ‘11th street’ because streets 1-10 are underwater, and used to connect to the island south of us. It’s hard to argue with evidence like this happening over the past century and a half (even though this island should have never been developed in the first place). In the end, the conversation taught me that understanding and listening to someone else’s viewpoint is more important than proving your own point - something that I’ve learned over time working in the environmental field. However, I had never thought to have this conversation with family members because many, such as my brother, seem pretty much unchangeable in their carbon dioxide emitting ways. I’ve tried to talk to my brother about his excessive use of his 1980 Volvo station wagon, his 45 minute showers and obsession to wash every piece of clothing that he wears even for two seconds, but that’s an uphill battle. I found it very interesting that the people who this conversation actually was mutually beneficial with were my parent’s conservative-minded family members. I guess it shows that there are ways that we can effectively converse with climate ‘skeptics’ to address problems with climate change and its widespread consequences.

Thanksgiving Debate

Over Thanksgiving break, I asked my dad about what he thought about climate change. I knew going in his thoughts on the subject, that he thought climate change was happening but that global warming was something made up by Al Gore. He is a very political right-wing man, and his dislike for Gore sometimes overshadows really thinking about the situation. Also a businessman, I decided to start the conversation by bringing up the Cradle to Cradle book and just telling him about it and seeing what he thought since the book does a good job of expressing the idea that business and the environment can work together. I was pleasantly surprised by his reaction. He thought this was an interesting idea and that it was definitely a possibility and also that it was becoming a reality. He thought the concept of waste=food was very interesting and said it could be a reality only if the practices are cost effective. What did make my father very worked up was when we started talking about the government and what it is doing right now to get on board with the environmental movement. When I brought this up, he was very adamant that he didn't the government should be involved in this. He also brought up the economy and taxes and how the cap and trade systems and government negotiations with other countries are just ways to get more of the taxpayers money. So this could have been anger stemming from different things, but he definitely disagreed with government intervention and regulation when it came to the green movement.

After this conversation, I think the best way to approach a controversial discussion like this would be to find some common ground or bring up a piece of information that makes the other person think. By just attacking them or even suggesting that you know they will disagree with you makes them hostile and ready for a fight. Bringing up common ground lets them know you just want a discussion or their opinion. Usually when emotions get involved both parties tend to forget what they know and immediately just bicker. I learned that in situations like this, whichever side that people are on, they still have their own opinions. Opening up to someone, even asking for advice, gives them a chance to foster their opinions, and then opens the door for discussion and even a little debate.

Cradle to Cradle

I think that McDonough and Braungart are on the right track, and that there needs to be a shift in the ways of looking at waste and the environment in order to bring about change. The whole ‘waste equals food’ concept is really innovative, but I do not see its implementation in the near future. As far as using our current solar income, I have noticed initiatives to start using more solar panels, but in most cases this is still cost prohibitive. The other initiative to using solar income in ways such as drying clothes again requires awareness and a societal shift that seems not feasible at this point. The other point the book talks about respecting diversity. There seem to be many different programs that are working to stop endangering animals and wildlife, but these are generally targeted at the life that we can see, such as polar bears, pandas, etc. I think it is important to think about the species that we do not think of on a daily basis and take into account our actions on these different types of species.

Overall I think that the book is a bit too much on the optimistic side, but this is just my opinion. I think the ideas presented are really great and innovative, but do not have as much applicability right now because people aren’t interested in setting up a clothesline or paying more money for detergent that is less harmful to the environment. This isn’t saying that people don’t care; it’s just a problem of awareness. I understand that Cradle to Cradle has gotten a lot of press, especially internationally. However, I do not see this in the US, unless it’s with people whom I take classes with who are already involved in environmental issues. However, I do not think that anything is going to get done unless we have some misplaced optimism that keeps work moving. The only way to raise awareness (since we a such a ‘democratic’ nation and would never just impose a law to start saving the environment without popular vote) is through action. I think combining the call to action in “Cradle to Cradle” with Maniates ideas is important in working towards a solution. I liked the comparison of human life to ant life – ants leave no trace on their environment except in positive ways, while humans are essentially ruining things that cannot be replaced.

Cradle to Cradle reaction

I think the main point of the book, Cradle to Cradle, is to show that the relationship between environmental action and the business world is not completely doomed to work. McDonough and Braungart want to point out that the conflicts of interest here are not entirely different, it’s just that people haven’t been able to see the opportunities that could come about from environmental products and services. What they are trying to do is turn on the industrial world to environmentally friendly products and practices and to show them that this industry is very lucrative for them. They claim that if producers realize the use of natural systems can benefit them more than the “old way” of doing things, that nature and business can co-exist.

I am very much enjoying this book and the optimism that the authors have. As a student with a minor in business, I often have a lot of trouble seeing where the two worlds could merge. It almost seems like the people involved in business and those involved in saving the environment have two different points of views on everything and just the way the world works in general. It has always been a disappointment because I think that the two worlds couldn’t co-exist because of the two entirely different mentalities that each trade encompasses. I do really enjoy the optimism and think the ideas they put forth are very innovative and interesting; I just do not know how practical the ideas behind the book are. The fact that the authors think that it is simply a matter of putting forth new ways of manufacturing and new ways of thinking about production to get the world of corporations and producers to change their ways is a far cry from reality. I think it would take many different factors for these worlds to begin to merge. I think business would have to be terrible in every industry for companies to turn to a new way of doing things. I think the new designs that McDonough and Braungart come up with for manufacturing would have to become law in order for producers to begin using them. I also think he would have to do some more advertising and really convince businesses that this would save them money in the end. Business is all about being on top, making money and being the best at what you do. Nowhere in their top priorities is saving the environment. So somewhere in their plan to merge these two schools of thought, the authors must think of a way to make some very set in their ways kind of people to turn around their thinking and their businesses in order to save the earth.

Trinity of Despair

I thought Professor Maniates “trinity of despair” was a great modern way to describe the current environmental problems. I believe we were in need of a sort of updated way to describe what was going on and why the environmental degradation was happening at such a rapid pace. The Human Nature component is definitely something to think about because in my opinion it is one of the main reasons our world is in trouble. People are very self centered; it is a part of human nature. It is not necessarily always a bad thing; it is innate to the human being. But it does cause a huge problem when it comes to trying to solve ecological dilemmas. If the way to stop the causes of pollution and climate change is a different lifestyle for the population, then that’s what should happen. It is not that simple though because people are so reluctant and some refuse to change their lifestyle when the harm is not happening to them at the moment. This is precisely what Maniates is talking about in the first part of his trinity and I think it is the most important problem to call attention to. It may be virtually impossible to get everyone on the “save the environment” boat, but if you bring attention to the human flaw of selfishness, this may cause people to change their ways.
The second part of the trinity, the Easy Stuff, is a great way to exemplify the Green Movement that seems to happen right now. It is when companies advertise their products or services to the general population and use “being green” as a marketing ploy to suck them in and have the consumer think they are doing something good by buying this product. There is a flaw in this entire chain of thinking because consumerism is one of the main causes of the environmental problem. The easy part comes in because a lot of people may not have the knowledge or resources to truly become a green and environmentally friendly person, but they do want to join in the efforts. What corporations do is give them this answer by putting out products that, if you buy them, will make you green! This is a very flawed way in thinking, but consumers go for it because it is the easy way out.

The third part of the trinity is the one that I am very skeptical about. Maniates says that a problem is that people think we ALL have to get on board in order for something to happen, but he argues this is not the case. He states that if only a few small, but key groups start to try and make a change in the world, the change will come. Although his arguments for this are strong, I still do think that everyone needs to do their part. It is amazing how one person or a handful of people can make a huge negative impact on the environment given the right set of materials. So I think in order for a significant change to really happen, we do actually need a huge majority of the population to get on board.
Overall I think Maniates has great points and speaks many truths about the reasons for our environmental concerns today, and I think his “trinity of despair” is like the modern day IPAT equation and I hope more people pay attention to it because a call to action is what we really need at this point in time.

Trinity of Despair

I think that Professor Maniates’ ‘trinity of despair’ is effective in identifying problems with the environmental movement (or any movement, for that matter) and that I really agree with his viewpoint. The first part of the trinity makes the assumption that people are selfish, and out for only themselves. This is true, if it is what you are looking for. I feel that this assumption depends on an individuals’ own outlook on things. For example, while I was working at Greenpeace, the workers and volunteers there honestly believed that social change could be brought about through public awareness of a problem. I believe that this is true, and it can be seen through the Civil Rights Movement. If organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, etc. all believed that people were inherently selfish; then most of their work in the public sector would not be effective and the foundation of their organization would basically break down. If an individual wants to look at the world in a way that assumes all people are inherently selfish, then that is what one will find. You can basically find anything if you look hard enough, but I think it’s important to focus on positive things to look at, instead of negative assumptions about people that already put a damper on your view of individuals.

The ES (Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff) also has an element of assumption. I think it’s necessary to look at how people respond to initiatives that make things easy. Personally, I don’t like being targeted with easy goals and strategies. I think a part of human nature is accepting challenges, and that by always giving individuals an easy way out such as changing light bulbs, nothing is really getting done. Their motions are so simplistic, that there is no thought process going on behind their actions. I think that it is way more important to challenge people with hard goals so that people actually feel some sort of emotion, whether it’s positive or negative, but still get the challenge completed. I think that a better assumption that Professor Maniates spoke about in our video conference would be that people generally face challenges more than they face easy stuff, and that element of human nature is what should be targeted.

Last, there are problems with social change. I do not think it is necessary to get everyone on board with an initiative before it is put in place. An example of this is in Washington State along Puget Sound. A city (I’m completely blanking on the name) decided that it was necessary to stop residential growth in their area, and made an ordinance for all property owners with undeveloped land at the time to keep 65% of that undeveloped land as it is. Sure, this is a real issue with some people because it is their land. However, in the long run, the local lake, which flows to the Suquamish River, which flows into Puget Sound, will not get the contamination from surface and storm water runoff because there is undeveloped land that the water can flow into and recharge. Individuals right now, especially in Congress where most laws get created and put into effect, are too divided. I think that a mechanism that puts the necessary laws in place by looking at science is what is needed for change to be made. Yeah, this might sound a bit socialist, but we’re not getting anywhere with our current goal of making EVERYone aware of environmental issues and trying to get everyone we can to advocate for change. This is effective, but many of these environmental issues are time-sensitive, and we do not have the time to waste on extensive public acceptance because at this rate, it is never going to happen.

I'm not sure if this take on the 'trinity of despair' is exactly what Professor Maniates has in mind, but I do think that it is a good basis to start a movement and help others understand the point of a movement, and how it can affect change. I think that Professor Maniates view of the environmental movement is innovative and needs to be acknowledged on a larger scale. I also feel that this model can be applied to many different types of social movements.

Manietes

First of all, I think it's fairly evident to anyone who's in my other class on climate that I'm a big fan (is that an appropriate description for intellectual admiration? I don't know...) of Prof. Manietes' work: I think the trinity of despair idea is a challenge to an established order that needs to be challenged. It seems fairly apparent that the modern method of inspiring meaningful change has not been effective, but I agree that the odds (and statistics) seem to be in the environmental movement's favor in terms of popular support or concern for "green" causes. The idea of mobilizing small groups of dedicated people around logical pressure points is clever and derived from a long lineage of successful social justice movements. That said, there are a few aspects of Manietes' argument that are not necessarily wrong, but need clarification or perhaps reevaluation (something that I'm aware might come if I read his upcoming book).

While I really like the idea that not everyone needs to be on board to make significant change--and that, realistically, the time it takes to get everyone on board can impede the progress that might be made in the interem--I felt as though, at least in the lecture, Manietes diminished the importance of education activism. I agree that activism aimed at attempting to lasso every stray climate denier into some glorious kum bah yah circle of unity is pointless; however, public events that confront potentially borderline activists are extremely important. Again, I'm not in support of self-mastubatory "I'm better than you because I know the carbon footprint of my pet fish" exercises, but presenting events that could motivate potentially passionate proponents are essential. I know I wouldn't be involved in the climate movement without them.

Additionally, although I know that Manietes mentioned this, I think its really necessary to emphasize the importance of personal political action in establishing legitamacy. Pressuring leaders to make commitments while refusing to make them yourself is hypocritical and, worse yet, fails to impress the seriousness of the issues on those you're pitching them to. So maybe eating locally doesn't make a huge difference in aggregate emissions, but it is pretty essential if you're calling on your local supermarket to stock local milk.

I'm looking forward to reading Manietes' upcoming book where some of my issues migth be clarified.

Lorax rewrite!

SO...
Catch!" calls the Once-ler.
He lets something fall.
"It's a powerful hammer,
to smash the old system, all.
You're in charge of rebuilding this decrepit old town
Into a place where there'll be nary a frown.
A local food system, a co-op to boot,
we'll barter, we'll trade with no natural resources to loot.
We'll share all our profits, build sustainable forests
Then the Truffula trees and the Lorax will flourish!

You must mobilize people, but maybe not all
Not everyone thinks that this system must fall.
Gather your forces, make them grow strong
Give them your tools to prove their foes wrong.
Logic and reason and science and morals
These are the tools to liquidate quarrels!

Someday, perhaps, all the people will see
that greed and growth just shouldn't be
The foundations of human day to day life
They just cause more pain, and hurt and strife
Your new society equal and fair
and based on ideals of earthly care,
will be the model for other struggling nations
who desperately need a new kind of creation.

Speak for the trees, but also the people
who need your voices when theirs are feeble
This world is for everything big and small
Protect it forever, preserve it for all!

Friends of Science?

Okay...so we all know that alot of people are intimidated by 'science' or just write it off as something that they are 'not good at.' This being said (which is really untrue because honestly, if people would chill out and take time to understand science then we wouldn't be in half the problems we're in today - it's not that hard) Friends of Science is clearly trying to attract people who are intimidated by science and want information in a myth/fact form in order to make an 'educated' opinion about something. Websites of climate skeptics generally use this tactic - if you blind people with science, they'll take it at face value and start spewing off 'facts' from your website and agree with you. These 'facts' can be easily debunked. For example, for ANYONE who understands climate change, even to a tiny degree, they would know that climate change is REGIONAL and is not going to raise temperatures everywhere. I'm sure that you've all experienced people saying 'Ha, so much for global warming' when it's suddenly 40 degrees in September...but that's the point. In the northern hemisphere, temperatures have been projected to decrease. The word 'warming' is misleading and generally makes people confused and belligerent towards accepting 'global warming' as real as soon as their first snow day hits. Climate skeptics harp on this misleading word and lead people to agree with their skepticism.

I agree with Meghan's statement that it is irresponsible to ignore the problem and try to use technology to mitigate the worst effects of it. However, through my work with senior-level scientists at PNNL, it is clear that scientists are so fed up with the 'debate' on climate change, that they are trying to find ways to save our planet without having to deal with the freaks who CONTINUE to argue against it. The only way to do this is through technology, and it is a respectable decision (I mean, who honestly wants to work with belligerent people who continually sound dumb as they try to argue against science...) Therefore, I hold more stock with the Grist articles because they work towards exposing true science and the articles do not use outdated facts and figures in order to prove their point.

The problem with these sites are that both are very convincing. Give any website an official looking name and layout, and people will be curious and read it - it's human nature. I think that many problems now revolve around the inability of individuals to think for themselves. Take any news channel now, and it is undoubtedly biased to a certain extent, something that is recognizable if you are able to take a step back and evaluate what you just heard/read/saw. I don't think one site is more convincing over another, though websites like Grist go against many conservative viewpoints, and automatically put people on the defensive. The opening page of Friends of Science just attempts to break down facts and make them myths, but you don't really grasp the side of the website until you're partway through the first or second bullet point. Their message is more subtle at the beginning, which might make Friends of Science more convincing to an unbiased reader (as much as I hate to say it).

Friends of Science?

Skeptics and True Believers

Browsing these two websites reminded me of the research I did on the two sides of the ANWR drilling debate during my Freshman year. I remember how glaringly obvious the differences were - for example, websites of organizations supporting the drilling all included 'scientific evidence' indicating that there was 30 years (or some other extraordinary number) worth of fuel underneath the surface of the Arctic tundra (waiting to free us from our dependence on the Middle East, of course) while the websites against drilling advocated that science really couldn't be sure as reports were uncertain and conflicting but that many scientists thought there may only be as little for a year or two. The pro-drillers, trying to make a case, were taking whatever information they could find and twisting it to support their claims and then  presented it alone on their websites, even though other websites were clear that science was still unclear on the matter. This definitely seems to be what's happening on the 'Friends of Science' page - in their 'about us' section, it says that: "While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change." In other words, like those pro-drilling websites I had the displeasure of reading, they are picking and choosing the 'evidence' that supports their point of view to present.

 I understand this, it's only natural for each side to aim to win support for their side, and that's exactly what the purpose/goal of such websites. However, I thought the Grist one seemed more legit (and actually easier to navigate) simply because I thought it addressed both sides of the argument more fairly and more in depth. 'Friends of Science' reminded me of my cousins watching Fox News - you go to websites like it in order to read exactly what you want to hear and what you expect to hear - in other words, if you're searching for a biased news source. 

Climate deniers can build a spaceship and find another planet. Good riddance!

Sites and campaigns like "Friends of Science" drive me nuts because they're complete bullshit. I pride myself on always listening to both sides of an argument and trying to understand where other people are coming from. I also have no tolerance for attempts to swindle and lie to people who may not have the tools to tell the difference between truth and make-believe. There is absolutely no question that climate change is real and moving more quickly because of humans. NO QUESTION. Trying to claim differently is like trying to say that evolution never happened: sure, it's possible to contrive evidence to say that God put humans into the mix with the dinos, but all credible findings prove (as far as a science can prove) that that just isn't the case. So those wackos...no, worse...liars can take their site and made-up information and shove it.

That being said, there is a lot of room for debate once you accept that anthropogenicly motivated climate change is happening. While I personally think it's iresponsable, there is a valid argument that says that we should worry less about mitigating the problem and more about developing technologies to deal with the consequences. There's also a valid argument that human development and economies should come before environmental concerns (again, I don't agree). This debate is really valuble and really important, in that it forces different elements of the environmental and periphery movements to cooperate and or at least consider each other's positions.

Obviously I hold more stock with the Grist articles because it takes the lies of climate sceptics and attempts to disprove them. As always, it's necessary to regard these critiques critically, as many of them are written by environmental bloggers, who tend represet a "social greens" perspective. When looking at any opinions, scientific or activist in nature, the reader is bequeathed with the responsibility to think for themselves.

Friends of Science????

The purpose of these websites is definitely to inform, but I think both are trying to persuade people to join their sides. Each of them is not hiding their stance on climate change and give the information to support their positions. Making sense of these sites is without doubt very difficult because it is hard to tell their agendas. I do think the “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” has a little more credibility because it does take into consideration the others sides thoughts and arguments but then gives evidence to discredit them. This website is also more user-friendly, I would actually use it when someone was doubting my opinion (especially because I share the same opinion as the website!) Even if I did support the “Friends of Science” website, it just seems they have more of purpose than just being informants. They also point out that they are running on a very low budget so they need as much help as they can get so that their word can be spread. While this is fine, they need funding, the other website does not ask for money anywhere, it is more of a blog just trying to spread the facts. I am definitely biased so it is hard to give a subjective review on each of the websites, but even just looking at them for the facts is very difficult for both. The fact that they contradict each other even with their so-called facts makes it really tough to know whether one is “right.” At this point in time, it is easy to find a fact for any type of claim you want to make. I think unless you are a scientist you must take all of these sorts of sites with a grain of salt.

As I said before, I think the “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” is a bit more convincing. It is for me in particular because these are all questions that I have heard asked before, and it is hard to know the answers. The author, it seems, has also obviously seen these doubts before and takes into account all of the questions skeptics might have. I realize the “Friends of Science” site does have a fact and myth page, they state that the information they use is not original, they collect it from other sites, which almost makes me believe they just find information that fits what they think. The other website’s author is a man who does his own blogging and research, and although his word isn’t the be all end all to climate change, the reality that he is testing and researching these topics seems more legitimate to me.

Endangered speciesss

Hey guys! Not sure if you'll actually see this, but I was just on BBC and saw that one of the featured articles was a photo list of animals endangered by climate change...I thought it was funny that the majority of them were the 'charismatic' animals like we were discussing last class!

Link to cuteness...

Nature...

I love this question...at first I wanted to choose Switzerland (like Krissy and Christina!) or Alaska (because those are definitely two of the most beautiful places I've ever been fortunate enough to experience) but every time I think about this question it always comes back to the trip I took to the Grand Canyon in high school. The best part of the experience was that I didn't want to go in the first place -- it had always been my mom's dream to see it, so she and her fiancé and I went down at the beginning of summer vacation after my sophomore year. I was excited, but not overly so; since summer vacation had just begun I was all high school angst and had just wanted to stay home with my friends. However, now I know, nothing beats seeing the Grand Canyon in person and I'm so happy we went...you really never tire of looking at it and it's so amazing to think that one river crafted all of that! It was just incredible! My favorite moment though was when I had one of those really cliché (but real!) spiritual connection with nature as I watched the sun set. We were walking around the rim one evening and I walked a bit away from everyone, further down to a smaller outlook - one that was secluded from the other tourists. I sat down and  and just watched the sun slowly melt into the canyon. It was such an impressive sight that I actually teared up -  and what made it even better was that the outlook was empty - it just felt like such a personal experience. I know that I'll never forget it!

I definitely think nature should be preserved! The Grand Canyon is already a National Park, but there are plenty of other places that I haven't gotten to see and I'd like them to still be there when I go! But even more importantly, it should be saved because it's absolutely beautiful (there's really limited beauty in man made structures) and necessary to the planet. Nature is so intricate and impossible to replicate and we are still learning so much from it. Plus, this might sound juvenile, but I always think that nature was here first - its certainly not fair for us to destroy it.  When I was younger my mom and dad had a cabin up in the mountains that we went to every weekend in the summer and fall. It was such a great place to experience growing up and I can't imagine future generations not having the opportunity to have their own cabin in the woods if they wanted it. It's so sad to think our future planet as one giant metropolis like in a Star Wars movie...

Saving Nature!

I had a hard time figuring out what the most thrilling engagement I’ve had with the non-human world was, which I’m sure many other people experienced. I finally narrowed it down to hiking on Mount Rainier (it was a competition of that and the Swiss Alps, but Kristen already talked about that…). My friends and I woke up early since we were living in eastern Washington and drove from our perpetually sunny desert home near the Idaho border to Mount Rainier, which untrue to its form, was also sunny and about 80 degrees when we got there. As soon as we got off the beaten path (we had a Washington-state native tour guide) our cell phones lost reception, and we were completely disconnected from the rest of the world. It was incredible because there were eight science-nerds (we were all interning together) and nature, and we were all beyond excited. We first hiked a short 4-mile trail around the bend of a smaller mountain and found a beautiful lake to have lunch at, and then we rounded the corner through the heavy layer of pine trees into an opening where Mount Rainier was beautifully displayed right in front of us. It was larger than we had imagined – we were already at about 7,000 feet, and it seemed so close. We then headed up to Paradise (appropriately named), which is also at about 7,000 feet, but it is actually on Mount Rainier. We were kind of bummed because of the huge amount of tourists, but once we chose a challenging trail that had a steep slope gradient and was not paved (paved trails, honestly?) we lost most of the crowd. We hiked up a few miles, alternately stopping to catch our breath (it was unbelievable how hard it suddenly became to breathe once you got above 7,500 feet) and we finally found a clearing with Mount Rainier’s infamous wildflowers and waterfalls all around us on the mountain and Mirror Lake, which completely reflected the mountain above it. We camped out there and as the sun was setting, the clouds finally rolled in and there was light rain throughout the night. When we woke up to travel back down, it was misty and even more gorgeous than when it was sunny because the waterfalls materialized out of the air and we could only see the beginnings of the glaciers on the mountain. (I could reference Lord of the Rings like Meghan…but most people think of Twilight when they hear Washington state…shame). As we headed back to our perpetually 109 degree desert to go back to work, we all realized that Mount Rainier was a magical place and we got to experience something that was beyond the human world and its interactions.

Yes, “saving nature” is definitely something we should concern ourselves with. I think that the answer to a lot of problems people face, mainly mental ones of anxiety, stress, and being overworked, come from a lack of experience with nature. I know this sounds really far-fetched and weird, but I honestly feel that if people were more in tune with nature and spent more time outside and enjoying the natural beauty of our planet, then our mental states as a planet would become more relaxed and happy. I experienced this personally – all summer every weekend we would go camping/hiking in Glacier National Park, Mount Rainier, Mount Hood, the Olympic Peninsula, etc. and it would essentially clear our heads from the week and make us realize the insignificance of our problems compared to the beauty of nature. When I came back to DC I went through some weird withdrawal from ‘nature’ and found myself more down than I normally would have been. I also think that nature is inspiring, and a lot of books, songs, poems are based around nature. If this were to disappear, what would happen to this avenue of creative thought? Also, experiencing nature doesn’t have to be so extreme – you don’t have to go summit a mountain in order to be moved by nature. Just sitting on your front porch in summer while the sun is setting, or walking outside with a friend during the first snowfall of the year all make us recognize the importance and beauty of nature, and how necessary it is to preserve, if only (but hopefully not only) for the selfish reason of our own benefit from nature.

Experiences in Nature

The best encounter that I’ve ever had with nature is definitely when I travelled to the gorgeous mountains of Switzerland. It was a country that had the best of all weather patterns: snow on the mountain peaks in the distance but could still have gorgeous weather with green grass in the small towns within the mountains. I think it was such an awesome experience because the Swiss seemed very in tune with the nature and landscapes around them. The towns were tucked amongst the mountains and were very clean and did not seem to take over the environment around them. As opposed to many cities in the US, the cities in Switzerland seemed to be second to the grounds around them. For example, the people there love and want to keep their nature in tact, so they put in these cities that allow them to enjoy the beauty but not disturb it. I enjoyed it so much because although the cities were great places to be in, they really synced their living situations with the beautiful mountains and nature around them. They also made sure people could still enjoy the great scenery by making nature part of the main attractions. One of the most beautiful things you can do there is take a train ride up the mountains and simply enjoy the scenery.

After travelling to many places around Europe last year it gave me a new and (I think) better perspective about the way humans treat nature. Keeping nature preserved is not only an important way to add to saving of the environment, but it is also a great way to enjoy the little things in life. Forget building an amusement park or malls, just go outside and enjoy the gorgeous leaves when they change in fall. Go look at the first snowfall, or the great things that nature creates in different countries. The level of happiness is a topic we have talked about in class, especially concerning Americans. We tend to think that the only way to happiness is money, social status, and consumption. I think saving nature could also solve this misconception as well. Nature is such a serene being that isn’t exclusive and is probably the simplest way to be happy today, which is why I definitely think we should do our best to save it.

Nature

The coolest experience I've had in nature (thus far) was in the Czech Republic when I was camping and hiking through the forests near Hrad Kokorin (Kokorin Castle). My friend and I took a bus to the area where the castle was located and when the bus left we realized that we were in a utterly and completely rural area. We saw some HUGE storm clouds on the horizon and were a little nervous because the next bus didn't arrive until the next morning, but we decided to go on and find someplace sheltered to sleep. We walked for about two miles on a one land road in the middle of huge hills covered in traditional farmland (not huge factory farms) while these enormous storm clouds rolled in. The weather was warm still, even with the rain coming, so the walking was totally pleasant and wonderful. We finally reached the forest and walked down this tiny little path into the middle of what looked like the Lord of the Rings set (I guess the set was all of New Zealand, if I think about it...). All around me were huge rocky cliffs, fairytale trees with light filtering down from the sky and in the distance I could see the ruins of a castle. The atmosphere was so quiet and peaceful that I forgot all about the incoming rain. We hiked around for a few hours and finally stumbeled upon a resturant and some cabins to camp in. Perhaps the most impressive part of the night was the storm that night, which was truely a testament to the power of nature. For hours the rain poured down, with plenty of thunder and lightening to light up our powerless cabin. It was lucky that we found a cabin, because we would have been cold and miserable, but with the hiking and the storm and the fact that we were so far from the city, I felt really impressed by nature.


I definitely think its important to preserve natural spaces "for the sake of nature." That humans believe that they can conquor the entire earth and leave nothing untouched disgusts me. We are not the only inhabitants of this planet and the arrogance that humanity has thus far displayed has and will continue to wreak havok on the planet and eventually on the way that we live. Additionally, there are so many amazing experiences that would be lost if all the earth's natural spaces were destroyed: the world would be so much more boring without hiking in endless forests, swimming in hidden lakes and climbing sky-high mountains.

Eco-Tourism

First, I'm going to agree and say that the 'tropical' vacations people take often run parallel to those shown in the Life and Debt film - ignoring the extreme generalizations. It's obviously pretty hard to avoid if you're heading to a place in the Caribbean, which is where many Americans travel on vacation because of the proximity to our own country. I'm definitely guilty of it - in Aruba whenever we left the resort we drove around the island amid tiny shanty houses and goats. In Mexico, on the drive to our hotel we drove along a (long) stretch of road with a makeshift village - people literally living along the side of the road under tarp and other scraps. Obviously it made us feel incredibly guilty and more than a little uncomfortable. The other side is that the majority of those tropical vacation spots would be devastated if people stopped vacationing  there as the bulk of their economies are often tourism.  

  I'm not sure how I feel about eco-tourism. Obviously, it's a great concept - if you love to travel you'll want to help to preserve those beautiful places you love visiting. However, I'll also agree that currently eco-tourism may be less helpful to the environment and more helpful to the pocketbooks of bigwig companies. I watch the Travel Channel often (ok, all the time) and recently they've been covering this trend of eco-tourism. It looks awesome, the resorts are stunning and breathtakingly situated right in the heart of nature. However, I've noticed that these same resorts seem to be incredibly expensive and only a logical option for the wealthiest of travelers. I'm sure cheaper options exist, but it seems like currently, eco-tourism is cashing  in on the "Hollywood trend" of being green -  and acting here as the  chic  alternative to vacationing. 

While I know the economic costs of air travel are high,  I don't think they should be considered into part of our cost of travel. Rather, we should focus our energy into technologies to help reduce the impact of the airplane and make it universal to help preserve the tradition of travel. If anything, one could argue that travel can help the environmental movement by encouraging more people to care; people will be more inclined to help to save the planet if they've actually witnessed its beauty firsthand! 

EcoTourism

While I really enjoyed the film "Life and Debt" one of the aspects of it that really bothered me was the depiction of the obviously stupid, mindless tourists flooding the islands of honest, underprivileged Jamaicans. Okay, yeah, I'm sure a lot of those tourists really weren't consciously dissecting the social inequities of tourism in the developing world or the irony of watching crabs race by the pool while women demanded fair working conditions and pay. But applying a blanket characterization to one group of people (the stupid, ignorant tourists) is just as morally questionable as believing the stereotypes about another (the uneducated, lazy Jamaicans). Yeah, spending your vacation at a Sandals resort in a country on the verge of economic collapse with nary a second thought is wrong, but assuming that all of these people were ignorant of the issues they were surrounded by and parodying them for it was wrong, too.

That said, eco-tourism and tourism generally, when conducted in a sustainable and socially conscious manner, is really great. Experiencing different cultures is absolutely essential to expanding and reshaping the way you perceive the world you live in. I can absolutely say that studying and traveling in Central and Eastern Europe (more exotic than it initially sounds, formerly communist countries are fascinating and really, really different than the bastion of capitalism, the United States) completely transformed the way I see the world and how I approach problem solving. That said, air travel is completely ridiculous in terms of carbon emissions (I should know...my dad is a corporate pilot and I tried to buy him a carbon offset for Christmas last year...anyone have $9,000 lying around??). The solution to this problem, in my view, is not necessarily eliminating travel from ones life completely, but by supporting companies that are investigating clean fuel technologies. Beyond this, it is the responsibility of companies to actually do this research and governments to financially motivate such initiatives.

The issues brought up in the short webisode about greenwashing is well received and should definitely be taken into consideration. This requires real, substantive research into tourism packages, but if you're paying a lot to go on a great trip, research is sort of part of the ball game.

Environmental Costs of Traveling

The theme that many rich country tourists have little interest in the social and environmental impacts of their visits to nations in the global south is one that I have also seen occur frequently, but I think that this is a more generational trend, to a certain extent. Many people that I know who travel to the ‘global South’ for vacation are my grandmother’s friends, my parents friends and those who did not grow up in a world where environmental degradation and the threat of global warming from plane emissions were major themes. The majority of individuals in my generation that I know traveled to the global South were on AU AltBreak trips, where many of the themes are social justice, environmental issues and/or human rights issues. I do not think that traveling to the global South for vacation is necessarily a completely bad thing – in fact, I think it does help bolster some countries economies, but I also do not think it is going to change. Reading over the article about British citizens’ general refusal to fly less grasps this concept that traveling/vacationing is sort of a privilege, and while I don’t agree with it, I feel that many Americans are going to continue traveling wherever they want because they have the money and do not think about the environmental impacts.

I agree with Kristen about eco-tourism – it is a generally good concept, but it has become more of a corporation-focused initiative, which takes away from the original point. I think that traveling to environmentally fragile places is also not a good idea – I do not understand how increasing travel to these areas will have a low-impact on that environment. Humans inevitably destroy nature. The fact that this can harm the locals to these areas is even worse than the fact that corporations and foreign investors take much of the money from eco-tourism ventures. I think that the main ways that travel does more good than harm is in scenarios such as AltBreak trips, where you go to an area to learn about its culture, talk to its citizens and learn about the actual area, instead of seeing the inside of a resort that looks like any other resort you can find along the coasts of the United States during summer. This way, individuals become more aware of what they have, what others don’t have, and how their choices impacts others, even thousands of miles away.

As far as plane travel goes, I’m undecided on whether the environmental costs of traveling should be included in plane travel. As an individual who has a completely irrational and horrible fear of flying, and tries to avoid it at all costs, I still flew over 40 hours since March, mostly all of which was school-related and internship-related. I know that I had to fly back and forth to Washington State twice for my internship, and had the environmental costs of that been included, I’m not sure that I would have had the internship in the first place (ironically it was with the Dept. of Energy, and they paid for my travel). In a perfect world, there would be much more R&D into biofuels or other types of renewable fuel that could power planes, and we wouldn’t have to worry about this, but until this happens, there’s nothing we can do. Also in a perfect world, the environmental costs of flying would be included in airfare, but this would have negative impacts as well. Participation in programs such as AltBreaks, social justice trips or other related-trips that work to build schools, homes, etc. in developing areas would most likely not happen, leaving a lot of areas without help that they depend on. NGO’s are not financially strong institutions, but they do a lot of work in developing countries. If there was even more money put into travel for them, then it would be even harder for these NGOs to do their work. Then again, maybe I’m just being selfish and trying to justify why there should not be environmental costs of flying factored into airfare. I love to travel (not fly), and if the environmental costs of flying were added into airfare, I probably wouldn’t be able to go anywhere.

Eco-travel

First I would like to express my impressions on the film we watched in class about Jamaica. I believe that even though the movie was slightly outdated, it would be a fallacy to believe these types of things don’t still happen. People go on vacations all the time to locations that have gorgeous resorts, while the rest of the country suffers from environmental degradation and an unsanitary atmosphere. Jakarta, Indonesia is an example of a popular vacation spot that provides its tourists with gorgeous 5-star hotels and resorts, while there is a problem with open sewage in the water. I believe that many Westerners turn a blind eye when they visit places like this. I know that they aren’t on vacation necessarily to go and help out with problems in third world countries, and even that their tourism may be helping the economy of that country, but I also think doing nothing about it is a problem. As for the Jamaica movie, the problems in this country were not only on the outside, but internal as well. The IMF conditional loans were unfair to the people and causing more problems than helping.

A type of solution for the problem of tourists going to countries where you should stay on the resort and are considered crazy if you venture off is called ecotourism. It is defined as “travel to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be low impact and (often) small scale”. It is a program that could actually help the environment and tries to take the negative impacts out of commercial tourism like what was seen in the movie. It usually focuses on areas that provide nature as the sites. This sounds like a great alternative, but sometimes the eco-tourism goals backfire. One example of this is that the groups that promote eco-tourism are foreign investors or corporations that get some of the benefits of this practice, and of the little profit they bring in, the locals hardly get any of it. A huge problem in the world today is money and what goes with it, in this case, greed. It seems like this is a program with great intentions, but it got into the wrong hands, and now it has just turned into another industry where the proceeds do not go to the people that really need them.

I definitely am a proponent of trying to help the environment as much as I can, but travel is a big part of my life, and I honestly cannot think of a way to avoid flying as much as I do. I would say I take about 7-10 plane trips a year, mostly to visit my family, but I do minimal travel in the car. Even though there is a lot of room for improvement in my travel habits, I just don’t see how I could cut down the trip more than one or two flights. I think if the cost of flights were a lot more expensive because they included the actual pollutants you are putting into the air, then I would think twice about flying, but then I might turn to train travel, and then would I be doing more harm than good anyways? I think this answer is what most people say when they talk about helping the environment: if I can’t do one thing, I’ll think of another way.

Green Eating...

The main thoughts that go through my head when making food choices at a market or restaurant are price and quality. I generally shop at generic supermarkets, such as Superfresh or Safeway, mainly because it is what I can afford. I try to keep environmental considerations in mind when deciding what to eat, but the true nature of what I buy is based on price. I’m also pretty basic in what I buy – I have a meal plan, so I basically just buy bread, milk, cereal and lunchmeat every week for times when I don’t have a chance to grab lunch at the cafeteria. I try to make healthy decisions, but my habits of what I buy are so ingrained, that I hardly even think about what I’m buying anymore. The other day, I went with my boyfriend to Whole Foods to get dinner, because we thought it’d be quick and cheap to make a salad. My salad ended up costing my $9.99, which is outrageous for any type of small salad like the one I got, and it wasn’t even filling! I (kind of) admire people who are willing to put out this kind of money for food that’s ‘better’ for the environment, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to justify buying a salad for 10 dollars, even if I was super rich. (I also somewhat question people who are willing to put out that much money on food for themselves, when they can be putting their money towards way more important things). I do like to support local produce and farmer’s markets, but there’s also a downfall with this. Our campus farmer’s market produce not only is not organic, but it’s not local! The farm is in Pennsylvania, more than 100 miles from school. It leads me to question many farmer’s markets, and what I actually am supporting when buying ‘local.’

I’ve been sick all week so I actually haven’t eaten much in the last day or two, but I would most likely count the microwaveable soup that I’ve been eating as having the most environmental impact. Not only is there a TON of packaging, there is also the cost of producing the soup and shipping it around the country. The most appalling part however, is the packaging, because it contains metal and hard plastic and the whole contraption to microwave the soup in is not reusable once consumed. If everyone ate these as liberally as I have over the past few days, I feel that the amount of waste we create would significantly increase.

Food Musings.

When grocery shopping my first thought as a college student is definitely cost, not environmental impact. I guess I'm kind of a creature of habit - I know what I'm looking for and I mostly always buy the same staple foods - I've selected these items after checking things like the nutrition info, seeing if it's whole grain and of course, checking out the price. I would love to shop at Whole Foods all the time, but not because they are mostly organic but because they have a lot of more exotic type items that you won't find in the rest of the run of the mill chains I shop at like Giant. I only ever go to Whole Foods as a 'treat' - to buy plantain chips for example. As a college student without a car, I'm also constricted to distance - I have to shop at the nearest grocery store because I have to lug all of my purchases home with me by foot afterward. When dining out, I again, look at cost but I've been a vegetarian since the fifth grade, so I've sort of become an expert at scouring the menu for meat-free options. Lucky for me, those options tend to be cheaper than dishes with meat tend to be. 

I think the thing I've recently consumed that has the most impact was probably one of those frozen Amy's Indian dishes. I only occasionally buy meals off of that label, not because they are organic, but because a few of the varieties are so good! However, they are way too expensive and the whole organic thing was never really an important thing to me growing up - in reality I should really stop buying them all together. With the cardboard container and the plastic overlay, it definitely wasn't an eco-friendly meal. And while it is labeled as 'organic,' (which I guess is a bonus?) I'm pretty positive that the many ingredients found in the dish weren't purchased locally. Factor in the energy the plant used to manufacture the meal and add in the shipping to the grocery story and my meal probably added a sizable addition of carbon to the atmosphere. I can't say that I'll completely stop purchasing the Palak Paneer dish, but I may refrain from buying it as often in the future. If anything, this exercise has made me think twice about my personal impact. It really adds up!

Counting calories, counting carbon

When I'm shopping at the store for food, my first consideration is what I would like to eat. This is perhaps a more complicated procedure than for many people, as I'm possibly the most picky eater ever (not by choice, I try everything!). After I figure out what my unwilling taste buds will allow me to offer them, I usually think about trying to be healthy. This usually is merely a fleeting thought, probably because I still don't REALLY know what healthy is. That said, I usually try to get a few veggies, some fruits, and whole wheat. Unfortunately I love cheese which isn't really a great diet staple, but...meh. I can actually say that I really try my best to think about the environment while shopping; as a fairly laid back person, I can actually say that I got in a real fight with someone over the importance of carefully considering diet choices. I've tried to be a vegetarian since I was 13 but always succumbed to the temptations of chicken and cheeseburgers. Finally, five months ago I stopped eating meat, and can say now that I've done it, its not really that hard (still craving chicken a little...). That's an important aspect of an environmental diet, I think, in the contribution of factory farms to carbon emissions and toxic runoff (I've also been thinking about if I would eat meat from local, family farms. I'm fairly sure I would still abstain, just because I feel a little weird devouring the flesh of a formerly living animal. That said, I don't condemn others peoples choices on this matter as long as they've carefully considered the issue). In terms of other environmental considerations, I try to buy organic foods (although the organic label has really lost a lot of legitimacy these days) and buy fruit in season only. I don't have the money to shop exclusively at farmers markets or Whole Foods, but I try to support local markets as much as possible. The food tastes great! Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of extra time to prepare complicated vegetable stews and stuff, so I'm often stuck with pasta.

In the last few days I've had a lot of really crappy food. Today I ate a candy bar, a bag of chips, a bagel and an enormous plate of pasta. Yesterday, I had leftover Chinese food, a bag of chips, and pasta. Hands down though, the biggest environmental crime I've committed is drinking Coke. I am, admittedly, addicted to that stuff and drink it pretty much every day all day. Coca Cola is a really disgusting company from their social justice issues in Africa and Latin America to their avowed commitment to dispensing bottled tap water around the world. Supporting them at all financially is something I really regret and am trying, actively, to change.

Analyzing our Food

When I go grocery shopping, what goes through my head first is what do I need? The second thing is how can I get these items at the cheapest price possible. To be honest trying to buy organic or have a smaller carbon footprint does not really go through my head because, as a college student, I really try not to have a huge grocery bill. Usually the organic and specialty foods are on the more expensive side, so it doesn’t really make sense for me to get something I can get cheaper at the same store. When deciding to eat out, I do sometimes pay more attention to places that offer organic choices or places that provide local food choices. I will do this because it is a lot easier to buy at places that do the hard work for you! I also enjoy buying fair trade coffee, which is provided for a lot less money at some places and it is at least better for the developing countries, which in turn can help the environment. Honestly at this point in my life, although it’s not something I am proud of, buying environmentally friendly foods are only in my interest if they are the most inexpensive option. I will say that I try to stay away from very processed foods or fast food and try to at least buy items that are fresh. Hopefully this factor of my shopping is a step in the right direction.

Out of the last two days, the worst thing (for my body and the environment) was probably pizza. Not my first choice, but when its free I’ll take it! The pizza was the most impacting on the environment because of the way it got to our plates. It was delivery, so it made its way over in a car that put gas into the air. It was also delivered in a box, that was most likely not recycled cardboard, and the chances that it got recycled are slim because of the lack of facilities. Usually I get my groceries to my apartment by walking, so this definitely was a different and more harmful way to get my food. Also the fact that the ingredients were not organic and definitely not locally produced tells me that they travelled a long way before they were even made into a pizza. I actually read that the average meal travels from 5 different countries, that’s thousands of miles just to have one measly slice of pizza! The delivery, ingredients and materials put into the pizza made it the most harmful dinner that I’ll hopefully eat for a while.

DC 200

I think if we continue on our present course, DC 200 years from now will be a very different place. 200 years ago we couldn't begin to imagine the technologies we have today and I think the same is true for the next 200 years. If we continue on our present course, where building, consuming and growing is the most important thing on the agenda, then I think we would be hard pressed to find traces of nature in the city, or in any big city. Property values are already so high in DC; so like Kristen, I think this high demand will drive the development of most of the green areas that remain in the city. It's awful to think about considering all the history this city contains, but if current attitudes persist, I think 200 years from now history will be bulldozed for more development. I definitely picture more high rises, more traffic (whether it is from cars or spaceships, I can't say) more concrete, more shopping centers and definitely more people. 

Ideally, in 200 years, thanks to a serious global environmental movement and the implication of some eco-friendly technologies, DC will look even more green and vegetated than it is now. Sustainable buildings will be a staple of the city and even though there will be more people, they will have less of an impact than they do now. In my preferred future, I think there would be definite improved public transportation systems that are super fast and super efficient. I think that, unfortunately, the great divide between rich and poor in DC will still exist due to the location, although in my preferred vision, the divide will be smaller and  the entire city would be equally sustainable and green. 

DC in 200 Years

In 200 years from now, I think that Washington DC will look similar to the outlines that Meghan and Kristen gave. Since it is the nation's capital and the 'capital of the free world,' one would expect it to stay culturally diverse. However, even now gentrification is happening in areas such as Columbia Heights, with the threat moving to Adams Morgan which is geographically close, but still a cultural hub. Even areas around U Street, which have been culturally diverse throughout Washington DC's history as one of the areas where the civil rights movement really manifested itself; the area is now catering to wealthy young adults who can afford to live upper middle class lifestyles in an area of downtown DC. On the other hand, as we have continually discussed in our class, the need for a change to focus on the environmental is coming. I would expect DC to be a leader in that change towards living sustainability when the time comes (basically the last minute). I think that DC will reluctantly move to sustainable architecture, practices, energy, etc. and it will be a leader in this technology because it is the capital. I do not think that green space will be eliminated because it is such a huge part of the makeup of DC, and is one of the things the city is praised for.

I hope the region will change and move to more efficient technology and energy uses. I think that the future of energy holds a combination of bio fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. None of these technologies is going to be the 'silver bullet' that revolutionizes the way we use energy. I think that harnessing energy is going to become a real issue, and that 200 years down the line, we will have perfected this technology (we already have it, its just too expensive and no one is willing to invest to help bring down costs). Like I said, I think energy will be a combination of all sorts of renewable energy because this will make renewable energy able to be catered to individual areas (example - Washington DC does not have a lot of open areas for harvesting bio fuels, and transport brings costs up. DC could harness solar and wind energy because you do not need open spaces, just areas on top of buildings where you can place small wind turbines or solar panels). I hope cars of the future will have solar panels on the top that generate energy while running, and there are significantly less. DC is already applauded for having a clean (though not as safe as people had originally thought) public transportation system and I hope that we can expand on this in the future. Providing public transportation to more and more individuals with efficient service and clean technology is something that DC should strive for as a leader in public transit. I also would hope that office buildings would look more like the Merrill Center in Annapolis. This building contains energy saving technology, LEED certification tools, such as catching storm water runoff and using gray and black water in the building, and creates a general atmosphere where workers are happier and have more control over their setting. I recently saw in downtown DC (17th and G streets I think) that the first LEED certified office building was built in DC. I do not think that LEED has all of the answers, but I think it is a starting point for making the future of new construction and modifying existing structures more sustainable. I also hope housing will follow a setting similar to Battery City in NYC, but even more sustainable. The complexes will generate their own power through wind or solar energy, and recycle all water and capture storm water runoff. If there is a gym in the housing complex, it can be attached to the power grid so you can offset energy use when you are working out.

I do not think that all of these things will happen, though I feel that a lot of them are necessary if we want to continue living our western lifestyle. I think that I am generally idealistic in terms of the future. I think that many environmentally-aware individuals are waiting for oil to peak, and then when things start to go downhill from there, the government and the people of the world will clamor for the change that should be happening now, and it will happen rapidly. However, as we have seen in our class, not all individuals even at our age acknowledge the impact we are having on the environment (this is not a criticism, it's just a way of showing how peoples opinions are significantly different). This type of mindset will lead to more hanging around and waiting for the planet to change or somehow produce a new energy source, which is what government and policy makers seem to currently be doing. I would expect DC to look significantly different 200 years down the line, but at the rate that changes are being made, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Washington in 200 years.

If Washington DC continues on its current development course, I agree with Kristen that the entire city will be come gentrified. Already, culturally significant areas around the city are being obliterated by corporate growth and the buildup of middle-class friendly, cookie cutter condominiums. I think this is a tragedy, as Washington is a historically rich and culturally diverse place that will suffer without a continuation of this legacy. If this gentrification were to happen it would push the poor into the surrounding suburbs and farther, necessitating the development of a more extensive public transportation system. Additionally, I agree with the idea that green space will be used for development, although I believe that with more housing development for the upper-middle class will come a high demand for some green areas to be left alone. I think currently there's a really good culture of organic farmers markets within the city and I can't imagine this changing, especially if the city continues to grow as a home for wealthy, young people.

In 200 years ideally DC would look both really different and really similar. In differences I would hope to see the installation of tram car systems to expedite and better the transportation system. These could potentially be run on some sort of magnetic rail system that is awesome and carbon friendly (I sort of made that up, but I imagine somebody had ideas for magnet energy!?). Additionally, I would advocate for more high rise (LEED certified, of course) buildings in the downtown area to avoid development spreading outwards toward residential neighborhoods. I would also like to see the refurbishment of many low income neighborhood parks and gathering places, in addition to refurbishment of older homes into mixed income housing. In terms of what would stay the same, I'd like the charm of the old residential areas to persist, much of which depends on keeping property taxes low enough and the minimum wage high enough to allow the diverse range of people who live there now to stay. It would be essential, in this ideal city, that the gathering spots and parks are maintained and stay as beautiful and protected as they are now. I would advise the government to stop building memorials to wars and dead presidents and start building ties in the community by increasing funding for the arts so that local artists could paint more murals and organizers could fund more free concerts and screenings around the city.

DC in the future

200 years from now, I think Washington, DC, a fairly lush and green city, will probably be rid of foliage and parks. Currently, DC loses about 6% of its trees every year, so with this loss we will definitely be nearing an end to the tree population in 200 years. I think the parks will all be gone, used for some urban development like housing or more stores. I also think the National Zoo will be replaced. It occupies a huge part of the city, and I really think one mayor will come in and be able to use politics to eliminate the zoo in order to put more development. I also think a big problem in the city today is gentrification, so in 200 years I think the problem will have escalated. DC’s lower income areas are being remodeled and huge development is occurring. In turn, the people who live there are being pushed out. This causes a huge environmental problem because not only is more development happening, but more people become attracted to areas which brings more cars giving off gases and more consumption. I think in 200 years the whole city will be gentrified and therefore less environmentally friendly. I think there will be a lot more apartment complexes, and probably even small communities within the city. For example, a new apartment building will go up and along with it, a grocery store, a salon, restaurants and clothing retailers. I think they will try to squeeze in any type of commercial place that they can in order to appeal to consumers.

I hope that in 200 years the city will be transformed into a very modern and environmentally savvy place that citizens would love to live in. Since the cost of living here is already extremely high, I think it should be a place where you actually get something special for your money. In 200 years, DC should be the “green city”, somewhere that people know is expensive to live, but also is almost entirely green in the way that they do business, hold classes at universities and in all commercial businesses. The government should promote this, and therefore there would be laws in place that state all existing businesses, residences and private establishments have to convert their facilities and practices to be eighty percent green. This doesn’t have to exactly be the law, but something like it would be a great start. I would love to see the parks and neighborhoods with backyards still exist in DC in 200 years, because I think it is the green space tucked away that really makes the city alive and interesting, not to mention green!

Going Green. Easy Doesn't Do It.

I'm a huge fan of Michael Maniates' article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" (in fact, I posted it to my Facebook on Thanksgiving 2007), because it addresses an issue that has been difficult to address in the modern environmental movement: the insufficiency of personal accountability in addressing major climate change issues. Through advertising, media and even scholarly pursuits, we have been told, as a society, that small lifestyle modifications could virtually halt the rising tide of climate change; making informed consumer choices and thinking briefly about the natural environment every so often has been touted as the route to absolution. Feeling bad about those poor polar bears? Pump up your tires! Wishing you could make a difference in the life of a climate refugee? Change a light bulb! Personal choice, an adulated saint in the Western religion of individuality, is seen by many as the end all and be all of environmental activism.

Maniates' basically throws this easy-does-it lifestyle attitude back in the faces of those who adore it. In his mind, the only way to viably address global warming is through a complete overhaul of our global mindset, a reevaluation of how we term growth.

One issue I have with the article is that while Maniates' certainly acknowledges the benefit of personally sustainable choices, he does so only saying they might help dent the effects climate changes. He does not, however, acknowledge the idea that leaders who advocate mandatory global lifestyle changes should already have experience with these changes in their own lives. Personal accountability is tantamount to honesty in politics; relevant cliches include "practice what you preach" and "you're the pot calling the kettle black."

I'm not sure Maniates is really criticizing the environmental movement itself, but actually being critical of the way most groups try to inspire action in the more mainstream public. Advocating green consumption and small choices is not the most effective way of dealing with climate change, but is not completely useless. These campaigns can inspire people who would not otherwise be thoughtful to action and I guess that's better than nothing(?).

Maniates' strongest point comes when he suggests that "Americans are at their best when they're struggling together, and sometimes with one another, toward difficult goals." I would like to make a slight modification to this and say that humans are at their best when they're struggling with and together. In Copenhagen and in the future, lets hope that this statement is holds true.

The Story of Stuff

I personally like the Story of Stuff. It reminds me of the School House Rock videos that teachers used to show me in elementary school. To this day, the “I’m just a bill” song from School House Rock still remains my basis for how a bill makes it to law. Yes, I have taken many a political science class that has shown me in great detail how a bill is hassled over and debated in Congress and then has to make it to the desk of the president, etc. However, when I think about the core of the process, nothing makes it easier than that original video that I watched as a second grader in Mrs. Smucker’s class. Because of this, I understand why there has been such a debate over the Story of Stuff in the classroom.
As I mentioned before, I like the Story of Stuff. I believe that it expresses an essential truth: humans have a negative impact on the environment and our way of life leads to the deterioration of the earth that we live on. While this is true, I can understand why people would have a problem with the way that Annie Leonard portrays it. While I agree that consumerism is a big part of the problem, I generally tend to agree with Steve Cohen’s article and that it is the way that our economy operates that should change rather than obliterating it.
I feel as though I have to play devil’s advocate when it comes to the Story of Stuff because it is not pure fact, it is fact put in a satirical and political manner. Annie Leonard exercises her own political views in the video and while it might not have been stated outright, they were always implied. Because they involve political views, I can see why parents would not want their children to watch it in the schools. Schools are supposed to be a place of unbiased learning. It should teach children to question and challenge them without a doubt, but the Story of Stuff has a political undertone that I feel can be seen as inappropriate for schools. My teachers were always professional enough to never reveal to which way their political views tended and it is illegal for them to do so as my AP Political Science teacher told me in high school. While I would advocate that all people talk about this and watch the video to be informed, I can sympathize with why parents would have a problem with it.

Michael Maniates article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" hit the nail on the head when it comes to American's perception of the environmental movement and our role as citizens living the "western lifestyle." Throughout this class and many other classes and articles, it is clear that if everyone lived the lavish and wasteful lifestyle that we live as Americans, we would need 5+ planets to sustain us. This fact alone should be more than enough to get people to realize that we need to stop doing things at the micro level and move to more awareness and more pressure to reduce our impact.

I think the way that Michael Maniates challenges the modern environmental movement is correct, but the main target isn't the modern environmental movement - its' those who are only partially aware of the environment who need to change. Working with the DOE and various environmental NGOs that make up the 'environmental movement,' it is clear that at that level, individuals are doing all they can and moving out of their comfort zone to stop their impact on the environment. It's people who are unaware or uninterested in the environment who really need to read this article. The environmental movement has grown and become a more broad-based term, but at its' core, individuals are very aware and working very hard to bring about changes to our system.

I have to confess that I bought my parents one of those books (I think it was something like "Your Basic Questions about the Environment Answered") to help raise their awareness and to try to connect to them on the level that I am focusing on at school. While the suggestions these books, celebrities and other media outlets provide for individuals to help save the planet are mundane and basic to many people involved in the environmental movement, they are also necessary. I'll admit that I get extremely disheartened studying environmental problems and working to try and get others to understand the urgency of our problems, only to be met with attitudes that are unwavering on their wasteful, overconsuming way of life. However, people and governments can only turn a blind eye for so long. I think that Maniates' call for hard work is extremely important. In America, we know what this means. When there is a huge problem that needs to be solved, we've been able to do this. This is evident in World War II and the creation of the atomic bomb. We needed to beat Germany to finish the bomb, so we put our best efforts forth and did it, regardless of cost or hard work expended. It's this type of mentality we need to see in America in order to change our climate and the way that we view the looming energy crisis and climate changes.