Don't blow it -- good planets are hard to find.

D11

2009-12-11T08:47:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-11T08:34:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-11T08:07:00.000-08:00

-Tracey Swan

Favorite Quotes

2009-12-11T07:57:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-08T17:40:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-07T20:13:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-05T09:06:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-03T19:06:00.001-08:00

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

2009-12-02T13:58:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-11-30T13:28:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-20T07:35:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-19T18:00:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-18T17:07:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-13T07:34:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-13T05:18:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-12T21:45:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-11T13:15:00.000-08:00

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...

2009-11-06T08:01:00.001-08:00

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

2009-11-06T05:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-06T05:15:00.001-08:00

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.

2009-11-05T18:41:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-03T09:54:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-10-30T10:52:00.001-07:00

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?

2009-10-30T07:50:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-10-30T06:07:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-10-29T17:40:00.000-07:00

“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."

2009-10-29T17:38:00.001-07:00

Don't judge a book by its cover!

2009-10-28T09:24:00.000-07:00

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

2009-10-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

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:

because nature as inalienable rights, its wellbeing has value in it of itself and humans are in no position to take away these rights.
because Humans have no right to deprive future generations from experiencing nature the way we do.
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.)

2009-10-23T07:41:00.001-07:00

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.

Power of Nature

2009-10-23T06:42:00.000-07:00

The most thrilling and magical engagement I have had with the non-human world is visiting to the Grand Canyon National Park. The visit to Gran Canyon happened in my first visit to the United States. This trip to US was my first international trip to non-Asian country. To a little girl from small country, South Korea, everything was so new and shocking. Disneyland, Universal studio, great hotels in Las Vegas and so many more eye-catching and huge scale of human-made attractions were something that I never seen it before. It was so large, luxurious and even seemed beautiful to me.
However, when I finally visited the Grand Canyon, I realized how small and meaningless the man-made attractions that I had visited were. I felt so physically and spiritually small, when I stepped closer to the edge of the cliff. My senses were so overwhelmed by the immense size of the landscape. It is not only the size that is so powerful and inspiring. It was big but not dull. Every place I laid my eyes was different. It was unbelievable delicate and detailed.
The power of nature made me feel like I could even fly. I find myself moving closer and closer to the end of the cliff to look more closely and carefully. I just wanted to be part it. Good thing there was protection bar. The tour guide told me that there is quite large number of people who actually jump off the cliff. I never felt such a feeling before. I was so thrilled and amazed, but at the same time I was scared. I was scared, because I finally realized how important nature that we, human, are keeping destroying and going against is.
I definitely think that we should concern ourselves with saving nature. Nature does not only provide physically livable world, but also provides spiritual wellbeing. We do not have right to take away future generation’s right to have great experiences that we’ve had from nature by destroying in our convenience.

Outdoor School

2009-10-23T05:56:00.001-07:00

Back in Oregon, there is a camp that I went to for thirteen years called Camp Namanu. Camp Namanu host this program called Outdoor School, which is run by a non-profit organization. Outdoor School (ODS) is the opportunities for four classes of sixth graders from different schools around the Portland Public School district come to a camp to learn about the environment hands on. The students’ stay there for a week and the camp brings in a group of high school volunteers to be counselors and teachers to the students. The students get to learn four different areas: soil, plants, animals and water. The students spend the entire day outside in the forest, learning hands on about evaporation, arthropods, and numerous other subjects. The most magical experiences I’ve had with the non-human world have occurred at Camp Namanu during Outdoor School. Outdoor school does not allow any electronic devices, so you spend the entire week being away from school, electronics, and magazines. Every night the entire camp gets together and they host a big bon fire outside. The counselors run the bonfire and they perform songs and skits for the group. I felt a really strong connection to nature when I was there, because I didn’t use any electronic devices. I participated in the ODS program six times.

Every day at ODS I led students on a hike around the camp. Camp Namanu has over 600 acres of land covered in forest, so it is the perfect place to do some sight seeing for animals. One day I saw a bear. I think that is one of the most thrilling experiences I’ve ever seen, because a bear is so powerful and big. I never thought I would see one in its natural environment. I also saw numerous birds like eagles and hawks. I saw deer and elk. I have seen moles and foxes. I always had a really fun time tracking animal prints around the camp.

I think it is important to save nature. We have to save the environment, its all we have. I have no question in my mind that this one of the most important things of my time. However that doesn’t mean that we have the right tools to go about saving nature. We have some technology that can help, but we have no systems of government that are willing to step in that direction. The UN has been very ineffective when it comes to environmental problems, besides with Ozone depletion. Saving nature is going to a difficult challenge because most countries do not put this as a priority. The Bush administration did not think the environment was an important agenda concern. President Obama has put the environment as an important policy, but Cap and Trade is being trumped by the Healthcare debate. So I do believe that we have to save nature, I just don’t know if the world is going to be able to get together and do something about it.

-Tracey Swan

"Nature Deficiency Disorder"

2009-10-21T10:07:00.000-07:00

When I was thinking about what to write for this blog post, I started to think about experiences which I have had in nature, and made a list of different interesting and meaningful experiences which I have had with animals, plants, trees, and forests. Most of these events, however, were not entirely away from the human world in the true Thoreau sense of leaving society behind and truly engaging with the natural world.

I can't think of any time where I was truly by myself with nature, away from the hustle and bustle of human everyday life, experiencing nature as it is meant to be experienced. The events I had on my list were places I visited during a cruise to Alaska the summer between fourth and fifth grades, but even during tours to rainforests or while watching ice melt away from the side of a glacier, I was still surrounded by people. I was often on a bus or in a car or atleast walking with a large group of people; I was not engaging with nature in a one-on-one, non-human basis. So while watching whales leap out of the icy waters or catching a glimpse of a huge waterfall cascading down the side of a mountain was for me thrilling / magical / enchanting, I cannot truly say that it was non-human, because all of these experiences were on a cruise ship or in a car or bus.

The next idea that I came up with was a dolphin experience I had when I was probably about 7, when I, with a group of other kids, got to sit and have a dolphin come up really close to us and we could pet the dolphin and experience being near another creature so directly. This experience was very exciting for me, because I have always loved dolphins and so it was really spectacular to have the chance to interact with one on such a close basis. This was definitely not interacting in a non-human way, however, because I was surrounded by other kids and a dolphin trainer. Have I had any experiences with nature where I have thrown off the leash of society and truly interacted with nature on my own terms? Where is my "Into the Wild"?

I used to hike near my house at this hiking path called Difficult Run. It's really beautiful, and nearly the whole walk you are followed to the right by a winding stream or river, depending on which point of the walk you are on. At parts, you can climb across logs which have fallen over the river, or sit on big rock outcroppings in the middle of the water. My dad usually went on these walks with me, but I think they are the closest I have come to really being by myself in a non-human environment. Sometimes we would go for a long time without talking. I can remember lying on a stone in the middle of the river, feeling the cold rock on my bare feet, my tennis shoes thrown haphazardly to the side, the burble of the water rushing past my ears. It may not be as exciting as an encounter with a wild animal or a big waterfall, but experiences like this one, for me, are the most thrilling / magical / enchanting experiences I have had with the wild. Something as simple as a river running its course, being quiet and listening to the sounds of nature can be pretty magical, because it shows how even the simplest aspects of nature can be beautiful and enchanting. For me, the everyday sounds and sights of nature are the most spectacular. You don't need to go all the way to Alaska or the Caribbean to experience nature in an exhilerating way, it exists right in our backyards and in our local parks and hiking paths.

If nature dissappears, what will future generations see and hear when they go outside? Will they hear the soft hum of crickets and the croak of the frog as the sun sets over the horizen and speckles the landscape in purples and pinks? Will there be parks for them to visit? Will they be able to dip their hands in cool, relatively clean water rushing down a stream? Will they be able to see a smog-free sky? Preserving nature is instrumentally important because we are a part of nature. We've throughout the generations created so many ways to make ourselves comfortable, such as houses and electronic conveniences, when we are the most comfortable when we are with nature. It goes back to the idea we talked about earlier in the class, with "nature deficit disorder." If we don't get outside and spend time with nature, we can often start to feel sick or wrong in some way. I try to go on a walk when it is nice out just to give myself the opportunity to spend some time with nature, in a natural setting, away from man-made contraptions.

Global warming is threatening future generations ability to have a nature to go back to. All the advocates of technology saving humanity, such as Julian Simon and his ultimate resource of human ingenuity, maybe have an argument in terms of the fact that the population keeps growing, we keep thinking that doomsday is about to appear, and then technical advances have kept humanity afloat. Although I find it extremely unlikely that we will truly be able to stave of global warming and to keep living sustainably into the future merely by inventing more and more technology to save us, I believe that even if these technologies were to be invented, a lot would still be lost. If future generations are still able to live on the Earth, but most species have become extinct, our forests are destroyed, our oceans are polluted and our skies are grey and full of pollutants, then "nature deficiency disorder" will become commonplace. An often forgotten fact is that people are a part of nature. It is natural for us to want to be with nature and to interact with nature in a basic way. If we live in a future abundant with technology and deficient in nature, life will be a much sadder and less fulfilling thing.

2009-10-09T07:04:00.000-07:00

Eco-Tourism is an interesting subject and one filled with many pros and cons. I feel that weighing the pros and cons prove that in the long run it is in fact beneficial. Eco-tourism is a wonderful source of income for many countries that otherwise do not have a very developed tourism industry or economy in general. In these hard times countries need to find ways to gain many and the most effective way with minimal start up costs is tourism. For those countries that were not endowed with culture monuments this may seem impossible. Recently they have started to tap into the abundant moment that was endowed by nature.

In order to use this resource and draw people, and more importantly their money, this moment must be beautiful. For this monument to be enjoyed people want nature to be pristine (un touched by humans). This is a very strong incentive for countries to clean up their environments and protect large sections of their environment. Eco-Tourism provides an economic reward for protecting the environment and this type of reward is what is needed to protect the environment. If the costs and benefits of destroying the environment and turning to manufacturing is less than preserving the environment and marketing it as a tourist destination then it would be in the best interest of the country to invest in it. The protection of the environment is in the best interest of a country in a tangible manner, thus eco-tourism is a wonderful replacement, or at least supplement, to heavy environmental degradation at the hands of industry.

There are some cons to this plan, but in may opinion they are lower than the benefits and are easily fixed with some minimal measures. The costs would include the environmental damage created by the transportation to this area. The impact of having people in this area would be great, but proper measures to ensure that these effects don't escalate would be implemented because they area would have to remain "pristine". The impact of people and transportation would most defiantly be included in the cost of these vacations as they would have an impact.

All together I believe that these eco-tourism is a wonderful idea in promoting the environment and should be seen as a viable alternative to environmentally degrading manufacturing.

Ecotourism

2009-10-09T06:27:00.001-07:00

I am torn over this idea of eco-tourism and the benefits of traveling to the detriments traveling have on the environment. While yes, it is more beneficial for the environment for people to not travel on planes. I think that if people did not travel, especially to the south, ignorance of environmental degradation and world conflicts would be especially prominent. When a person travels to the South, they experience poverty and environmental degradation. They experience the culture and they see what their impact is on the country. I think this eye-opening knowledge is beneficial and should be protected. If we created detriments to traveling, like taxes on traveling, I think it could really harm the environment. People get invested in places after they have visited. Like if a traveler goes to Brazil and sees the Amazon forest, I think a traveler would be more invested to protect the Amazons after that experience.

I just feel like Americans are so ignorant about so much that is occurring around the world, that if we put taxes on traveling it could cause more people to not travel. I think traveling is essential to get Americans to broaden and learn about the world. I think traveling is an excellent way to inform people about different problems around the world. However I do wonder if tourists are willing to learn about local political issues when they travel, or if they prefer to lay out on the beach instead.

At the same time I feel like eco-tourism is an important problem. Many people go to different countries and waste so many resources to have their elegant hotels. The waste at hotels and planes high fossil fuel consumption does create a strong environmental impact. Tourist should have to address their wasteful habits and pay something towards their environmental impact. So I guess even though I believe that we must encourage traveling, if you are producing large amounts of waste, you should have to address this. I do believe that if a person is traveling for educational reasons, like studying abroad or grant projects, that we should not make them pay any additional taxes for their travel waste. I think that if a person is traveling for educational purposes than we must encourage that over the environmental impact.

-Tracey Swan

eco-tourism

2009-10-08T18:46:00.001-07:00

Last semester, my friends and I had chance to join a group of people who went to the National Mall to pick up trash after the Cherry Blossom Festival. I love going to The National Mall, especially during the Cherry Blossom Festival. I am sure many of you already went to one if not many. It is so beautiful that I cannot describe in words. Therefore, when my friends first asked me to go to the Mall to pick up trash, I wondered who would throw trash in such a place. It did not make sense to me that people would come to see a clean and beautiful thing and leave trash behind.
When I got to the Mall, I could not believe what I was watching at. All of the trash cans were overflowed. There were piles and piles of trash. The Mall seemed totally different place from how I remembered. I was so mad. I was just so angry that the tourists came to see the beautiful environment, but they did not care about it. They only focused on eye-catching beauty of Cherry blossom, but no one really appreciate and respect the nature.
However, after watching the film in class, I realized that I am also one of the tourists since there are more fundamental harms that I made as I travel than throwing trash or leaving mess behind. I been to many places where some of them were very urban but some were environmentally well preserved. This summer, I went to Boracay Island in Philippine. Boracay Island is a very small island where no building can build above the palm tree, ocean is so clear that you can see to the bottom, and beach sand is so white and soft. It was one of the most beautiful and amazing places I have been to. Before the tour guild told me one heart breaking story, my days there were heaven like. After the tourists rushed into the island, and the big and luxurious hotels were built to serve them, local people are experiencing frequent blackouts and water shortages. The big franchised hotels have prior access to water and electricity than local people. I thought it is so bitter and ironic how tourists push local people out to the edge. The hotels are built in the most beautiful and convenient place. The local people who do not have cars, and are the poorest are pushed far into the island.
Before I take this class, I never thought of solutions to these problems. I never heard of “eco-tourism” before. I still do not know the solution, but I could carefully make suggestion. We should not only praise to go to some place far and costly. I am sure many of us did not even visit local vacation places. We could walk or take bike to local places rather than taking hours of plan to foreign country. I also suggest using local market and restaurant instead of using American franchised store or restaurant when we are in vacation. In addition, many hotels already encourage people to reuse towels and bedding more than once.
We should all participated in eco-tourism and try to minimize our impact on environment during tours. We must be eco friendly to enjoy our environment better and longer.

Eco-Toursim: Considerations on Environmentally Friendly Travel

2009-10-07T18:06:00.000-07:00

Watching the video in class on Tuesday, "Life and Debt," I started to feel really guilty. It made me think about the last time I went on vacation to a tropical island. When I go on vacation, it's true that I, like most members of the first world, usually think mostly about how excited I am to be in this beautiful place, and how relieved I am to have a break from work and school. I think about the great time I am going to have exploring the island, swimming in the sea, drinking tropical drinks and in general participating in activities which do not give credence to the fact that the island is inhabited by people who are trying to make a living but are having difficulty due to the increasingly globalized world and the pressures the first world puts on the third world in terms of loans with lots of restrictions and other manners of global economy which prevent the global south from keeping up in the global economy.

The narrator's voice in "Life and Debt" really brought some thoughts home to me about the types of trips I take and the types of issues going on in the places I visit that I miss because I am too busy thinking about how excited I am to be on vacation. I left the movie feeling a little bit disheartened to tell the truth, because I wasn't really sure what to do to change my travelling habits or to become a more consciencious traveller who understands the impact she is having on the place she is visiting in terms of the people and the environment. The movie showed me that the type of experience that I have on a tropical island during a vacation is very different from the experience that the islanders are having in many cases, especially due to the now globalized economy wherein small nations are forced to compete with first world economies, which is an impossible feat and therefore drains the economy and lifestyles of many of the people living in small, less developed nations.

I first heard about eco-tourism last year in my Travel Writing class. We discussed how eco-tourism is a form of tourism wherein the traveller minimizes his or her impact on the environment by staying in an eco-friendly hotel made out of eco-friendly materials and in general trying to travel in a way which is not as harmful to the environmental as regular tourism. Eco-Tourism sounded like a good idea, but I definitely thought that it would be hard to find trips which are ec0-friendly and that it would be more expensive to travel in that way. Also, even if I found a trip that would be environmentally sustainable, I would still have to fly to the location, and the environmental costs of my transportation would be high. Although the idea of eco-tourism seems nice, there were a lot of considerations to think about in terms of eco-tourism.

It's important to keep in mind that, like the video "Stop! That's Not Eco-Tourism" says, many tours that claim that they are "eco-tours" are often not particularly environmentally friendly. The business just says that the tour is eco-friendly in order to get your business because it thinks that environmentalism has become something that is "trendy" or "in vogue," and that more people will want to go on a trip which is sustainable in terms of the environment. This reminds me a lot of the blog question from last week about food, wherein I discussed briefly how difficult it is to actually know whether or not a product is truly organic, or whether the company just did the minimum to get organic labelling. If there are not good enough checks on these requirements to be able to call your trip "eco-friendly" or your product "organic," then it is extraordinarily difficult for the consumer to be able to make informed decisions which are helpful to the environment.

Don't get me wrong... I think that eco-tourism is a great idea. It's really cool that so many eco-tours are offered today, and that more and more people are considering their environmental impact when they decide to go on vacation. I am definitely interested in trying to be more environmentally and socially conscious when I travel. But there are many factors which make eco-tourism seem less feasible, such as the fact that transportation, food, etc. need to be considered when making these sorts of choices. The only way for an entire trip to be truly eco-friendly would be if the vacation location was within driving distance and you took a hybrid or other eco-friendly car and did not have electricity during your eco-tour. This means that in order to travel to another country, it is very difficult to remain eco-friendly because the flight to that location will be environmentally detrimental, as well as the rental car you use to take you to the location spot. Once you are there, you will be eco-sensitive unless the tour lied and is not actually particularly eco-friendly, but when you leave the transportation costs will crop back up again.

So is it possible to go on a truly eco-tour? It could definitely be done if you scrutinize every minute detail of your trip, but honestly most people will probably not consider (or even think of0 every single variable which could make their trip not entirely eco-friendly. Most people might think of one or two or the variables, and try to weave that aspect of eco-tourism into their vacation, and I think that that's okay. "Stop! That's Not Eco-Tourism" says that as long as you are attempting to be eco-friendly when you plan a trip, than that is still better than giving no consideration at all to the impact you have on the environment when you travel. I agree with that assessment, and I think that it is the most practical way to approach eco-tourism: as a set of guidelines to take into consideration but which will most likely not completely fit into every trip that you take.

I see hope for eco-tourism in the future, especially as more alternative energies are created, transportation becomes more environmentally friendly and stricter rules are put in place over which trips can call themselves "eco-tours."

I also think that if eco-tourism is viewed in another way, it could be beneficial. When I travelled to Denmark this summer, I learned about a lot of really awesome and easy ways to help the environment that the people in Denmark do every day, such as usually take public transportation (their car tax is really high!), recycle cans and bottles for cash, and ride their bikes on a regular basis wherever they need to go in the city. Simply observing these practices were beneficial for me and showed me small ways in which I could make a difference. I think that travelling to countries which are progressive in terms of environmental initiatives and lifestyles could be eco-friendly in the way that they give people from less environmentally friendly places some ideas about how they can better help the environment and slow climate change.

Eco-tourism is great for eco-tourists

2009-10-07T11:30:00.000-07:00

I think that any form of travelling will do harm to the environment as long as we really on fossil fuels to get around. And taking the plane is simply the worst facet of it, since planes are the most polluting mode of transportation there is. However, travelling can also do a lot of good to the environment as it raises awareness in people that their actions have an impact on the world and that biodiversity is a beautiful thing that requires the protection. , Experiencing different cultures up close and seeing the way ecosystems and wildlife interact in a natural environment as is offered in eco-tourist vacation packages can spur ideas of individual responsibility, environmental awareness and the overall value of biodiversity in people that may not have had these thoughts before and it may deepen environmental concern in people who were already affected by the issues of pollution and cultural degradation.

Still, I think the majority of the people who would consider going to package deal holydays as shown in the documentary are not going to be attracted by the idea of eco-tourism. Eco-tourism attracts people who already have some level of environmental consciousness and are willing to lessen their impact on the environment.

To cite an example, I was on Zanzibar last fall for a study abroad program and my program director was the head of an eco-tourist island off the coast of Unguja called Chumbe Island. It's a small but beautiful uninhabited forest reserve surrounded by a marine protected coral reef area. It's a very expensive eco-tourism spot where guest stay in what I would define as 5 star bungalows, which function on solar energy, have compost toilets, collect freshwater from rainfall and rely on nature to ensure that no pollutants end up in the surrounding ocean (waste water from showers are filtered by plants highly specialized in capturing nitrate and phosphate from the water). The bungalows are absolutely gorgeous, the ocean very clean and the coral reefs plentiful. Still, when I talked to my program director about Chumbe she said that it is not unusual for tourists to leave after only 1 or 2 days of being on the island because they couldn't stand the idea of sleeping in a bungalow, couldn't stand being on an uninhabited island with no stores around and didn't like that they had no choice but to eat local food. That, I think is a really sad fact. These people paid large sums of money to do eco-tourism, and even in a 5 star eco-tourism environment they couldn't stand the idea of walking outside their comfort zone.

So to go back to the original idea of environmental impact linked to tourism. I think that environmental harm associated with flying should be included in the costs of a trip but that that should be part of a
global internalization of externalities. It is not for the individual only to pay the cost of environmental degradation but for industries and individuals to share it. Travelling is very important for personal
growth so raising the price of travelling will do harm as less people will have access to it on the short run but it will encourage industries to find less polluting alternatives on the long run.

Cost Effectiveness of Food Purchases

2009-10-02T05:59:00.000-07:00

The things that impact my food choices are calories, efficiency to getting the food, taste, how long it will take to cook and cost. Normally when I go to a restaurant I have an idea of my favorite dishes at that restaurant, so I like to stick to those dishes. I guess I’m kinda boring. If I’m really hungry I’m more likely to go for a dish that takes less time. Taste and cost play a big part in what I choose to eat a restaurant as well. I love pizza but if it’s $12, I am less inclined to buy that over a cheaper sandwich for example.

The location of a super market also impacts my food choices. I purchase frequently at Whole Foods because it’s right next to the metro. I wouldn’t buy there as much as I do if it didn’t have the easiest location to get too. I also shop at Superfresh, Giant and Safeway. When I shop there, I am looking to buy food that will make easy dishes and that are tasty. The cost of food is a huge consideration for me because I am on a strict budget. I try to eat healthier but am not opposed to eating meals with higher fat content. The environmental impact that my food makes on the world is never a consideration of mine, when I shop for food. I have bought local produce before, but not very often. I support farmer’s market, but rarely have time to go to any.

I do not eat a lot of beef products, but I know that they have a large environmental impact on the world. I made a stir-fry last week with beef strips in it. You have to raise the cows, which cost a lot of money since you have to buy antibiotics and food to make the cows big. The cows produce methane. The cows have to be slaughtered, cleaned and shipped off to a super market. Depending where the cow is located from, the carbon foot will be bigger, because it can easily be from California or the Midwest.

-Tracey

Food Lover

2009-10-02T05:18:00.001-07:00

First of all I am really glad that this week’s discussion topic is food. Food is one of my favorite subject to talk about. I cook most of my meal at my house, so I go to market very often. I sometimes like to eat out but not that often. Honestly, I would be very surprised if there is someone that actually thinks about environment, when one is deciding what they are going to eat at a restaurant or buy at a market. Before taking class, I never thought that my eating habit or food shopping habit could bring impact on environment.
I most of time go to Harris Teeter to shop my food. It is the closest to my house and has large selection of everything. I choose to shop at Harris Teeter which is only five minutes away from my house because of its convenience but not because of Harris Teeter that carries local grown food has less impact on environment than Safeway or Costco. When I choose which restaurant to go, I consider the location and mood or style of restaurant. Once I am in the restaurant, I food choice is solely depend on what I what to eat. Sometimes I think about calories, but I usually end up eating what I want to eat. Starbucks is located at the lobby of my apartment, so every day morning before coming to school I pick up a Grande Americano. This means that I waste a cup, a lid and a cup holder (I do not know what exactly that is called) every morning for almost eight months. I also recently consumed California Pizza Kitchen’s frozen BBQ Chicken Pizza. I usually do not eat frozen food or factory made food, but I cannot resist eating this Pizza late night. I am sure this frozen pizza is transferred from thousands and thousands mile from where I live. Next time when I eat this pizza, I should take a look at its label to find out what ingredients are used to make this pizza and where it is made. One of my eating habits that could help environment is that I do not drink soda. I will try to pay attention for few more days to see how my eating or food shopping habits impact environment.

Food Choices

2009-10-01T15:54:00.000-07:00

I am not a vegetarian, but when it comes to eating meat or fish, I am very picky about where it come from and whether it was farmed or caught in the wild. I buy free range chicken and refer myself to my seafood watch leaflet to choose which fish is best to buy. As for fruits and vegetables, I go to local organic markets in order to get fresher produce that have more taste and have had less of a negative impact on the environment. At restaurants, although I worry just as much about which fish is offered and where it comes from, I don't usually think about the vegetables as much.

When it comes to packaged foods, I don't eat pre-made meals but buy cereal, rice, pasta--the basics. For these items, I only choose on the basis of price and taste preference. The same applies for dairy products--I choose cheese according to what I like. In France, I will buy cheese from local producers at the local market, but in DC, local cheese is way too expensive for my student funds, so I usually buy cheese at the supermarket, and it's hardly ever locally produced.

I think a lot about the environment when I choose which food items to buy, however I am also very much aware of what my body needs. I don't eat too much meat because of the impact it has on our environment, but I cannot live without it. My body feels weak after a few days without meat proteins, so I make sure I eat some once in a awhile to keep my level of energy up. (Plus, meat is gooood.)

Out of everything I've eaten in the past couple days, I think Gruyere was the item with the greatest environmental impact. Because even though the processing of it has a low environmental impact, cows require a lot of grazing space, food and water to produce milk, and since it came from France, it came to the US by plane, which is the mode of transportation with the highest carbon consumption.

Whole Foods, Organic Foods, Local Foods, Soy Foods

2009-10-01T15:49:00.000-07:00

When I go to the grocery store, my first priority is usually to check the labels of most of the processed food I purchase, because nowadays most products contain some type of soy, a food which I am allergic to, along with peanuts and all other legumes. This scanning of ingrediants on the labels of most food not only leads me to discover whether or not the product contains soy lecithin, soy protein or any other form of soy but also learn whether or not the product is local or organic. If I have a choice between two similar products, one of which is organic or local and one of which is not, then I will usually choose the product which is better for the environment.

My infrequent shopping trips to Whole Foods in Tenleytown are cause of specifically close attention to ingredients since (it seems to me) there is a much higher proportion of products containing soy at that grocery store than any other, because soy is often an ingredient in healtheir foods. I am often distraught when watching tv commercials about healthy living when the commercial discusses how great it is to have a diet of nuts and soy. In addition to having more products containing soy, however, Whole Foods also has a number of organic products. When one thinks of Whole Foods, the thought which often comes to mind is that it is an environmentally conscious store. I bought a recycled bag from there last year and bring it back to the store so that the clerk doesn't have to use new paper bags, and the store has many recycling bins for different forms of recycling.

I was at Whole Foods the other day buying ingredients for a salad. I perused the fruits and vegetables section and came across some tomatoes which looked really good. Then my friend and I continued to look around, and came across some organic tomatoes. I actually stopped and thought, "I should buy these instead, because they are labelled organic, and I should support that." There are several problems with this, however. One is that the organic tomatoes were crawling with small bugs. When I looked at the bottom of the package of tomatoes, there were tons of bugs and I was pretty disgusted. The unfortunate problem with many organic products is the side effect of bug infestation, which makes it look less appealing. I am someone who is concerned about environmental change and who wants to try and support endeavors to help the environment. Even I, however, was deterred by the amount of bugs on these tomatoes.

The other problem which often crops up with organic products such as these tomatoes is that it is difficult to tell just how "organic" the products really are. I have heard that it is not that difficult to get organic labelling on your products, so even if I do chose a product labelled "organic" over another similar product, how do I know what kind of an impact that choice has made? I think that there should be labelling for different levels of organic products so that I can make choices which are better informed, because when making these environmentally conscious choices, it is important to feel that you are truly making a difference. Food shopping today for the environmentally concerned consumer is difficult because it is hard to tell how "organic" a product is, because sometimes certain allergies can prevent one from eating something, and because sometimes organic products can be covered with insects.

I believe that buying local is better than buying organic, even though both have their merits. It is difficult to tell to what extent a product is organic, however. With locally grown food, the food does not need to be flown long distances, tastes delicious and supports famers nearby. Buying local is really great, because often there are cute farmers markets to visit and the food tastes fresh since it was grown nearby and did not need to be shipped long distances and produce pollution.

I spent the past few days thinking about what kind of foods I eat. TDR recently had an eating locally day where they had delicious cider grown nearby and a great salad with yellow tomatoes which I really enjoyed. I was glad that they were having a day dedicated to eating locally and was proud to support that day. It's hard sometimes to know whether your food comes from local farmers or not, however. This is especially true at restaurants. When I eat at a restaurant, I never know whether or not the food is local or organic because that is usually not something restaurants advertise. My guess is that a lot of restuarants aren't overly concerned with buying locally or organically unless they specifically advertise the fact that they are a restuarant dedicated to providing environmentally conscious products.

I think that the product which caused the greatest environmental impact that I've eaten in the past few days was a water bottle, since water bottles use a lot of plastic. Usually I try to use the Brita filter in my room for water, or the water fountain down the hall in the dorms. It is definitely much better to bring a reusable canteen for water, but I don't always remember to do that and so sometimes use a water bottle. I would like to cut down on my use of water bottles since they are detrimental to the environment since they are made of plastic. I did recycle the water bottle, however, so atleast the bottle can be reused.

Considerations about what types of food we buy, where they have come from and how they were grown are important in order to help the environment. It is a complicated world however, especially at the grocery store when you are trying to decide between whole foods, organic foods and local foods. Even though it takes some consciencious thinking and some careful decision making, however, I do believe that informed decisions about food choices can be made. Just because it takes some effort does not mean that it is not possible.

Taking the time to make the right food choices will have a positive impact on the environment and can taste really good too!

Cynicism and Idealism

2009-09-25T06:30:00.001-07:00

Two hundred years from now Washington, DC landscape will be vastly altered if we continue on this path of ecological destruction. The number population of DC will be huge. The city will look more like New York City, with only skyscrapers visible. All the trees and parks will be terminated to accommodate more room for residential life. The DC population of deer, squirrels and birds are all gone. DC will have a large problem with cockroaches and rats. Most skyscrapers will freely allow rodents to inhabit there. The Potomac River will be toxic and very deadly. People will not be able to live by it without developing mysterious cancers. The metro will have expanded but also run poorly. It takes commuters two hours to get from McLean VA to Metro Center. Sea levels around DC will rise causing DC to be smaller. The bridges will get closed down often due to flooding. Mosquitoes will be a year round problem.

The Woodley Park National Zoo will no longer exist. Almost all species will be extinct except for a few zoos in areas like London, New York, Berlin and Hong Kong. The US Capitol will have been moved to Connecticut due to the security risk of living in poverty stricken and terrorist haven DC. There will be shells of old automobiles found all throughout the city. Cars will no longer be able to be used due to their CO2 emissions and the lack of gasoline available. Only the President and a few rich men use cars now. Everyone must ride on buses, walk, or bike. If a person is lucky they can grab the metro. But the metro will be so crime ridden and insanely packed that it will no longer be a valuable resource.

In an ideal world, DC will have more vegetation. There will have been an increase in the amount of trees seeded. For every building that is built, a contractor has to plant 500 trees around the DC area. There will be no cars in the city, except for government officials like the President, Senators, and Congressman. The metro will be an extremely effective system that gets anywhere in the city within fifteen minutes. Rounds every minute. Buses will also be used all throughout the city. Cars were banned in 2020.

Most people will live in houses still but have gardens to grow fruits, vegetables and herbs in their back yard. The houses will be severely altered with solar heat panels equipped on all the buildings. Water will have to be attained and purchased from a water plant. Each person will be allotted a certain amount of water. No person can take longer than 5-minute showers. The showers will be luke warm. Washing machines and dryers no longer exist. The Potomac will be one of the best places to go fishing, with strict laws on who and how much a person can fish. The UN oversees all bodies of water. The population will have severely decreased in 2050 with the UN Summit on Population Control.

Picturing DC in 2209

2009-09-24T17:04:00.000-07:00

It is so hard to imagine what DC will look like in 200 years, because everything from lifestyle(food, clothing, housing, transportation, consuming habit, relationship with environment) to technology(energy supply, manufacturing system) will be totally different from 2009. There will be minimum park or green area in DC. The population of DC will increase enormously as any other state will be. Then there must be some form of residential complexes and stores that would serve the population. Theses complexes would be taller than any building that was ever built in Washington DC. However, each unit in the complexes would be very small in order to accommodate as many people as possible. I believe no buildings are shorter than the Washington Monument in 2209. Also I think large stores such as Target, Costco, or Best Buy would be reduced in physical size. The highly developed technology could transform large stores into something like banding machine that would only take up minimum area but provide what people need. In addition, it would be hard to see cars run on oil. In other words, there will be less use of oil but more of other alternative energies such as hydro, wind, solar, biogas or thermal energy. The size of vehicles will be reduced as well to be more energy efficient.
What I hope Washington DC to be in 200 years different from what I assume it to be. I want the big stores to be minimized as I assume them to be. However, I do not want thousands and thousands of small stores to take up all DC area. Then it is not any different than current situation. As the stores, factories or business complex reduce in size, I hope green area would expand. We not only should preserve the green area that we currently have but also try very hard to make more green areas. I also hope that by 2209 we have much greener technology that would help us to consume and spend in environmental friendly way. What I really like to see is kids running around and playing with their pets in their backyard. I wish we all could live in small but beautiful house with a garden rather than living in a tight cell in tall residential building.

That’s the way it should be.

2009-09-24T09:36:00.001-07:00

Washington DC 2209. Sea level has risen by 3 metres. The National monuments have been displaced, and whatever is left from the Reagan Nation Airport is now underwater. The President of the United States needn’t take more than 10 steps out his back porch to watch flow by, the toxic waters of the Potomac River.

The number of climate change refugees has been on the constant rise since 2009, but chronic disease outbreaks due to increased population density and decreased access to clean water keep population numbers in check. The region is in great debt—all the money collected from taxes is being used towards keeping the waters from engulfing the city, creating shelters and emergency plans to protect Washington from ruthless seasonal storms and fighting constant disease outbreaks. No money is left to fund the region’s climate change prevention program.

Supermarkets are full and the population is depressed. What people want is here, what they need is missing. Hybrid cars and biofuels just didn’t do the trick.

A teenager walks by the White House, glances at the solar panel coated roof, That’s the best they could do?

Now, Washington DC 200 Annus Abeo. Society has changed quite a bit since drastic national measures were put in place during the Year of Change. Human greed and carelessness have been replaced by wisdom and environmentalism. Respect can now be gained by diminishing your carbon footprint. People are physically and psychologically healthier.

Methods of carbon sequestration have reduced the amount of harmful greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, and the compulsory internalization of externalities has reduced the carbon footprint of DC’s industries to a near zero. Surveys show a net improvement in the city’s air and water quality. Fish swim freely in the Potomac and Anacostia River.

Eat locally is D.C.’s new motto. People walk and bike to the farmer’s markets that flood the streets of the city. The air is clean, the streets are peaceful. The chirping of the birds cover the low hum of the solar powered tramway. Who would have thought the air would one day smell so good?

Every household in the city relies on natural reusable energy to power their needs. With plate glass windows, solar panel rooftops, grey water catchment systems and geothermal heating, all needs are covered. Waste is an ancient word that can only be found in history books. Everything is reused and restored. The loop is complete.

Children run around the green city’s gardens playing Raise Your Own Tree as their great-grandparents watch them thinking, That’s the way it should be.

The Washington, DC of the Future

2009-09-22T17:26:00.000-07:00

Environmentalists have a broad range of ideas about what climate change will mean, how quickly it will occur, and how well humans will be able to cope with the change. Some believe that serious climate change will not occur for a few generations, whereas others assert that climate change will occur much quicker, within a few decades.

I believe that in 200 years, Washington, D.C. will be a very different place. If humans continue the ecological pattern they have been on, then the impacts of climate change are going to be visible most likely during my lifetime, and extremely likely during the lifetime of my future child. The Washington, D.C. of 2209 will probably be much more advanced in terms of technology and will have been able to deal with climate change to a certain extent, but the planet will look very different. The environment will have been seriously impacted by human activities such as deforestation, greenhouse gases, and other man-made environmentally destructive technologies. This environmental destruction will have greatly lessened the amount of green space in DC. Rock Creek Park will look more like Rock Creek Backyard. Even Northern Virginia, were I've grown up and which has always been full of trees and greenery will look a lot more like a city, full of increasing high rises.

If humans continue on the path we have been on in terms of environmental degradation, the ice caps are going to continue to melt, which will in turn cause a rising in sea levels. Due to this rise in sea levels, eventually huge areas near the water are going to become a part of the sea. Washington, D.C. is not incredibly close to the water but in 200 years it will be much closer. People will be able to take 30 minute drives to the oceanfront because places like Virginia Beach and Rehobeth in Delaware will be underwater.

So the amount of greenery in DC and the surrounding suburbs will have been considerably lowered in 200 years, and ocean levels will have risen to such an extent that D.C. will be considered not only our nation's capital but also a beach destination. People will spend little time outdoors, however, because temperatures will have risen to an extraordinarily high level and the amount of disasterous storms affecting the region will have risen greatly due to climate change. Visits to the beach will be few and far between because of the frequency of tsunamis and hurricanes which will occur. All in all, if we continue on the ecological path we are headed on, the Washington, D.C. which will be around for our future generations will not be a place most people would want to live.

I hope that this scenario will not turn out to be the case. I love Washington, D.C. I've grown up here and the parks surrounding the city are some of my favorite places to visit. As a child I often used to walk along the paths of Difficult Run or spend time walking around in the field near my house. These green spaces are quickly being taken over by technology and development, however. The field near my house is now made up almost entirely of residences. I hope that this process of man-made taking over nature-made will not continue to spread as quickly as it has been, but the amount of new development taken place in my area is excessive.

Hopefully, we will all realise the importance of changing our habits in order to be more ecologically friendly, and the climate crisis will be slowed. If there are major changes made to the way we live our lives in terms of our ecological footprint, and positive steps are made to reduce climate change, then the D.C. of the future doesn't have to look like the image I described above. The D.C. of 2209 could be a lot like the D.C. we know today, although some lifestyle changes will have had to have been made. The kids of the future will know a lot more about climate change and will be conscientious of their choices. Environmental ideas which are in a lot of ways on the fringe nowadays, such as recycling everything, buying locally and turning off lights when you leave a room will be ingrained in the minds of the kids of 2209. Our future generations will also be taught about the environment at school to a much greater extent. They will have grown up thinking about the environment in terms of every subject: math, science, literature and more. They will have learned to conserve energy and to take shorter showers to save water. The standard house will be built using ecologically friendly materials, lightbulbs will all be environmentally low-impact, carpooling will be a part of everyday life, buildings will have green roofs and there will be recycling bins of all kinds on every streetcorner. Environmental change will have been postponed to such an extent that there will have been minimum change in terms of ice cap melting and deforestation, and the o-zone will not have depleted much futher. More people will ride bikes and metro will have been transformed into a more green mode of transportation. All cars will be hybrids, or some technologically advanced car model which is good for the environment. The food that the people of the future will eat will all be locally grown from farms in the suburbs and rural areas not too far from the city. There will be many green areas in the city and the surrounding area; more even than there are now. I hope that the Washington, D.C. of 2209 will be a good example of a "green city" where the people, the infrastructure, everything is environmentally friendly.

Unfortunately, if we stay on the ecological path we have been on, then the first scenario I talked about is more likely what the D.C. of 2209 will look like. The environmentally friendly D.C. of the future is an extremely idealized model, hoping that enough people will realize the importance of preserving the environment to make this kind of major lifestyle shift. It will not be easy to transform peoples' ideas about their lives and what they deserve, but it is possible. D.C. will most likely never be the "green city" I hope for and imagine, but it doesn't have to be the environmentally devoid city I described in the beginning. Hopefully future generations will live in a D.C. that is still thriving, but which is environmentally conscious.

Lazy Sunday's

2009-09-18T05:30:00.001-07:00

Maniates makes the argument that main stream environmentalist theories do not encompass the problems of the environment and thus allows Americans to slip into the habit of apathy and lazyness when it comes to matters of the environment. Maniates states that there are certain things we can do to change our impact on the environment, but they are not enough. For example he states “Avoiding the worst risks of climate change…may require reading U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent in the next 30 years” (Maniates). The US is not embracing environmental change and damage, and instead of important environmentalist being aggressive about the world’s fate: they produce stories like “It’s Easy Being Green” or “The Lazy Environmentalist,” which shows an unrealistic approach to environmental change. Maniates states that we can not afford to be the lazy environmentalist, these problems need to be fixed now.

I do agree with Maniates argument comparing the environmental movement to Civil Rights. Where would we be if MLK gave a speech on the easy way to not being a racist? We need to be realistic and take a tuff stand on reducing our impact on the world. At the same time, I think that Maniates could have given some advice on how to heads towards a tuff environmental policy in the US. It is pretty obvious that we are not realistically headed in that direction and we are going to need large social changes to get people to stop consuming at this rate. I think its important to come up with large dynamic environmental plans, when writing articles like these, because at least the article gives you some direction of where to go from here. The reader knows that we have to reduce carbon emissions, but we don’t know how to get policies changed in the US.

-Tracey Swan

Group 5 Presentation: How to Discuss

2009-09-17T20:43:00.001-07:00

I think that we should discuss how the fear of technological change fits into environmentalism. We could talk about how one of the arguments about how climate crisis can be averted is through technological developments which will allow us to grow more food using considerably less resources, and other technologies which could basically make nature obsolete. But the arguments in both the Joy article and in Brave New World by Huxley show that a world in which the natural way we live our lives is changed would not necessarilly be a good one.

The Joy and Huxley pieces do not necessarily talk about environmental devestation, but they do discuss technological progress getting rid of our individual choices and technology actually making those choices for us. It doesn't take too much of a leap to extend this to the environment and what kind of environment would exist in a world controlled by technology. Although we can't look into the intelligent design of robots and see what kind of decisions they would make, I don't see robots making particularly good choices towards nature. The whole debate here just goes into something basic about man-made versus nature-made, two things which are often at odds with each other since man has created many technological products which devestate the natural world.

We could talk about how their are two choices for mankind: continue this path of increasing technology which could lead to losing our individual freedoms and our environment or give up some of our freedoms now, such as the ability to have many kids and to consume as much as we want in order to maintain our freedoms and our planet for the future.

Do we want to all talk generally about the topic, or do we each want to talk about a specific aspect of the readings?

Group 5 Presentation -- Wired & Huxley

2009-09-17T19:46:00.000-07:00

I think the main points of the article by Bill Joy are that

1. He believes the biggest danger facing us in the 21rst century is technology. Not because it's pollutng but because we are headed such a way that we are most likely going to create machines more powerful than mankind, machines capable of taking over mankind.

2. He mentions that the reason why the problem is occurring now, in the 21rst century, is because we have entered a new wave of technology: robots, engineered organisms and nanotechonlogy. And that these have the dangerous power to self-replicate

3. He offers a coupld of solution to this problem: "erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous technologies," "move beyond Earth as quickly as possible"

4. "If we could agree, as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed ,and why, then we would make our future much less dangerous -- then we might understand what we can and should relinquish." We should come at peace with nature and stop our thirst for creation. Scientists must "adopt a strong code of ethical conduct": we must make sure that we don't create machines that have the capacities of mass destruction.

Final point: "common sense says there is a limit to our material needs and that certain knowledge is too dangerous and best foregone."

The piece by Huxley is an illustration of such a hypothesis. It's a satire of what the future would look like if we followed a utopic path of social stability, in a world ruled by machines. In the Brave New World, humans aren't brought up as being part of a family, children are raised communally and information in injected in their brains in their sleep. Therefore, their mind, "the mind that judges and desires and decides" is made up of what the controllers say.

I thought it was a great passage. It says alot about freedom and discovery. And relates very well to the article by Bill Joy.

How do you all want to go about discussing these articles?

Easy Being Green?

2009-09-17T07:14:00.001-07:00

I enjoyed reading the Washington Post article “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It” by Michael Maniates. I also definitely agreed with many of his points that how easy doing just not enough to preserve our planet. Whenever I do essay things such as recycling, taking a short shower or using an energy efficient light bulb intending to save the plant, I always asked myself am I really helping the environment or am I going to make any difference to the climate changes? Disappointingly I know that I would not matter much in a big picture of the environment. However, I do it anyway, because I just feel good about myself. I believe most of Americans are in my shoes. They just do it to feel good about themselves, and they only do easy effortless things. However, the whole picture of environment is bigger than what we think. People hope to help the environment by doing easy, fast, simple and stylish actions. These “simple solutions” for the environment are hardly enough to bring any changes, because there are no such a “simple solutions” for the environment. The environment is so damaged by so many people for such a long period; we need long tern collective solutions. None of the action we take today will appear as positive impact on the environment the very next day. “We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins” (Maniates). These fundamental changes could take our time and money and be what politician and celebrities like to avoid talking about them. I am sure the politicians and celebrities do not want to risk their position and popularity by making any dramatic environmental statements. But I see them so comical that they just want to be appeared as if they care so much about it. I think the politicians and celebrities who have enormous advantage in media coverage or mobilization of people should stand in the front line of making really changes to save the planet. No one should think easy doing is enough doing.

The Power of Rhetoric

2009-09-16T19:11:00.000-07:00

I agree with many of the points which Michael Maniates makes in his Washington Post article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." It's true that making small changes to our choices probably won't have much of an impact on slowing climate change. Although no one is arguing that it is a bad thing to recycle, to use energy-efficient light sources, to use the same reusable grocery bag every time you shop, and to turn off the water when you brush your teeth, these things alone will most likely not make the kind of drastic difference in climate change which will be necessary.

The environmental problem facing us is much larger than that, and I truly believe that it is going to take a huge overhaul of the way we all think about how we use resources. Telling people that climate change will be easily improved if you just recycle a little bit more is not going to bring about real change, because many people will think that if reducing our impact on the planet is as simple as that, then climate change is not a cause for real concern.

Mr. Maniates is on the right track with thinking about the power of rhetoric. A good, powerful speech can rouse people out of their stupor and truly make them think about the problems facing this earth. A powerful orator has a unique ability to stir something in the listener that makes him or her feel compelled to act. And we are ready to combat climate change. I know that it won't be an easy task to accomplish, but the most rewarding accomplishments never are.

I personally never feel that accomplished when I do something that didn't take much effort to complete. When I really feel good about what I've done is when I work hard and toil away at a project and at the end really feel like I have made something worthwhile; that I have made something to be proud of. If the world comes together to fight against climate change, and if we are inspired by some powerful speakers who give us the motivation to really do something about this problem, then we can do something about this problem.

I'm going to go ahead and make an assertion: reversing or atleast tampering climate change is not going to happen if we only make a few small changes to our lifestyles. Combatting climate change will require a lot of us; it will probably require reevaluation of the comfortable way in which we live our lives. But it will be worth it.

If those with the power to make a difference don't make one, how can we make them?

2009-09-15T14:22:00.000-07:00

I agree with Professor Maniates that books entitled "The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time" are dangerously misleading since the environmental crisis we are facing currently has no simple solution to it. Still, I see a value in them in that they are a good way of raising awareness in people uneducated on the topic.

I also agree with Professor Maniates' when he says that "we need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins." However, this is a hard task, mostly because positive efforts and good intentions are choked by the socio-political system in place. Therefore, even though "a slowing of the growth of environmental damage" by "tweaking on the margins" is " hardly enough," it is also essential as it will save us precious time that is needed to find a realistic drastic solution to the crisis.

I have a hard time imaging how a drastic solution can be adopted considering there is still a large portion of the population that is unwilling to make small changes such as driving hybrid cars, installing solar panels in their households or even the smallest change such as switching to energy efficient light bulbs. That being said, I still think we should change the system so to stop people from destroying the planet. I'm just not sure how at this point. And with so many "lazy" people in developed countries, it's hard to be positive on the topic.

If those with the power to make a difference don't, how can we make them?
How can we get to the political and corporate giants and get them to put in place the fundamental changes we want to see happen??

Denial

2009-09-11T08:11:00.001-07:00

The Foundry article articulated the viewpoint that “The Story of Stuff” is a leftist video trying to make children feel ashamed for living in American. The Foundry article does point out that the movie has some extreme viewpoints in it, but at the same time it displays our amazing ability to deny environmental degradation. I agree that “The Story of Stuff” has an extreme viewpoint, but I think its necessary for Annie Leonard to give a difficult perspective because it gets across to the public our consumer obsessed nation. I personally was proud that Torre Batker asked if his legos would be bad for the planet, because it shows that the video is making younger generation think about consumption. The only way for American’s to change their environment is if future generations are properly educated and begin to think about issues like consumption and environment degradation at an early age. I agree with Steve Cohen, the article may have some disparities in it, but getting Americans to think about their consumer choices can only benefit our society not hurt it.

-Tracey Swan

The Story of Stuff

2009-09-10T15:13:00.000-07:00

I personally loved this film by Leonard. As a new comer to the environmental study fields, I thought this film was easy, compelling and entertaining enough to catch my attention. This film is certainly good start point for any people, young or old who are interest in learning about the environment. I liked how the film did not have over load of information. Since obviously this film is not for the experts in the environmental issue, it is better not to overwhelm people with excessive information that could scare people way from simply being interested in this topic. However, we cannot say this film is targeting children as the article by the Heritage Foundation did, because it is easy, simple and animated. It is true that there were some generalization of American’s materials economy. However, I do not think that this film has any intention to enforce negative aspects of the society to the children of our nation. Despite Cohen’s argument that this film is only states guilt of consuming and wasting rather than providing workable solution, the film actually provides some guidelines or solution to have better environment such as green chemistry, renewable energy and local living economy.

Politics, politics, always politics

2009-09-09T19:50:00.000-07:00

I thought “The Story of Stuff” was well done, very powerful and brought up some very important points.
But that the debate surrounding it has, once again, taken a political turn.

I liked Steve Cohen’s article but there are a few things he says that bothered me. First, he mentions that the movie exposes problems without giving answer. But I thought it did give answers. It tells the audience, in the last 3 minutes or so, a list of things that can be done to work towards making our system circular instead of linear. Annie Leonard doesn’t go too much into details but I think she does so on purpose so that the audience can asks itself the question: “well then what can I do?” It’s for people to innovative and come up with original solutions. Solutions that have not yet been proposed.
Secondly he writes, "our survival depends on our ingenuity and our ability to develop and manage technological fixes" but as the video points out, more than a technological problem, there is an inherent problem in the socio-political system that shapes it. The people controlling the system are creating barriers to progress: problems of consumerism and obsolescence must be tackled first and foremost. If we just change technology half the problem still remains
He does make a good point though when he says that the lives of people in third world countries depend on the sustaining of our current consumption . But the idea exposed in the movie is not that all industries should be eradicated but that they must be replaced. So where jobs will disappear, new, less harmful jobs will form. "The answer to the “story of stuff” is not to shut down the economy, but change the way it operates."

As for the second article, the Heritage Foundation is a pro-capitalism conservative think tank, so even thought their answer shocked me at first, now that I think about it, it doesn’t surprise me at all. The author spends more time criticizing Annie Leonard’s political affiliation than the facts exposed in her movie. About the perceived obsolescence passage, the Heritage Foundation writes, "so when they don’t ask for new shoes this summer, it is because they have been scared into this extreme liberal way of thinking." For one thing, this point is ridiculous. I, myself, have a very strong memory of refusing to go to school when I was 7 or 8 years old because I had forgotten my new, trendy jacket at school and so had to wear my old one. And for another, politics and this “extreme liberal way of thinking” is not the point of the movie. The point of the movie is to open peoples’ eyes on what’s going on in the world and why we’re faced with a problem.

Of course the video is taking a political stance by saying companies should shrink and governments should be of the people and for the people but the idea its getting at is real. We are trashing the planet. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, the state of the earth remains and something needs to be done.

p.s. it does disappoint me that Annie Leonard's 50% figure is wrong but, for one, the figure is probably not 20% either, but rather somewhere in between.. and for two, that's a 5 second mistake in a 20 minute movie. Not a Big Deal, just a good tool for people that want to discredit her.

Partisan politics

2009-09-09T19:05:00.000-07:00

"The Story of Stuff" with Annie Leonard really caught my attention even though I already knew much of the information provided in the video. I like how the video focused on telling us the whole story, every step of the way, and how it is all interconnected.

I am dissappointed that the reaction to the video has seemingly played out once again as a Republican vs. Democrat debate. I believe that the only way this climate crisis will ever be solved will be through throwing partisan politics out the window on this issue and coming together as a cohesive unit to combat environmental concerns. This belief stems from my feeling that the environmental crisis is too big a problem to be tackled if we let ourselves get caught up in petty bickering and divisiveness.

I've long been a staunch believer in nonpartisan politics. The summer after my sophomore year of high school, I attended the Sorensen Institute for Political Leaderships' High School Leaders Program at UVA. The program focused on thoughtful, nonpartisan discussion of issues facing the state of Virginia, and brought together high school students from throughout the Commonwealth of VA for the two week program. During this time, the most important rule was that no one could divulge their political leanings, not even the professors or program coordinators. This fostered a feeling of freedom in the classroom where I did not fear speaking about my ideals. Everyone thoughtfully listened to everyone's point of view. At the end of the program, our class formed a website where everyone wrote in what political party they aligned with, and I was suprised by many of my classmates' responses. I was also surprised to learn that it didn't change how I felt about these people at all: they were my friends, and that was that. Political divisiveness tears us apart. What I learned during my time at Sorensen is that we can all learn to work together, even with people who have views that differ greatly from our own. I have continued to embrace nonpartisan politics or atleast friendly discussion between political parties, and have been particularly pleased with Virginia's previous governor, Mark Warner, who embraced a more moderate approach to politics to bring Virginia together to focus on issues important to the Commonwealth.

The debate over "The Story of Stuff" seems to have once again pitted Republican versus Democrat. The debate has moved away from the actual content of the video and has turned into another excuse for partisan bickering and divisiveness, which does not solve ANYTHING! People always have the right to have an opinion, and they ofcourse have the right to say that they do not like Annie Leonard's film. But the critique should not be based solely on maintaining opinions down a party line, which seems to have happened here. Just look at where the sources are from: the article giving (mostly) positive feedback (although it raises some issues with the content and discusses how there might be some incorrect information present) to the video is from an environmental institute, and the article giving negative feedback about the video is from a conservative group. The article from the conservative group even says that Leonard's video is a video coming from the far left. I have no problem with a debate over the content of the film. What I do have a problem with is the fact that instead of merely having a debate over what the film says, the articles written about the film are changing the debate from what they like or dislike about the film to asking which party has the right idea, the left or the right. How will we ever solve the climate crisis, or many of the problems facing todays world, if we cannot get out of the cycle of partisan politics which distracts from the real issues?

Depressing

2009-09-04T08:03:00.000-07:00

Hey all

My name is Lisa Ailloud. I’m a senior at AU double majoring in Environmental Studies and Marine Science (yes, this major does exist at AU..!). I was born and raised in Lyon, France, and moved to the US for College, three years ago. I was therefore brought up in a very different environment where public transportation is the easiest way to get anywhere and where the environment, seeing that France is in the European Union, is the center of most political debates. Even though France is a 1rst world country, people’s attitude towards the environment differs a lot form that of mainstream Americans. French people drive smaller cars, take baskets or reusable bags to the grocery store since plastic bags have been banned, and go to the local outdoor market several times a week. The US, on the other hand has a much stronger culture of mass consumption, mainly due to its historical background.

I was told during my entire childhood to turn off the water when I brush my teeth, switch off the lights when I leave a room, turn off the water when I shampoo my hair, etc. So when I started living in the AU dorms and saw half the girls on my floor leave the water running while brushing their teeth, it drove me crazy! Similarly, when I went to visit my friend in Houston I was confused as to why we drove the car everywhere. But I soon realized that the way houses were built made it impossible for people to walk anywhere. Back home, houses in city and suburbs (not so much in the countryside) have at least one marketplace, post office, and a bakery close enough for individuals to walk there.

Therefore, I think the issue at stake isn’t that Americans are less environmentally conscious but the way society is structured makes it very hard for individuals to lead more environmentally friendly lifestyles. If farmer’s markets were cheaper and more abundant and plastic bags banned in supermarkets most people would embrace these changes and lead more sustainable lifestyles.

Reading Fish’s blog gives me the same feeling I have when think of how much water flows during the 180 seconds my friend brushes her teeth. It depresses me and makes me sick. And it’s when I read such testimonies that I start to lose hope that we’ll ever save the planet. I spent 6 months in Tanzania last year living with local families where I had no choice but to use water instead of toilet paper, accept that there was no electricity between 7pm and 7am (when the system worked) and cleaned my hands with water rather than a paper towel during meals. My friends and I could have fought the change, bought some toilet paper at the supermarket but we didn’t. We accepted the change because we knew that wherever that paper would end up would have disastrous impacts on the environment. Especially in Stone Town where there was no sign of any waste management plan. If the Earth’s population all had that same attitude, we would slowly but surely climb back up the slope and move towards healthier ecosystems, more plentiful fisheries and cleaner air. Yet, as Fish proves us, there are still a lot of people out there who are scared of change and don’t think the Earth is worth their time or money. People who “resist and resent the demands made on [them] by environmental imperatives“ and “just want to inhabit it as comfortably as possible for as long as [they] have.” All I can say to that is that I hope these people don’t have children or these children will forever hold bitterness towards them for thinking about themselves and themselves only.

I agree with Lucy that it would be nice to think that the majority of people care about the environment but what scares me the most is that environmental unconsciousness is no longer a question of education. People know, they just prefer to look away. I may be very pessimistic but I personally don't give our civilization much long before it destroys itself if that attitude doesn't change.

2009-09-04T07:37:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone,

My name is Jonathan Southgate and I am a junior in SIS. I am concentrating in International Communication and minoring in International Business. I was born in Boston, MA but grew up in Charleston, SC. I have always been interested in environmental issues, but have always found a problem with the way that environmentalists went about promoting their cause. I try do what I can to reduce waste and live more environmentally friendly. At the same time, I don't like the idea of the "carbon footprint". This idea that if I didn't buy a certain object would reduce my "footprint" is ridiculous. Whatever I was going to buy would have been made and transported regardless of whether I bought it or not. On top of that EVERYTHING we own and use at some point had an adverse effect on the environment.

I believe that a more effect way of fighting environmental change is to focus on our waste. Focus on using less and using better methods to dispose of what we have to use. Finding better ways to travel is key in my opinion. I believe that people should focus on waste management and transportation improvement. I am fascinated by this issue that I have little background knowledge in, so I am excited for this class.

In terms of the article that Stanley Fish wrote in the New York Times, I find it a bit strange. I don;t think it is the best strategy to scare people or to make people seem like they are destroying the planet personally. The human race in general is destroy the planet and people contribute to this only because they live in our society. We need to change the society (focusing on transportation, waste management, and energy production) of our Nation. I think its pointless to make people feel bad about the way they live, since it is the way they HAVE to live in this society. Changing the amount we consume and the car we drive is very useful steps, but paying twice as much for a new kitchen because of where the wood came from seems silly to me. In all the changes that happen, there probably was more environmental damage than not. I look forward to talking more about this in the near future and learning more.

Cheers,

Jonathan

To recycle or not to recycle? That is the question.

2009-09-04T06:11:00.001-07:00

Dear fellow bloggers,

My name is Tracey Swan and I’m a junior majoring in International Relations with a double minor in Literature and Justice Law and Society. I enrolled in International Environmental Politics to fulfill my core curriculum requirements for SIS. However the environment is an issue I’ve been passionate about since I was very young. I grew up in Portland Oregon, which I’m proud to say is extremely environmentally active and has one of the best public transportation and recycling programs in the US. Living in Oregon gave me the unique opportunity to grow up using many of the environmental techniques mentioned in Stanley Fish “I Am, Therefore I Pollute.” I grew up in a household with no paper towels, only wash clothes. I didn’t realize that people used paper towels for so many different activities until I came to college. I realize that this is hard to believe, but for my entire life my family has always used wash clothe for all household chores. I remember walking around downtown Portland with my mother once. She had bought me a soda and I drank the entire thing. Now I was stuck with this bottle. My mom refused to let me throw it out because their was no recycling bins around and I had to keep the bottle with me until I got home and could recycle it. I’m pretty sure it was a good three hours later. This is a prime example of the childhood I had.

I have found it very challenging to be environmentally friendly living in DC. Living with roommates and on a budget has significantly decreased my ability to perform many of the environmentally friendly tasks that I use to perform in Oregon. I am hoping to get out of this class smart realistic methods that are low cost on how to be more environmentally friendly. Additionally I am frightened by concepts like global warming and overpopulation. I grew up hearing all about global warming. I am hoping to get out of this class an idea of the best method to prevent and decrease environmental problems such as global warming. I would like to have a strong knowledge of smart realistic policies that can affect and change the US impact on environmental degradation. I would also like a stronger foundation of knowledge as to what the United Nations role is, in the fight against global warming and mass species extinction.

Stanley Fish’s view in “I Am, Therefore I Pollute” deeply annoyed me. Fish is a prime example of a typical American who is too lethargic to perform environmentally conscious tasks, and would rather waste than take 5 minutes out of his day to sort out his recycling and rinse out a washcloth. Buying environmentally friendly products can be more expensive, but they can also save a person a lot of money. Hydro cars saves a person a ton of money on gas, using wash clothes over paper towels saves money, unplugging your appliances saves money on energy, and buying environmentally washing machines give you a tax break and a person uses less water thus saving you more money. I think the thing that bothered me is how he has the luxury to be environmentally friendly but instead he views it as a battle with his wife. I find this frustrating because as a professor and scholar, I think he has a responsibility to lead us into being more environmentally friendly. Being a highly educated man taking on a teach position, gives you the ability to lead and the responsibility to shape the minds of the future. It bothers me that a intelligent, impressive man like Stanley Fish can be so lethargic over the environment.

I think what it means to live in a environmentally friendly way in the modern day US is to do everything you can to maintain an environmentally friendly household within your own capacity. Not everyone can afford to shop local food and buy hydro cars, but that doesn’t mean that they are not being environmentally friendly. I think people who make the effort to cut back on their waste, recycle, and use a few other normal environmentally friendly methods can be considered living in a “environmentally friendly” manner.

-Tracey Swan

Jung Kim

2009-09-03T23:01:00.001-07:00

Hi, my name is Jung Kim. My major is International Studies concentrating on International Politics. I am from Korea, and I spent my high school year in California. I recently studied abroad in Seoul, Korea. It was pretty fun experience to study abroad in my hometown. I am taking this class for my core course for SIS requirement. This is my first environment class, so I am very excited to learn new things. I do not consider myself as an environmentalist, but my interest in environment increased after many horrible natural disasters in recent year. I hope that I could have better understanding and appreciation for the environment that is crucial for our lives. I realized how much I have used up and destroyed the environment, so I want to learn what I could do to preserve the environment for my future generation.

After reading I am, Therefore I Pollute by Stanley Fish, I asked myself if I am an environmental criminal. I think I am or in some sense we all are. Every single action we take brings good or bad impact on the environment. Even a little thing like breathing effects the environment. This present moment when thousands and thousands of people are killed by unexpected natural disasters, changing our “human-centered” lifestyle to “environmentally friendly” lifestyle is not an option but mandatory. I do not mean that we all need to breathe less to save the environment. However, there are many ways as easy as breathing that could help the environment.
When I first came to the United Sates, I was shocked by how many plastic bags I was given at the cashier every time I go to grocery shopping. About 5 years ago in Korea, the Korean government started the national campaign to bring own reusable grocery bags to shop. Furthermore, we need to pay ten cents for every plastic bag and 25 cents for fancier paper bag we like to use. However, we could get our money back if we bring those used bags back. When the government first started this policy, I was not sure anybody would bother to bring their own bags to avoid paying such a small amount of money. However, in 5 years, “bringing own grocery bag” places at the very top of “things to buy list” for almost everyone shopper.
I totally agreed with Stanley how he said “it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require.” Bringing own grocery bag, using environmentally approved light bulbs, eating local meat and recycling could be easy for some of people but more challenging to other. I think to live in an “environmentally friendly” way in the modern-day US, we need to find what we like to do for the environment. Everyone has different ways to save the environment. If you are caught up with so many create things that other people do for the environment, you could be overwhelmed even before you actually do something for the environment. What I am saying here is having expensive solar energy panel at home is not more valuable or meaningful than turning off the running water when you brush your teeth in the sense of saving the environment. Therefore, I think if each one of us picks few things small or big that one likes to do or good at doing, we could make the world “environmentally happy” place. .

Environmental Conscience

2009-09-02T18:36:00.000-07:00

Hey all! I'm Lucy, I'm a junior International Studies major trying to decide on my functional field. I've never blogged before, and am a pretty technologically challenged person in general, so I hope that this posts correctly! I'm in this class for a lot of reasons: I'm considering environmental politics as my functional area for my major, I studied abroad this summer in Copenhagen, Denmark, which is a pretty environmentally conscious place and also where the Copenhagen climate change Summit is going to be taking place. Also, I want to learn more about what I can do to help the environment, because I want my future grandkids to be able to ski in Colorado and play in a park and live on the Earth.

I think that Stanley Fish, in his blog from August 3, 2008, I Am, Therefore I Pollute, views environmental protection the way that a lot of people do: as something that is vaguely menacing as a future event, but not currently concerning enough to change their lifestyle. By now, I think that there is no way that climate change can be denied (although people will try). The problem is no longer so focused on whether or not climate change is occuring (it is). The issue has now become: will enough people decide to be more environmentally consciencious that it will slow down the process of global warming?

I want to think that they will. I want to believe that everyone in the United States will make adjustments to their lifestyles which will benefit this planet and maybe do a little something to reduce the horrible destruction that humans have done to the Earth. But the reality is that most people will be horrified by climate change when they hear about it from such films as "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore or if they go to an environmental lecture or anything else trying to raise awareness about climate change. And then they'll go home. And they'll think to themselves, "I should recycle all my newspapers." Maybe they will...for awhile. And then eventually life will go back to normal. They'll convince themselves that the environmental problem is something for someone else to deal with, for another generation to tackle.

I don't think that people don't change their lifestyles because they don't care about the environment. Most people, when you talk to them, feel that the environment should be protected. It's just that they have grown up living a certain way, and many people find it hard to change the way things have always been. Call it lazyness, stubborness, anything. It's still a large group of people who aren't going to do much to help the environment.

To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US, I think that we could all probably do more. I've always prided myself in being someone who tries to be consciencious about the environment: I always turn out the lights, recycle, don't eat much meat, occasionally shop at Whole Foods etc. From calculating my eco-footprint, however, I learned that my footprint is bigger than I would like it to be. If everyone on the planet consumed as much as me, we would need a few more earths. That was pretty distressing to learn, so I'm going to try and do better. Maybe living in an "environmentally friendly" way means continually being open to learning more about what we can do to help the environment, and realizing that there's always more to learn.