D11

After reading “Cradle to Cradle” I think McDonough and Braungart have made excellent points. In our 2^nd to last class, Professor Nicholson asked us to think of a way to combat environmental issues. My group came up with an idea similar to McDonough and Braungart’s-fixating on an industry and finding new green methods to improve production and reduce cost.

The “Cradle to grave” method is ineffective and severely hurting our environment. We should be producing things that are biological and technical nutrients. I really like their ideas. I especially like the product to service idea. A product to service is Instead of assuming that all products are to be bought, owned, and disposed of by “consumer,” product containing valuable and technical nutrients---cars, TV’s, carpeting, computers and refrigerators, for example---would be reconceived as services people want to enjoy. IN this scenario customers would effectively purchase the service of such a product for a defined user period---say ten thousand hours of TV viewing, rather than a tv itself. When they finish with the product, or are simply ready to upgrade to a newer version, the manufacturer replaces it, taking the old model back, breaking it down, and using its complex materials as food for new products.

I don’t see the product to service idea being implemented in the near future, but I think it is a very smart plan. It makes economical sense to reuse old products. Reusing old products will only save money, but research has to be implemented to figure out how to do that.

I really liked McDonough and Braungart’s point about the chemicals being used in every product we interact with. It is scary to think about how whatever we touch, wear, or eat have chemicals on it. I thought McDonough and Braungart’s research in finding healthy textile chemicals for a nursery was a smart plan. It makes me worried to think about the potential harms these untested chemicals will have on my family and me.

MCdonough and Braungart are on the right track and their optimism is not misplaced. However that does not mean their ideas are ever going to be implemented into mainstream production and consumption techniques. I think for their ideas to work, more chemist need to start doing research on the science behind consumption. Their needs to be dozens of McDonough and Braungart’s, who can help pave the way for new technologies and ideas of consumption. There will have to be more cooperation between companies on sharing technology and ideas. Governments will also have to get involved and provide economic incentive to implement their ideas. Tax breaks are always effective. McDonough and Braungart optimism is not misplaced, change can happened, it just isn’t going to be easy.

-Tracey Swan

D12

Sorry, have to resend so you can read it!!

I found this assignment really funny because my family is very environmentally conscious. I was at Thanksgiving dinner for about an hour before my Mother started talking about recycling. She mentioned how she hated the East Coast recycling systems, because they never had any public bins to recycle cans and bottles. She then proceeded to talk about how atrocious New York was with its recycling. I found this conversation amusing, because I did not even have to bring up the subject of environmentalism and global warming. Here was a typical family conversation about the environment.

My family normally looks at recycling as the best most efficient way to save the environment. I brought up the fact that recycling did produce waste and that the system was inherently flawed. They liked this point, but I still said it was the best method we have currently.

I discussed Braungart and McDonough thinking that we should not waste but rather should look at new ways to produce from biological and technical nutrients. My family was very receptive to this argument. It was easy talking to them about the environment, because they agree on all these perspectives we’ve been discussing in class. They liked Braungart and McDonough’s argument, but did not think it was very realistic. We are cynical and so we believe that the system of consumption and waste or “cradle by grave” is too strongly grained in the foundations of our society. My mother thought that product to services was a great idea, but would never actually happened.

I also discussed with them Maniates viewpoint of the “Trinity of Despair.” My mother thought it was a really good point that social movements don’t occur by popular support. Civil Rights was a struggle by the African American community, but most of America was in support of segregation. She thinks that the problem here is that global warming is calling on the world to change their entire foundation. Segregation was an easy fix, if you think about it. It didn’t cost a lot to integrate people. But for the United States to change from a coal and gas emitting country to a green emitting country, it is going to cost large amounts of money and affects all businesses across the board. With that to consider, and the fact that international cooperation has been very difficult to achieve-global warming is a problem with many hard decisions that need to be made.

D12

I found this assignment really funny because my family is very environmentally conscious. I was at Thanksgiving dinner for about an hour before my Mother started talking about recycling. She mentioned how she hated the East Coast recycling systems, because they never had any public bins to recycle cans and bottles. She then proceeded to talk about how atrocious New York was with its recycling. I found this conversation amusing, because I did not even have to bring up the subject of environmentalism and global warming. Here was a typical family conversation about the environment.

My family normally looks at recycling as the best most efficient way to save the environment. I brought up the fact that recycling did produce waste and that the system was inherently flawed. They liked this point, but I still said it was the best method we have currently.

I discussed Braungart and McDonough thinking that we should not waste but rather should look at new ways to produce from biological and technical nutrients. My family was very receptive to this argument. It was easy talking to them about the environment, because they agree on all these perspectives we’ve been discussing in class. They liked Braungart and McDonough’s argument, but did not think it was very realistic. We are cynical and so we believe that the system of consumption and waste or “cradle by grave” is too strongly grained in the foundations of our society. My mother thought that product to services was a great idea, but would never actually happened.

I also discussed with them Maniates viewpoint of the “Trinity of Despair.” My mother thought it was a really good point that social movements don’t occur by popular support. Civil Rights was a struggle by the African American community, but most of America was in support of segregation. She thinks that the problem here is that global warming is calling on the world to change their entire foundation. Segregation was an easy fix, if you think about it. It didn’t cost a lot to integrate people. But for the United States to change from a coal and gas emitting country to a green emitting country, it is going to cost large amounts of money and affects all businesses across the board. With that to consider, and the fact that international cooperation has been very difficult to achieve-global warming is a problem with many hard decisions that need to be made.

-Tracey Swan

Favorite Quotes

1. “The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.”---Leopold Pg 132

2. “Consumption occasionally enters the discussion, but only in non-threatening ways, and most often in the form of calls for “green consumption” or in support of some moral imperative to consume recycled or recyclable products.”----pg 2 Princeton

These quotes covered a range of topics we discussed in class. I like the Leopold quote because it shows how we perceive the environment and how we need to change our perception to a more environmentally conscious one. I like the Princeton quote because it shows how often times we view being environmentally conscious by consuming green products, but this is a backwards thinking. We should not view being environmentally conscious in terms of consumption. We should cut back on our consumption.

-Tracey Swan

favorite quotes

my two favorite quotes from this semester are

1)"We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins." by Michael Maniates

2)"being less bad is not being good" in Cradle to Cradle

These quotes depict our attitude on the environmental problem. We only do easy things by being less bad. However, doing easy things and being less bad would never solve the problem.

Favorite quotes

Here are my two favorite quotes:

"Nature doesn't have a design problem. People do," (p. 16 of Cradle to Cradle)

and the last paragraph of The End of the Wild:

"The end of the wild does not mean a barren world. There will be plenty of life. It will just be different: much less diverse, much less exotic, far more predictable, and -given the dominance of weedy species -probably far more annoying. We have lost the wild. Perhaps in 5 to 10 million years it will return."

Favorite Quotes from the Semester

Here are a couple of my favorite quotes from the semester, as well as explanations as to why they are my favorites.

1) This quote comes from page 396 of Hot, Flat, and Crowded by Thomas L. Friedman. This is from the speech by the 12 year old girl from Canada, Severn Suzuki, at the plenary session of the Rio Summit.

"My dad always says, 'You are what you do, not what you say.' Well, what you do makes me cry at night. You grown-ups say you love us, but I challenge you. Please make your actions reflect your words. Thank you."

I really like this quote because it comes from someone who is young, and educating the young people will be instrumentally important when it comes to making a real difference for the environment. Also, the way this quote gives us all a challenge and a way to go forth is truly inspiring. I think that this quote is thoughtful and insightful, and it really stuck out to me when reading Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

2) This quote comes from page 186 of Cradle to Cradle by McDonough and Braungart.

"What would it mean to become, once again, native to this place, the Earth--the home of all our relations? This is going to take us all, and it is going to take forever. But then, that's the point."

I really like this quote because it really hits at the heart of the problem: we as humans no longer see ourselves as a part of the planet and as just one of its many creatures, and instead we go around trying to mow down and change the Earth to fit our needs. I love how this quote brings us back to that understanding that we are a part of the Earth, that the Earth is a part of us, and that we and the Earth need to coexist in harmony.

Thanksgiving talk

This assignment was the hardest assignment throughout the semester for me. I believe that I never had conversation on environmental issue with my family or friends, so I do not know what to expect during or after the conversation. I do not even know how to start the conversation or in what manner I should do it. I feel like it is somewhat wrong or uncomfortable to talk about such a serious or negative subject during holiday when everything is overly plenty and happy.
Instead of going back to Korea, I went to Atlantic City with my friends. I think this is little more environmental friendly than going all the way back to Korea. I shared a suite room with three other girl friends. I tried to find best timing to bring up the topic, but it was not easy. I was scared that I might ruin their holiday.
One morning when we all took a shower, I ask my friends to reuse towel rather than throwing on the floor of the bathroom. My request fired the conversation on the environmental issue. I explain to my friends how much we could save the environment by just simply reusing the towels. I also added that the environmental problems we currently face are real, serious and need reaction. One of my friends agreed to me and gladly reused the towel. However, my two other disagreed. First, they started by saying how much they pay to use the room which includes all the other supplements such a towels, bed sheets, toilet paper, water, electricity and many more luxurious items. They said that this holiday is only few days they could enjoy some luxury and really treat themselves nicely. In addition, they argued that they are paying more than they should if they do not use everything that is offered to them. I agree that they should get what they paid for and should enjoy their holiday. However, they could do it much eco-friendly way. We do not have to use new towel every single time we take a shower. The towels that hotel provided us were so big and thick that I did not even use half section of the towel to dry my body.
Then my friends said to me “since when you become a green person?” I do not consider myself green person at all. I still do many things that are environmentally harmful. I am just a same person with slightly more awareness of environmental issue than before taking this class. Then, my friends went on saying that we are over reacting to the environmentally issue. They believed that the media over emphasize the environmental issues. Since media only focus on the extreme cases such as Tsunami or hurricane Katrina, people are over reacting to the problem.
I was tempted to interrupt my friends, but I tried to be a good listener as professor Nicholson told us to do. I was very surprise what a big gap my friends and I had. It was very disappointing for me to see how people consider themselves apart from the environment. They are so num about the current environmental issue like they do not belong in this environment. I realized how this course has changed me. If I did not take this course I could be spending more wasteful holiday than my friends.

Giving Thanks for the Environment

Talking with someone about the environment can be a daunting task. It's difficult to know which way to approach the subject. In my mind, I pictured the conversation being awkward and forced. I would be sitting at the dinner table having a normal conversation when all of a sudden I would blurt out, "What do you think about climate change?" Everyone at the table would be stunned into silence and would stare at me in horror. "Why are you bringing that up?" They would ask. With this scenario in the back of my mind, I tried to think of alternative ways to broach the subject with my family over Thanksgiving Break.

Bringing up the environment to my father was interesting. My father is a lot like me: we like to avoid thinking about things which are unsavory. Unlike me, however, my father is a libertarian and believes strongly in personal liberty; he wants to live his life the way he has chosen to live it. I decided that the best way to bring up the subject with him would be to talk about what I had been learning in class without making it seem as if I was lecturing him or trying to change his mind, because then he might have been less open to what I was telling him. I felt that attacking his lifestyle choices or being argumentative would not be right way to get my point across, and would take away from the ideas I wanted to discuss.

The subjects I discussed with my dad emphasized personal lifestyle changes less and ideas about changing systems in order to make positive environmental living easy. It seemed to me that he would be more responsive to these types of ideas than to me telling him that he would need to change the way he lives his life. Additionally, I believe that these system-wide changes are much more effective in terms of helping the environment than individual actions. Therefore, I talked to him about the importance of getting rid of the concept of waste, and giving items back to manufacturers once they have completed their use to be broken down and reused, using all the materials from the previous item. I also explained how individual actions are important, but that changing the way that society functions in order to make environmental change simple is the way to go.

I was surprised by his response. He said that thinking about the environment made him feel guilty about the way he lives his life, even though I wasn't bringing up personal changes particularly. I feel like many people have such an ingrained idea about what environmentalists think people should do that even though I was talking about a different type of environmentalism which would require less lifestyle change personally for him, and more of a societal shift which would make being environmental easy, he was still thinking about those personal ways of living that would make him environmentally friendly.

This made me think about how much of what we have learned in class this semester. We have learned a lot about how making changes in the system instead of putting a band-aid on the system is the most effective way to help the environment. Many people who are not taking environment classes, however, do not know very much about this type of environmental movement. I think that much positive change could be brought about if more people were educated about the different ways in which we can help the environment, besides the relatively small-scale, practically ineffective measures of turning off the shower while you shave.

Talking to my mom about the environment was interesting as well. Her main point after our discussion was that she did not want many more different recycling bins cluttering our kitchen. For her, the environment is important but concerns about global warming are not a part of her everyday life. I tried to explain about how recycling is important, even though it is small-scale, individual change, because it keeps us thinking about the environment, and keeps these issues fresh in our mind, in front of us, in the form of recycling bins. I explained that more recycling bins in the kitchen might not look pretty, but they are a positive step towards being more environmentally friendly. I think, through listening to her point of view and thoughtfully responding with rebuttals of my own, I have convinced my mom to start recycling more of what we use in the house. Additionally, from our conversation, we decided to have a Turkey-free Thanksgiving. This was not only an environmentally-friendly thing to do, but also saved us a lot of time in preparing the Thanksgiving day meal.

Talking about the environment with people who are not actively engaged in the field or taking a course on the subject can be difficult, but sometimes some positive changes can result. This was heartening for me, because I saw that someone who does not necessarilly have the same views or the same level of concern about the environment as me can still be persuaded to be more conscientious about the environment. Having a Turkey-free Thanksgiving and adding some recycling bins to the house may not seem like much. It is small-scale, individual action, which is not as effective as a movement, as going to government and changing policies, as finding leverage points to change the system and make being environmental the norm in society. But it is not useless--it's a start.

Environmental discussions around a delicious Turkey!

On my way up to New York I thought to myself How on Earth am I going to find someone who disagrees with me on environmental issues? I was going to have dinner at my Aunt's house and the only people there were going to be my 2 uncles and their respective families, my grandma and her boyfriend. All of whom have strictly leftist ideals and are constantly making a point of putting them forth. 

So when I launched the topic of environmentalism and the problems and solutions therein, both my uncles took strong stances on the issue and put forth ideas that did nothing but reinforce my own.  But then I heard my grandma's boyfriend arguing with my Aunt and it reminded me of how much this man loooovveeesss to play the devil's advocate. (Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet..)

So I walked up to him later that night and talked about future careers I was considering and I let him know what I had learned this year and how strongly I felt about the fact that we should try to change the system, rather than changing the people.  I then made the statement that the world would be a much better place if people could think long term rather than short term and just move away from fossil fuels today because we have alternatives rather than wait another 25 years until supplies run out and we've polluted the Earth that much more. Surely enough he counter-argued my point. He answered Well if we do a sudden transition what will happen to the poor miner in a third world country. No one will be here to train him on renewables, he'll just loose his job and his life will be done for.    I listened to him go on about how we can't just change the system, we are too engrained in the system for any change to occur without negative impacts on people, etc., etc. Basically saying we messed up and our Earth is going to pay for it. I listened to him awhile, fighting the urge to counter his arguments and finally I just asked the simple question: well then, should we just let things happen and watch the earth get destroyed even though we have a solution to this problem? And of course, to this he answered No. But it's going to be a long and strenuous process. 

This talk made me realize that, if the person you are talking to shares the same concern as you, it is important that both parties be aware of it so that even if they differ on ways to solve this common problem, they listen to each other's comments and arguments in a constructive way. 

(It was difficult to do so in that case though because Paul wasn't exactly listening to my reactions to his comments...) It also made me frustrated that a lot of the good arguments I had against his comments came to me later in the night.

I tried to present to him the ideas expressed by Cradle to Cradle and Maniates, but his answer was on the pessimistic side, saying that since the system is too complicated to change we shouldn't try. I think part of this comment is rooted in the fact that he is 80 years old and has seen people try and fail too many times for things to actually work. He actually mentioned the health care bill as a proof that even if people had the right ideas, things just can't get by politics in the US. But by the end of the conversation I was able to make him agree with me that through innovative schemes, we would be able to make a difference and a change in the system.   

Being less bad isn’t being good

Too many times I’ve read or heard people say “we’re doomed”. And that, I think, is an awful message to send out to our society. Yes, we’ve destroyed or polluted nearly all ecosystems on Earth, but now that we know that we did it and how we did it, we can repair our mistakes. It will take time to return ecosystems to their pristine state and we will not be able to recover all ecosystems but if we find a way to completely stop polluting our environment, then restorative actions will bring about incredible positive change. And William McDonough and Michael Braungart offer such solutions.

I therefore find "Cradle to Cradle" to have, by far, the most inspiring ideas, out of all the pieces we’ve read so far. In their book, William McDonough and Michael Braungart not only bring up a great point that “being less bad isn’t being good” but they offer solutions to the problems we are facing. Instead of listing all the things that humans have done wrong and are still doing wrong and leaving the reader in a pit of despair they offer tangible, inspiring solutions. I find that very existing and uplifting.

I think the authors are correct in saying that “Eco-efficiency /…/ presents little more than the illusion of change.” However, I think that putting their ideas in place is going to be very challenging on the political spectrum since it requires great cooperation between industries and their (often many) suppliers. But if everyone starts thinking in a similar way as William McDonough and Michael Braungart, then I believe our problem would be solved.

I would lastly like to point out Michael Braungart’s quote on page 11: “I directed Greenpeace's chemistry department and helped the organization to protest more knowledgeably, but I soon realized that protest wasn't enough. We needed to develop a process for change.” As much respect as I have for Greenpeace, I agree with Michael Braungart. Environmental activism and education won’t do the trick. We must offer people alternatives that have no negative impact on the environment. If people don’t care about the environment, they won’t bother to live by Greenpeace’s advice of saving water and turning the lights off when you leave the room. But with tangible evidence that 100% eco-friendly alternatives exist to every negative thing we do on Earth, politicians will be more inclined to set strong environmental regulations since it will be possible for industries to abide by them.

Cradle to Cradle

I really enjoyed reading “cradle to cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. Expect its funky smell, I liked the in and outside of the book. As outside of the book, I mean the cool but soft texture of the book. As inside of the book, I loved the authors’ optimism, easy and simple writing style and newer or different approach to environmentalism. Most of the time I read the environmental work, I was so dragged by its depressing atmosphere. Usually, works on environmentalism address what we have done wrong in the past and how hopefulness our future is due to that.
However, cradle to cradle untangle such a crucial and serious problem in friendly but persuasive and effective ways. I loved several phrases that authors put in: “Waste equals food,” “Being less bad is not being good,” and “Do more with less”. Many times people mistakenly think that they saved environment by being less polluting, consuming or bad. However, we are just simply less bad which is totally different from being good. In addition, it is so true that in the process of saving the environment, we should do it with less. I also agree with authors’ point that unless we completely change the problematic change, we are doing not more than slowing down the problem.
I also liked the idea of eco-friendly architectural change. Buildings and appliances that are built in eco friendly and effective way definitely reduce human impact on the environment. If we change way to build buildings slightly, we could naturally comfort both people and environment. In this sense I am looking forward to tour around the new SIS building that is built in eco friendly way.

"Cradle to Cradle," the new SIS building, and the future of design

I've been really enjoying reading "Cradle to Cradle" for the last couple of classes. Many of the readings we have had this semester have talked about how we can change people's mindsets and change policies in the nation, but it never even occured to me that perhaps we should not be expending our energy in trying to improve the system we already have, but that we should in fact be throwing the current system out the window. I love the phrase the authors use that says that being less bad is not being good, it's just being less bad. I think that the phrase is extremely resonant and poignant since it hits upon the fact that most of the efforts done to make the system less harmful to the environment are not going to truly stop this problem, because the problem is the system itself.

I tend to be someone who is easily persuaded by a good argument--I admit it. If someone presents to me an argument that is well researched and well organized, I find myself more often than not atleast giving some credence to their argument by the end of it. I believe that in the case of "Cradle to Cradle", however, the argument truly is solid despite my tendency to find myself persuaded easily. The authors brings up many excellent points, such as the fact that the system we live in is not sustainable, and that trying to reduce problems within the system will only slow things down, and not stop them completely which is what is required in order to stave off global warming. Eco-efficiency will not be enough to save us in the long run; the authors are correct that we must turn to eco-effectiveness which means rethinking the way things are made.

Besides making sense in terms of an approach to help the environment, the design ideas brought forth in "Cradle to Cradle" are appealing. I really loved the description of how buildings should be like cherry trees, taking in light for solar energy, wind, etc. and interacting with the natural world and replenishing it when its done. I love the idea of having buildings which interact with the natural world just like the natural world itself--just like a tree! That is incredibly neat. It's exciting, and I'm really proud that AU's new SIS building will incorporate so many of these design techniques and that I attend a school that is working towards buildings from a new design approach that is beneficial to and which benefits from the environment. Everything should work that way. I hope that the author's design ideas will really take off, and was heartened by the video on the authors which we watched in class which illustrated several examples of the visions from "Cradle to Cradle" coming to life.

I think that if more buildings, appliances, etc. are designed in these ecologically effective ways, then people will be able to be proud of what they have accomplished once again, and will start to feel that we are a part of the natural world instead of forces apposing it or trying to control nature. These new design approaches, such as the new SIS building, are beautiful and interact with the environment in important and natural ways which take what nature has to give us in a replenishing, sustainable way. Even though these buildings might cost a little bit more than a building built in other ways, as the example from the video "The Next Industrial Revolution" showed us, sometimes that money can come back when people want to work more because the building is light and appealing and because the buildings have lower energy bills. Putting the authors' design ideas into practice on a wider scale, and harnessing solar power, respecting the planet and all its creatures and getting rid of the whole idea of waste will lead to a more beautiful, prosperous and sustainable world. There are some technical difficulties which need to be worked out in terms of the fact that some products cannot be continuously recyclable and others, but the ideas put forth by the authors of "Cradle to Cradle" are achievable, the technology exists, and can do important work to save our planet. In the future, I hope that these design techniques take over for old design techniques and bring about instrumental changes to the system in order to help the Earth.

Trinity of Despair

First of all, I really enjoyed the videoconference with professor Maniates. It was amazing to me, who is not a good friend with high technology, that we can have a discussion with someone in hundreds miles away from us. It was great to actually see him after reading few works by him.
I think professor Maniates made very interesting and convincing arguments throughout the videoconference, and I agreed with many them. Especially, his “Trinity of Despair” brought up many interesting and new points to me which helped me to look at the environmental issue in slightly different way. How he described the environmental movements to be civil moments practiced by Gandhi or Martine Luther King Jr. was totally new to me. However, it definitely makes sense. Environmental movement should be practiced same as any other movements. Environmental movement should involve a strong leader, time, efforts and devotion by many others.
I agreed with him the most on the part where he talked about Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff. After reading several Maniates’ articles, we already know Easy stuff would do not do enough for the environment. Environmental crisis that we are facing is too serious that easy stuff like turning off water while brushing teeth would not be enough. Anything hardly would change without our sacrifice. We need fundamental change on our lifestyle or political and economical system to most effectively save the environment.
I also agree with his point that we do not need majority of the poluation on board to bring changes. It could be true that one policy or regulation made by one leader or one small group could be more powerful and effective in helping environment. However, I think it is important to motivate individuals and keep them in the right direction by sharing some responsibilities. Everyone does not have to be on board, but it is crucial that all of us stay alert.

Scarred to Change

I thought Professor Mariates made a good point about the “trinity of despair.” Main stream environmentalist do look at humans and believe that human nature is inherently selfish, everyone has to agree about global warming being a real danger before we can do something about it, and environmental strategy on easy stuff. I don’t understand why we expect all the American population to believe in global warming considering that a large proportion of our population doesn’t believe in evolution. The theory of evolution has been around for a lot longer, and we are still waiting for people to catch on to the theory.

I found it encouraging when Mariates informed us that 69% of the population believes that global warming was a problem. I am rather cynical, so I was surprised to see that the number was so high. I think Mariates brings up a good point, why do we need all 100% of America to believe in global warming for something to be done? He is correct that the Civil Rights Movement did not start with 100% or even 75% of the population believing in equality for all. Slavery was so disputed that we erupted in war. So the environmental movement needs to look past the idea that everyone has to agree. The environmental movement should be encouraged that 69% of the population recognized the threat of global warming, and use this to their advantage. More people believe in global warming than they do not, by almost twice. I think that is encouraging statistics. What is the environmental movement waiting for? If we had waited 150 years to make the theory of evolution a standard theory in science, where would science be?

People are inherently selfish. American policies reflect this assumption very nicely. However in the case of global warming, I don’t think people are being selfish. I work on the Hill, and when people call in upset about Cap and Trade. The number one thing they point out why we can’t implement this policy is either global warming doesn’t exist or it is to expensive for the American public. People are inherently scared of change. It is going to be a large-scale change, when the American public finally decides to implement policies to change our CO2 emissions. People are scarred to change because they can’t imagine what the future is going to look like. No one wants to put their future in someone’s hands when they can’t see the outcome. People also cannot see the big picture. They believe that we need to focus upon the economic crisis, rather than the environment. They view the economic crisis as a more pressing issue. I often wonder what would have happened if we weren’t in recession while President Obama began his term. Would we still be fighting to disbelieve in global warming? Would we still think Cap and Trade was a bad idea? Would the United States become a leader at Copanhagen? It’s impossible to know what is true and what is not. But I still wonder about that.

The environmental strategy of easy stuff is where environmentalist look at this huge problem and proclaim that we must do small things to change the impact of global warming. I found Mariates point to be very interesting, because I never viewed it in that light before. Why do we think planting a tree should be the individual response to global warming rather than policy change? That is nonsensical. I think those environmentalists are so jaded by the lack of initiative to change our ways, that they believe this is the only thing people are willing to do. Working on the hill has shown me that that is not true. Environmentalist should be looking at ways to get people excited and passionate about global warming. The main strategy should be to change our light bulbs out with energy efficient ones. While the recommended guidelines should be followed, this should not be the main environmentalist strategy to get the American Public to change.

-Tracey Swan

Finding Hope in the Trinity of Despair

I find it really hard to go to class and listen to all the terrible things man has inflicted on the Earth. Whether it be international environmental politics or issues in marine science, when it comes to solutions it seems like the majority of what I hear and read about are the many failed attempts to try and do good. 

So when Maniates brought up the “trinity of despair” I thought. Oh man. Not again. I know we failed and are failing but please, give us solutions, not dead-ends. And he did. He pointed out what had to be changed to go in the right direction. Although he stressed the fact that mainstream environmentalism is sending out the wrong message to the global community, he spurred ideas in our heads as too how we should changed out outlook on things to be more positive and effective. So I thought his concept was brilliant, and it really made me think positively and, most importantly, constructively.  

I’ve been reading a lot lately about flawed “plant a tree” environmental strategies and completely agree with the fact that asking people to do little will eventually makes difference is a flawed assumption. However, I never thought of the fact that people think humans is inherently selfish as being a problem. Nor of the fact that social change can be done by small groups of people. I never looked at things this way but now that Maniates made us think about it, I think he has a very good point. 

Still, I’d like to make a couple of points about HN and SC. First, I don’t think people are inherently selfish but I do think that those situated at the top of the production chain are greedy, especially those in control of resource extraction, and that it is creating a big obstruction to the environmental movement. Similarly, even though I understand that you don’t need a lot of people to make a big change I am still skeptical about the power of social movement in a world where the “mean guys” are in control of the very infrastructure environmentalists want to tear down. Our system is built in such a way that big companies have almost more power than governments and the people (esp. true for countries that rely on  resource extraction) so my question would be—what do you do to make that change? how do you change the power structure?

As Maniates pointed out, Ghandi and Martin Luther King managed to turn their  country’s values upside down thanks to small but powerful group of citizens so why couldn’t we?

 I would need more tangible facts to be one hundred percent positive about climate change action but I definately see hope in the "trinity of despair."

 

The Trinity of Despair... Bringing Hope Back to the Environmental Movement

I found the talk with Professor Maniates really interesting, and it definitely expanded my views in terms of different ways to think about how social change in terms of the environment will be the most effective. The Trinity of Despair was particularly interesting because I often find myself falling into that negative trap of thinking that we will never see real environmental movements because so many people still do not believe in global warming or do not think that they should be doing anything to limit global warming. The way in which Professor Maniates framed social change, in terms of bringing up other social movements and leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi, and how he explained that those leaders had very small numbers of people behind them and were still able to bring about social change. I think that Professor Maniates' idea that social change can be brought around if small groups of people come together and alter current societal structures so that making the right environmental choices is a part of the structure and therefore simple for people who are not interested in the environment to do.

I still believe that the most effective form of combatting climate change would occur if most of the population were concerned about climate change and interested in preventing its effects. I think that the task of getting most people behind climate change will be a difficult one, however, and therefore might not be feasible. I like how Professor Maniates' ideas provide an alternative way to go about enacting social change to help the environment that, while not as comprehensive as a global movement would be, can still effect lasting and important change in terms of creating ways for everyone to act sustainably without necessarilly making the conscious decision to do that.

I think that Professor Maniates is correct to bring up the three corners of the "Trinity of Despair" and to force us confront the fact that some of our basic assumptions such as the idea that people are inherently selfish, people will only do small, easy alterations to their daily lives and the idea that everyone has to be with us before environmental sustainability can be achieved, may not be ultimately relevent in terms of the best ways to go about creating social change. We can change structures and greatly aid the environment while breaking away from the "Trinity of Despair," and that's a very promising outlook.

The talk with Professor Maniates on Tuesday made me feel more optimistic about the future of the environmental movement than I have felt about it in a long time, and I think that that in itself has value. If those who are concerned about the environment feel despair, and feel as if no real lasting change will ever be possible due to the three points in the "Trinity of Despair," then change will not happen because those who care about the environment will feel as if there's nothing they can do to help it. Professor Maniates talk brought back that glimmer of hope that the future of the environment and social change in terms of sustainable living can be achieved, if only small groups of concerned individuals, such as our class, get together and change the existing, environmentally degrading systems.

Here's my version...

So...

Catch! Calls the Once-ler!

It's a Truffula Seed!

It's the last one of all,

But it’s not all that you need!

 

Just planting the seed

won’t solve it all

So, go fight the greed

and bring back good deeds.

 

Hide it and treasure it

Till waters come clean,

Till the pitt gets well lit,

and the air turns pristine.

 

If we all work together

to make things better

I guarantee

that the world will decree

That thneeds are worth less

than all of what got

destroyed in that mess.

 

So turn to your leader

And show him the facts

Make him take action

make him change the acts.

 

President Oborax--

Create a new bill! Treat it will care.

We need clean water, we need fresh air.

Or the truffula seed and Bar-ba-loots bears

will quickly disappear into thin air.

 

Learn from my tale...

It’s a question of scale.

Greed in the big guys

will lead to despair.

 

So do not linger

If we all work together,

then the Lorax

and all of his friends

will come back...

And stay forever!

President Oborax call to action take 2

Sorry I am reposting this because the spacing got all jumbled and that is important when it comes to poetry.

Adding on to Lucy’s post:

The Once-ler shouted out with glee

For he couldn’t believe what his eyes could see

The Lorax walking simply forward

Not to be mistaken with a Morward.

The Lorax looked at President Oborax

And said to him, “is that all?

You propose a bill?

That’s no better than a gill!

You must go to the UN

And become a world leader of men.

You must lead the World Summit

Copenhagen cannot be a Plummit.”

President Oborax starred at him

His mouth a wide,

His tonsils a flapping.

How dare this Lorax speak to him like that?

Does he not know he could crush him flat?

President Oborax rose to his full height

And shouted to the Lorax with all his might:

“My bill will have success with Congress.

Do not digress,

For it will be a success.

I have faith in my representatives.

They are not tentative.

The Lorax looked at him sadly,

And wanted to say oh so badly

That Congress would let him down.

The bill would drop like a crown.

“You must go to Copenhagen.

And lead with robust.

Call up to all nations,

Do not go for summations.

Lead this fight,

Without any fright.

Curb carbon emissions by 30%

No less.

The levels must be at 30%

below 1990 level’s.

We can only raise our temperature

By two more degrees.

Or who knows,

The Polar bears may freeze?

Call on all nations,

North and South

Call on all nations

With a Shout.

Something must done,

Nations can not be spun.”

-Tracey Swan

President Oborax call to action

Adding on to Lucy’s post:

The Once-ler shouted out with glee

For he couldn’t believe what his eyes could see

The Lorax walking simply forward

Not to be mistaken with a Morward.

The Lorax looked at President Oborax

And said to him, “is that all?

You propose a bill?

That’s no better than a gill!

You must go to the UN

And become a world leader of men.

You must lead the World Summit

Copenhagen cannot be a Plummit.”

President Oborax starred at him

His mouth a wide,

His tonsils a flapping.

How dare this Lorax speak to him like that?

Does he not know he could crush him flat?

President Oborax rose to his full height

And shouted to the Lorax with all his might:

“My bill will have success with Congress.

Do not digress,

For it will be a success.

I have faith in my representatives.

They are not tentative.

The Lorax looked at him sadly,

And wanted to say oh so badly

That Congress would let him down.

The bill would drop like a crown.

“You must go to Copenhagen.

And lead with robust.

Call up to all nations,

Do not go for summations.

Lead this fight,

Without any fright.

Curb carbon emissions by 30%

No less.

The levels must be at 30%

below 1990 level’s.

We can only raise our temperature

By two more degrees.

Or who knows,

The Polar bears may freeze?

Call on all nations,

North and South

Call on all nations

With a Shout.

Something must done,

Nations can not be spun.”

-Tracey Swan

The Once-ler and President Oborax, Cont.

My added verses to the Once-ler talks to President Oborax:

President Oborax let out a load, “Harumph!”
“I’ve no time for legislation…
What I need is a triumph!”
The Once-ler shook his head
He’s a grouchy old thing
And then he turned bright red
And said, “I’ve thought of a Thing!”
“I’ve thought of a plan”
Grouched the grouching old Once-ler,
“You’ll WAC and not PAT,
Not PAT, but start WAC-ing!
Instead of consuming
Start thinking of shacking!
(“Living in a shack, instead of a palace?”
Interjected Oborax, his voice full of malice)
“Yes indeed!” Cried the Once-ler, “Change’s the word!”
“Change from looking at whether economy is booming
GDP as a measure won’t work—crisis is looming!
You can do it, I know that your voice has got clout—
Change the policies; tell everyone what life is about!”

The Once-ler sat back,
He’d done what he could
He’d told Oborax
About the Lorax,
The Shmoofala bushes and the Striped Shmala wood.
Now it was up to Oborax to take what he’d learned
And make a real impact
Although from some people he might be spurned.

Oborax went home to his house painted white,
He pondered and he thought
Then he sat down to write.
He drafted a letter, a bill of some-sort
The bill spoke of great changes
It spoke of a new type of sport
It spoke of life rearranges
No more needs! No more thneeds!

President Oborax wrote late into the night,
The candles were burning,
Wax dripped in the light.
He wrote until morning, and then wrote some more!
He wrote until he just couldn’t write anymore!
Then he stood up with his bill gripped in hand
He walked outside, and all across the land!
He strode to the land of the Truffula Trees,
And knocked on the door of the Once-ler he sees.

“Once-ler!” He yelled at the top of his voice.
“I’ve done it! I’ve got a bill I’m quite sure,
Will give us a choice!”
The Once-ler opened the door,
His glance was quite wary,
“Are you quite sure?”
Was the Once-ler’s query.
“Here it is!” Said Oborax,
Handing the Once-ler the bill.
“This might bring back the Lorax”
Said the Once-ler, “But still…”
“I wonder if perhaps he might be gone for good…
He left one day from where he once stood…
Will this be enough?
To bring back the Lorax?
Please tell me this stuff,
Oh President Oborax!”

He needn’t have wondered,
The grouchy old Once-ler,
For just as he pondered
Down floated a monster!
Or was it a monster?
The Once-ler looked closer
And together they looked, Once-ler and Oborax,
When what did occur
But down floated the Lorax!

The Once-ler Talks to President Oborax

The Lorax, with a new ending created by our blog group (similar to the original final paragraph, with a new twist and a new message):

So...
Catch! Calls the Once-ler!
It's a Truffula Seed!
It's the last one of all!
But don't go to the mall!
President Oborax--
Create a new bill! Treat it will care.
Add in clean water. Incorporate fresh air.
Develop new forests, don't get snorish.
Learn from my tale...
Don't be a snail!
Greed leads to despair,
So do not error,
If we all work together,
Then the Lorax
and all of his friends
may come back...
And stay forever!

The purpose of these websites is very distinctive and the two of them provide a good comparison of the opposite sides of the environmental debate. These two websites represent two approaches to the debate over climate change. The perspectives of the websites are quite different but in my opinion it is their approach to disseminating the information, which truly differentiates them.

The first website which I looked at was the “Friends of Science” website. This site was well crafted and detailed their agenda extremely well. The points were clear and concise. This is both its strength and its weakness; it is strong because it makes their arguments easy to understand and quick to absorb. It is weak though because it does not go into detail. The arguments made are broad and generalized and do not draw on many sources. This style of disseminating information is powerful in distributing information quickly to a lot of people; it is especially powerful at persuading the middle-of-the-road folks who constitute the largest group of people. This comes at the sacrifice of details and scientific arguments. This in my opinion works better with the general population and is way this approach is more effective.

The second website, “How to Talk to Climate Skeptic”, did not work when I tried to access it. But, based on what I learned from excerpts, I can gather that this website was chalk fall of information and facts on climate change. This website makes a great case for climate change and provides more than enough evidence to back up the statements that are made. The problem with this website is that this approach, though wonderful for scientists, this does not do much for the general population. The cluttered website filled with sources does not offer a concise and simple argument. This does not help in relaying the message it is trying to convey. This is why I believe that although “How to Talk to Climate Skeptics” is by far more convincing and accurate, the “Friends of Science” website is better at conveying their point. In order to sway the middle roaders, the Friends of Science website does a better job.

Friends of Science?

As we talked about climate change or global warming in classes, I realize how controversial issue it is. Some say climate change or global warming is reality that truly threatens our lives as we could see through Hurricane Katrina or Tsunami. However, some other may also argue that there is no scientific evidence that global warming or climate change is really happening, and even it occurs, there is no scientifically proven relationship between warming of the globe with recent natural disaster. These websites also present very different but both persuasive arguments.
The “Friends of Science” website has best interest in disproving the myths that most people including myself believe to be true. They argued that there is no scientific evidence of climate change or global warming. I thought this website presented updated information on fast moving and ever changing issue of climate change. In addition, the website was designed in the manner where I could easily follow. The arguments were stated easy and straightforward that people with not much back ground of environment could easily understand. I found them very convincing and believable. However, it would be more trustworthy if they sited where they took these information from.
The “how to talk to a climate skeptic” website countered many arguments presented in the “Friends of Science” website. The “how to talk to a climate skeptic” website has very different format from another one. It has linkages on different issue that leads us to blog look like web pages. I did not find this website very convincing, because I was not sure how creditable are the posts from random people. Even though this website has much more information than the “Friends of Science” website does, it was hard to follow and not that trustful.

Aesthically pleasing or scientifically compelling?

I found Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” to be more compelling and convincing then the “Friends of Science” website. The purpose of the “Friends of Science” website was to combat the myths about climate change. After reading “Providing Insight into Climate Change” I thought I was reading one of those websites that didn’t believe in climate change. I read their statement about the website and apparently the website is trying to get citizens to focus upon other environmental issues like water and air pollution. They state that climate change has become the central environmental issue and there are a lot more environmental issues that need to be focused upon. Climate change cannot be the only one. I understand the websites point, but at the same time I think that its counter effective to try and take the focus off climate change. The environment is an issue that many Americans ignore or forget about. I think that environmentalist should encourage as much attention to any environmental problem as possible.

I think Grist’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing than “Friends of Science” because “Friends of Science” list all these myths about climate change and then give facts to disprove these myths, but they don’t cite any sources. “Friends of Science” doesn’t cite any sources, provide charts, and focus around the argument that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods all the time. I think it is evident that there is a change in weather patterns and temperatures. Grist sight provides a list of comments that skeptics use to refute climate change. Grist goes through each comment and provides evidence on the contrary to what the skeptics have said. Grist provides outside sources and uses a lot of governmental organizations like NASA and IPCC.

While I think the scientific arguments for Grist’s cite were more convincing, “Friends of Science” has a better aesthetic value for it. The website is nicely laid out, with a big globe over the web page and green and blue colors. The website looks very professional and lays out its arguments well. The color-coding alone in the website, makes it appear very environmental-because the website uses greens, blues and whites. The Grist website is not laid out very nicely. The arguments look like a blog, which can make some people believe less in the validity of the argument. I also wonder if people click on the skeptic’s arguments to find out why they are incorrect. Webpage viewers can be lazy or maybe they don’t realize that you can click on to the arguments. The website has no color and the structure is a bit confusing. Aesthetically, the Grist website looks less professional even though it has better arguments.

-Tracey Swan

science vs. politics--once again.

“Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” have a both a very similar and yet very different purpose. On one hand, they both offer the reader counter-arguments to climate change myths (one acknowledging and the other denying climate change) but the way the website is built up makes their purpose very different.

In “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic,” the only information one may found is what the arguments of climate change skeptics are and how one can counter them while backing up their arguments with scientific evidence. The sources are clearly marked and almost all refer back to websites of governmental organization such as the IPCC, NASA and NOAA. Moreover, the website takes up more the form of a blog than an official website, as people can post comments bellow the author’s points.

On the other hand, “Friends of Science” gives a very different impression to the reader at first glance. The website is aesthetically pleasing, organized and the title “friends of the earth” leaves the viewer with a feeling that the information in the website is scientifically based and positive in content. Yet when you start exploring the different tabs, one thing becomes clear: the website is highly politicized. I opened a random tab (the one concerning the Copenhagen Climate Treaty) and fell on the excerpt of a speech by Lord Christopher Monckton in which he equates climate change advocates to “communists” who are trying to impose a “communist government” on the world and take away Americans’ “Freedom.” How is that scientific evidence that climate change isn’t human-induced? Lastly, the sources used by the website aren’t all that reputable: as I opened another tab I found a video of Dr. John Christy saying "plants just love CO2 and it could be said if they had a chance to vote whether we should limit co2 or not and they would vote no because co2 is food for them as plants."Similarly, after having looked up some of their sources, I found that most scientific scholarly articles had been funded by either oil companies or the army!

Therefore, at first glance, “Friends of Science” looks more convincing, as its better organized and more pleasing to the eye. However, when you analyze the context, you realized that the website is not rooted in science but politics. The message isn’t “listen to science, global warming is caused by the sun” but rather “don’t listen to those phony communists, fight for your freedom.”

P.S. I’d like to add that when reading the comments on the “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” website, I fell on a comment made by a climate change skeptic who quoted the journal “The Eco-Enquirer” to counter-act the information that was found on the web page—evidently, he hadn’t realized that the journal’s disclaimer read: “All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life."

Don't judge a book by its cover!

The different websites discussing climate change really made me think about the ways in which people are getting their information about climate change.

The "Friends of Science" website definitely had the better aesthetics: the spinning globe, the beautiful images of nature underneath the descriptions of the different scientists working on the website, the blue background--all of these images combined to create something which looks very official, scientific and pretty. I can definitely understand how someone who is interested in finding out more information about global warming could stumble upon this site and be persuaded by its argument against the idea of global warming, because for each global warming argument, the website had an argument against the phenomenon which could sound plausible if you do not know much about global warming. I had never heard before of the argument that the sun, and not human induced change, is the main factor in climate change.

I was interested to learn more about this organization, "Friends of Science," because it is always a good idea to know where information is coming from, who the people are who have created this site, and what there agenda is in order to make well-informed decisions about what information to listen to and what information is slanted towards a particular goal. I googled "Friends of Science" to see what I could learn. I was glad I did. According to sourcewatch.org, "Friends of Science," which is an organization in Calgary, Canada, recieves funding from oil companies indirectly, so it seems from this information that "Friends of Science" probably has a particular slant towards denouncing global warming.

Since today I feel like most scientists have come to the conclusion that global warming is a legitimate phenomenon which is occurring, "Friends of Science" must find itself on the opposite end of mainstream scientific thought. The website's purpose is most likely to look like a non-biased group of scientists who have come together to try and change perceptions that global warming is occuring, when in reality it is a distinctly anti-global warming organization whose interests come from groups which want to continue the harmful human impacts on the environment which have been occuring.

The Grist website has a much less appealing look. The website is very stark and requires clicking on many links in order to get the information you need. The way in which each myth is addressed is similar to the ways in which the questions are addressed by "Friends of Science," by putting up the objection and then discussing why the objection is not reality. I found this site harder to peruse, however. Although the site is organized and clearly provides interesting points about the reality of global warming, it is less inviting than the "Friends of Science" site.

I think most of us like to think that we don't judge a book by its cover. In terms of looking at these two websites, however, I found that although I believe strongly that global warming is a real phenomenon and am distraught that there are people out there who still deny that it is occurring, I spent more time on the "Friends of Science" website. This is due to a couple of reasons:
1) I was curious about the kinds of reasoning that goes into denying global warming, since I have always asserted belief in global warming and have read about all of the evidence behind global warming, and was interested to see how a group could go about saying that global warming does not exist.
2) Plain and simple, the "Friends of Science" website seemed more organized and was more enjoyable to peruse, even though I don't agree with the science.

The point of these websites is to put out evidence supporting or refuting the fact that global warming is occuring. I find it distressing that the website which refutes global warming is a more inviting site, because people might spend more time on that site. Also, since the "Friends of Science" website does not explain its ties to the oil industry it would not be clear to someone happening upon the site that the scientists involved have these connections. That is why it is always good to try and find out further information about certain websites and whether or not they might have a particular bias. Another important point is that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover!

Global warming is occuring, and I think that the science has proven that. The Grist website had countering points to a multitude of objections that global warming disbelievers have put forth. Al Gore's interesting movie, An Inconvenient Truth also explains a lot about the phenomenon of global warming. A lot will need to be done to try and slow down global warming in the next decade or so, and websites such as "Friends of Science" are changing the debate from thinking through the best ways to combat climate change to debating whether or not global warming is actually occuring. I feel like the debate should have moved past deciding on whether or not the phenomenon is occuring to working on how we can deal with the coming problems, and websites such as "Friends of Science" are perpetuating the "There is no climate change" myth.

Being part of nature itself

            Part of my study abroad experience in Zanzibar, Tanzania, involved spending one month on my own doing marine related research. For that, I decided to look at the distribution and feeding habits of coral reef fish during high versus low tide and chose to stay on Misali Island, an island a few miles off of Pemba Island. This island had no inhabitants, except for 5 rangers who were there at all times to ensure that no illegal fishing was taking place in this marine protected area.

            During 3 weeks, I slept on the beach, under a mosquito net and snorkeled during the day to understand the behavioral patterns of coral reef fish in the area. I spent two to three hours everyday, hovering above coral reefs—it was breathtaking. At first, fish noticed me, they were curious, aggressive or scared depending on the species but after a few days of going to the same site, the resident fish stopped noticing me. It was like I had become part of their ecosystem—a feeling I had never experienced before. It was an incredible feeling to be able to watch wildlife run its course without human interference and for me to be able to watch them having for only sound the soft clicking of the seafloor clams.

            One day, I witnessed a group of fish doing their courting displays. The female was hovering over a coral and the males were aligned to her right. One by one they left the “waiting line,” danced around the female and formed a new line on the female’s left side. When they had all performed the exact same dance with the female, she swam towards them all and left with only one of the males. The others dispersed and resumed their normal activities. It was unreal, magical.           

            Such encounters with nature should be available for everyone to experience. Wildlife in its natural environment is not only beautiful but it also raises people’s environmental consciousness. This is why we should all be concerned with “saving nature.” Humans were once part of nature but we’ve been gradually alienating ourselves from it by turning towards technology and synthetics. All in all, it is of uttermost importance to preserve nature for three main reasons:

1. because nature as inalienable rights, its wellbeing has value in it of itself and humans are in no position to take away these rights.
2. because Humans have no right to deprive future generations from experiencing nature the way we do.
3. because nature renders humans an endless list of services, called ecosystem services. So destroying nature will create chaos and raise the strength of the environmental threat that we are currently facing. (e.g. if we take away wetlands, we are more prone to destruction through storms; if we destroy rainforests, less carbon will be sucked from the atmosphere, exacerbating global climate change.) 

I have had many encounters with nature, but there is one experience, which was most impressive to me. While visiting my grandparents in Switzerland two summers ago, I bought myself a two-day train pass to the entire country of Switzerland. On my last day I decided to go deep into the Alps to a village at the absolutely end of one of the train lines. The ride was absolutely spectacular, winding through valleys and along majestic cliffs. I finally arrived in the little village of Les Diablerets and began my adventure. I heard of a world-class ski resort with good trails up the road from the village, so I decided to go to it. I hoped on the postal delivery truck (only means of public transportation out there) and went further into the valley and a quarter way up a mountain. When I was dropped off on the side of the road, I saw that the sky lift for the resort was empty. It seemed like they were closed for the day.

The post truck going in the other direction was not coming for another five hours, so I was going to be stuck in a desolate parking lot in the middle of the Alps. Instead of waiting for the truck, I started to walk back down the road. About a mile up the road, I saw a trial go across the road, going down the mountain in the direction of the village. It was a more direct path than the more winding road. I started to go down this path and I began my adventure. This walk was the closest I have ever been to nature. I walked a long a stream, passing waterfalls, and hiking through the forest. Occasionally the path would turn into a vista and I got to experience the majesty of the high Alps across the valley from where I was standing. For the three hours I hiked down the mountain, I did not run into another human nor did I see a single manmade object. My cell phone did not work and I heard complete quiet for the only time in my life. This walk through the Alpine forest showed me nature for its glory and made me appreciate it more than I ever had before.

Nature is a necessary and wonderful part of life. Nature is important to the health and well being of people despite what it might seem. It is hard to understand fully why Nature is important to humans; it’s not until you experience it in person do you realize what nature means to us. Promoting good health and better sanity are all positives. This is notwithstanding the tangible benefits such as cleaner air.