Environmental Injustice in Hyde Park

Typically, the term environmentalism brings to mind things like saving the rain forests and endangered species. While these are important issues, something much less often associated with environmentalism is acts of environmental injustice that are committed against impoverished communities. One such example can be seen in the neighborhood of Hyde Park in Augusta, Georgia.

For me, the most concerning issue that plagues the members of Hyde Park is the endless amount of health problems that affects practically everyone in the community. This is a huge issue of concern because the people of Hyde Park do not have enough money to properly care for their extensive health issues. Although they are getting sick for reasons that are usually beyond their control, no one is protecting their health. Their entire environment is polluted and toxic due to large industries such as Southern Wood Piedmont and Thermal Ceramics, in addition to the scrap metal yard that has only recently been cleaned up. There are signs everywhere saying that children should not play in the dirt because it is hazardous to their health. What kind of a world is it where children can not even play safely in their own backyards? One tragic example of the toxic effect of Hyde Park occurred when Totsie and John Walker's son died suddenly of heart failure at a young age. The fact that he worked at Southern Wood Piedmont most likely was the cause of this surprising death.

It is impossible to escape the negative health effects that the environment of Hyde Park causes. Even with expensive cleanup efforts taken on by the EPA and the EPD of Georgia, it will most likely never be completely safe to live in Hyde Park (at least not in the lifetime of any of its current residents). It seems silly to me for the EPA to come in and remove 20,000 tons of surface waste, including 12,000 tons of hazardous lead-contaminated soil. It is an impossible task to remove everything that is harmful from Hyde Park. You would have to get rid of every existing structure and dig a huge whole to get rid of all of the soil, and then what happens to all of that waste? It just gets sent somewhere else for someone else to have to deal with it.

In my opinion, the best option for the residents of Hyde Park is to be relocated. They have established such a closely knit community, and that is a rare thing that should be preserved. Therefore, they should all be moved together, if that is what they choose to do, to a location that is safe to live in. They should be able to grow their own vegetables and not worry about their kids playing in the backyard or at the playground. They should be able to breathe clean air inside and outside of their homes. It is a fundamental right to be able to live safely in an environment without being poisoned. Since the residents have ties more to one another than to the land that they are living on, I think that relocation would be the safest and most practical option. After the residents have left, the EPA should declare the whole area a toxic waste site and then begin to clean it up as thoroughly as possible.

I also believe that the residents of Hyde Park should have all of their medical needs attended to by various means. I think the government should give them aid through Medicare and other federal organizations, and I also believe that the industries that contributed to the pollution of Hyde Park should be required to contribute funds toward their health care, as well. The residents of Hyde Park deserve to live healthy, happy lives and they should not suffer because of decisions made by corporations.

Reflections

"Any definition of famine that sees it as a failure of some sort is missing the point. Whether famine is seen as a failure of the food supply, a breakdown in the food distribution system, or a multi-faceted livelihood crisis, the outcome is the same. These definitions or concepts blind us to the fact that famines, and the deaths, migrations or impoverishment that they produce, are enormously beneficial to the perpetrators: they are a success not a failure, a normal output of the current economic and political system, not an aberration." -Jenny Edkins

This quote made an impact on me because it shows that we will need to change our system since we cannot expect the system that creates the problem cannot solve the problem, so we will need to let go and find a new path. This leads perfectly into the next quote, which describes ways to get there, and that people are already working towards that change and making impacts.

"But something else has been happening over these thirty years, too. The people we met on our journey are living this story. They are pushing forward the edge of hope with what they prove is possible. They are creating are space in which each of us can find hope.

We must warn you, though. This kind of hope isn't clean or tidy. Honest hope has an edge. It's messy. It requires that we let go of all pat answers, all preconceived formulas, all confidence that our sailing will be smooth. It's not a resting point. Honest hope is movement." -Frances Moor Lappe and Anna Lappe

Provoking Thoughts

I have chosen my two quotes based on what I think makes people think about the environment and current issues the most.

This quote in Hope's Edge by Frances Moore Lappe' and Anna Lappe':

"Choosing hope means conscious risk; it means looking at the ideas that govern us. while it is easy to condemn terrorists who justify the destruction of themselves and others, a much greater challenge is to ask: Do we, too, hold ideas that end up placing others values before life? What belief systems allow people to tolerate day in and day out, for example, the devastation of nature and other species as well as the starvation and early deaths of millions of innocent people, and allow them even to benefit- in cheap food, fuel, and finery- from the poverty that so stunts and shortens those other's lives?"

This forces us to question and be uncomfortable in more ways than one. This is not simply implicating environmental problems, but it is wrapped into the social, economical, political, and ethical questions surrounding it all.

This quote is by Garrett Hardin in Lifeboat Ethics:

"If we divide the world crudely into rich nations ad poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?"

This quote also forces people to think and become uncomfortable. I believe that only when we are uncomfortable with what has already been said or though do we come up with new ideas and solutions. This really puts things into a comical but serious perspective. How will we handle these issues? Should we deal with these issues? I think this represents most the thoughts and feeling of Americans today regarding environmental and social problems. When do ethics become involved?

Cradle to Cradle: Subverting the Paradigm

I was actually quite skeptical of Cradle to Cradle after reading the introduction because it seemed as though the authors were so quick with accusations but were not offering solutions. However, as I entered the "Eco-Effectiveness" chapter, my concerns were eased. In fact, their ideas are so exciting that I began imaging how I could get 'soil roofs' in my own neighborhood.

I think William McDonough and Michael Braungart are definitely on the right track. Their idea of ELIMINATING the concept of waste revolutionizes environmental thinking. While it is a daunting idea, I have come to believe from this class that revolutionary ideas are necessary at this point. We cannot work within the paradigm, we must change the paradigm.

Also, I especially connected with their idea of "recycling as an aspirin." This is a great way to describe how society has come to see their participation in saving the environment. I have been thinking throughout this semester about the language of environmental politics, and this contributes to my thinking. Recycling is an aspirin because people see environmental problems to be the Earth's concern, so recycling is helping the Earth...something they don't really have other invested interest in. However, if the language of environmental studies focused on human health, as the authors do throughout this book, it would be understood as a more dire concern to individuals personally. I believe this is one of the main objectives of Cradle to Cradle--to reposition the issue as one of personal concern. Discussion of medical implications will do that to a person.

This book is great, I am really looking forward to discussing it because I am eager to hear it others see it to be practical. I felt at times that their suggestions were unfeasible, but then I reminded myself of my conclusion about subverting the dominant paradigm. Reading this book shows why it is so hard for society to accept revolutionary ideas, but with more books like this, revolutionary will become the new paradigm.

Cradle to Cradle

I think there are some fantastic ideas in the book.  I love the idea that we can design products and societies built on the idea of zero waste so that we don't add to landfills and the materials get recycled through many products. I think their vision may be optimistic at the moment, but more and more companies are getting on board, and as energy cost get higher and raw materials get scarcer there will be more emphasis on reusing the materials, as well as making them more durable since they will not be as cheap, as higher transportation costs and production costs must be absorbed into the price. This is also encouraging smart design that reduces waste from the production cycle onward. Shaw Carpets, which is an example of their work, shows how smart design can reduce waste, by using carpet tiles and a underlay so that when a stain occurs they can just take one tile and replace it, whereas before they would have had to rip out the whole carpet. They can then recycle the fibers from that carpet, to make new carpet, reducing costs by reducing waste. This would require a change in thought in both consumers and producers, which is already occurring in select markets. If we can get rid of composite materials and take out the unhealthy chemicals used in current production processes by formaldehyde and PCBs just to name a few most of which have never been tested for their effects on human health. This change would make us healthier and the Earth healthier, especially if it is combined with reduced consumption and more socially conscious ways of obtaining the raw materials.

Too Much Too Often

A few things really jumped out at me when I was reading Cradle to Cradle. On page 18, McDonough and Braungart describe the Industrial Revolution retrospectively, and they write "Design a system of production that...puts valuable materials in holes all over the planet, where they can never be retrieved." This really struck me as an interesting and unique way to describe the problem of landfills. One of my major concerns about the environment is the abundance of garbage dumps. It just makes me sick to think about garbage piling up in massive amounts, and stories about ships sailing around with tons of trash looking for a place to dump their waste really worry me. I think McDonough and Braungart do a great job of putting this into perspective by saying that it's a needless waste of valuable materials - it just doesn't make sense that we'd want to bury valuable things and make them inaccessible to us. However, most people don't see the value of "trash," therefore they don't see the problem with throwing everything away. I was also shocked with the fact that "According to some accounts more than 90 percent of materials extracted to make durable goods in the United States become waste almost immediately." That seems insane to me, and it is very obvious that we need to redesign the current manufacturing system.

Another aspect of McDonough and Braungart's writing that really interested me was their take on using GDP as a measure of progress. In Deep Economy, Bill McKibben also wrote about the fact that some communities have very small economic growth and yet thrive in their own ways, while places with high economic growth can still have a very low quality of life for the majority of people living there. "[I]f prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses (such as cancer), and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity." I had never considered this before, and it made me feel even more strongly about the necessity of developing different ways of measuring progress rather than through purely economic means.

One more thing that I connected with in this reading pertains to the effects that products have on us. I found it very depressing to read about how everything in our home is dangerous to us, from plastic toys to armchairs to carpets. It makes it seem impossible to live a truly healthy life. And yet it makes sense because it seems like more people have health problems than ever before. So many kids have allergies, asthma, ADD and ADHD, everyone seems to be getting cancer, etc. etc. So much research goes into finding cures for these things, but I've felt for a long time that it's more about changing everyday lifestyles than solely finding cures. My dad has always told me that I'll be healthier if I spend more time outdoors (granted, this was in Ohio where I think there's less pollution than in DC...). He told me that more people get sick in the winter because they spend a lot more time inside than outside, which isn't good for you. I believed him and saw that this often was the case, but it makes so much more sense to me now. Something that really shocked me was that "crude products - whether appliances, carpets, wallpaper adhesives, paints, building materials, insulation, or anything else - make the average indoor air more contaminated than outdoor air." This is scary!

I think it's really exciting that the new SIS building was designed by McDonough, and I wish all buildings could be so green and healthy. Unfortunately, I won't be here when it is finished :(

On a side note, I was listening to Phantom Planet's CD Raise the Dead as I was writing this, and their song "Too Much Too Often" came on. I think the lyrics "So now without stopping It's too much too often Out of the cradle And into the coffin" fit this topic perfectly!

A new way

What Michael Braungart and William McDonough's idea of from cradle to cradle is not a new concept as they admit. The idea to actually produce a product with the intention of it being restored to nature later is a great idea. However, I do believe that they seem a bit optimistic with this idea. For example, the roofing they propose made of soil and an assortment of plants will be cost effective for cooling a building and preventing water running off and flooding the area, but there will still need to be material below the roofing. The destruction of buildings to implement these new designs will cause the harmful substances to release into the air quicker than what they would in the first place. I also believe that they underestimate the "good" people are trying to do. Not only do recycling programs bring environmentalism into the consciousness of vast communities, but it also encourages people to consume less, which is very significant. Even if materials were made to be absorbed by the environment, I believe that there is a limit. You cannot dump bottles everywhere and anywhere simply because you know that they are environmentally friendly. This will perpetuate the problem they mentioned about the absence of aesthetic beauty. We will be walking around on top of bottles! Therefore, not only do these products need to be environmentally friendly, but people also need to learn to consume less. Dead leaves in a lawn can be used to encourage plant growth. However, too much chokes the light from reaching any new plant life. To an extent, producing products purposefully to become recycled is a wonderful idea, but it needs to be combined with reducing and recycling programs in existence already in order to promote the ideas among the populations and to limit consumerism, which could out weigh the positive effects of the from cradle to cradle approach.

I have lived in areas with a lot of nature most of my life and have spent many weeks each summer at cabins in the Adirondaks and the Finger Lakes.  Though there is not one moment that stands out just being surrounded by the lake and forest is very peaceful and helps me to re-evaluate what is important. Living in a city is difficult because there is not the calmness of the natural world and I get restless living here. There is a magical quality to nature, especially at dawn, when there is a suspended state as everything wakes up, and sunset, when everything goes to sleep. Those are my favorite times of the day because they have a different feel to them, and the hectic pace of life slows down in those moments.

Nature is worth saving because we our imagination is caught by the mystery of the natural world. What science cannot explain we use story and other means of expressing our thoughts to work out explanations.  This has led to the development of much of our culture and if we give that up, we may only have technology to fall back on, which will be a loss to us.

A stary night

I have had lots of "enchanting" experiences while amongst nature. However, one night stands out in my mind above all the others. My father was a boyscout leader while I was growing up. Thus, I had to go camping with a bunch of boys at least one weekend a month. I remember that on one of the trips, I just wanted to get away from the boys, my parents, and everything. So, I wandered into the woods on my own. I know it wasn't very smart, but it was worth it. The weekend was not going well, and it was just one of many miserable nights I had as a child for several other reasons. I remember wandering aimlessly crying and kicking leaves. As I kicked one pile of leaves, my foot hit a root and I fell. Just as I started cursing and thinking "Why me?", I looked up. There was a clearing in the trees, and through the clearing was an image still ingrained in my mind. Colors like I had never seen them, blues, purples, green, whites, ...took my breath away, just as the memory still does today. The sky was so clear that I could see thousands of stars. I spotted Orion's belt and all the familiar stars above my house, but there were hundreds of thousands of stars surrounding them I had never seen. I sat there for hours until my mother came and found me. Then, without me saying a word, she sat with me and looked. I slept outside that night right on that spot. I didn't want to leave something so beautiful. To me, it was a sign of hope. Although we have our systems and ways of doing things and norms, we are so small and insignificant that they don't matter. Those silly boys and all of the things bothering me didn't matter. Those things were so small in comparison. I can't help but to think how God or whoever you believe made the universe, just sits back and laughs at all of our stresses and our narrow mindedness. There's something so much greater, a much much larger picture than what any of us ever see. In the city, amongst the stress and chaos none of us ever have the time to see sights like that night. Most of us couldn't even if we tried, due to lights and pollution. Those who do see sights like that try to categorize them and catalog them into our systems, but they miss the bigger picture.
We are missing the larger picture! What is more important to us? Would you really want to live a life without such beauty and grandeur?? I ask myself these things virtually every day, but then I remember that most of us have never seen or experienced such beauty at all. So, how could it be missed? I have not seen the sky so clear nor so colorful since that night, not even when I went back a few years ago. There were too many lights around and a haze. We have evolved to a point where nothing is beyond our reasoning or systems. Thus, there is nothing to restore our humility. Once we loose the bigger picture forever, all we have left are our silly insignificant stresses and worries. Cutting down trees and inventing bigger cars may make us happy, according to our systems, or may help us sustain more people based on our systems, but all that beauty, everything that's nature/natural will be lost forever. The only meaning in our lives will be what we have invented. Even if we could survive as a species without nature, would we want to??? I can't see those sights anymore, but I know they're there, and it's hope that there's something bigger than me, something more meaningful and awe inspiring. Nature should be the most important concern for contemporary environmentalists, as once we loose the bigger picture, we loose our sense of humility, awe, and hope. What would be the point in living in a world without them?????

My favorite place in the world

I've been thinking about what to write in this blog for a few days now, and I haven't been able to come up with one defining moment in nature that was especially magical or thrilling or enchanting. What kept coming to my mind was my favorite place in the entire world - Big Twin Lake in Michigan.


I first went here with my family when I was in sixth grade. We stayed with another family who had a long history there. I fell in love instantly. I have been going there at least once a year ever since, and more frequently since our two families bought a house there a few years ago. It is a very special place to me because it's where I really learned to appreciate nature. I've always spent a lot of time outdoors, from summer camp when I was young to riding my bike around my neighborhood, but there was something completely different about being outside at Big Twin. Every season and every outdoor activity is special in its own way. I don't particularly enjoy helping my dad out in the yard at home, but in Michigan, it's fun. I help him with firewood, work on the deck, shoveling in the winter, pulling weeds on the beach, etc. We go on walks around the lake and we walk to the store to get milk and bread. We eat fresh fruit in the summer, and I've never tasted better cherries, strawberries, or blueberries in my life. No matter what we have to eat, meals always taste better up there because we've all worked up an appetite by being so active during the day. I can't imagine anything I'd like to do more during the summer than spend time up there. I love to throw on my bathing suit and be able to run out the door without shoes on and spend the entire day outside. We spend the day at the beach, go swimming, go boating, water ski, jet ski, tube, play frisbee and lawn darts, and more. It's such a great place to spend time with my family, and I also love taking my friends up there as well as spending time with the many people we have befriended who have houses up there, as well.


Going up to Michigan is like going to a whole new world. We have three stations on TV, no internet, and very limited cell phone service. I love this because it's the perfect excuse for me to fall of the map for a week or so at a time. We all slow down and are able to enjoy the simple pleasures in life, from walking around the lake and greeting everyone we see to playing euchre after a delicious dinner outdoors. I've also never seen more beautiful sunsets. One of our favorite things to do is to take the pontoon boat out to the middle of the lake at night and look at the stars. I can't begin to describe the stillness and the overwhelming amount of stars that we can see. The more we look, the more stars seem to appear. It's amazing to see shooting stars and the Milky Way and point out constellations that we recognize. It really put things in perspective, too, because it makes me think about how vast and awesome the universe is.


Spending time in Michigan has definitely fueled my desire to protect nature. I enjoy my time up there so much and I can't imagine how I would feel if Big Twin were destroyed. Therefore, I definitely think nature is worth working to save. If everyone had the same sort of love for a place in nature, I think so many more people would want to protect the environment. I don't see how environmentalism can exist without a desire to save nature. Of course there are huge issues to tackle such as alternative sources of energy, access to water, climate change, etc., but I believe that a respect and love of nature needs to be an underlying motivator for all of those aspects of environmentalism.

Over break, I had a conversation with a Kogod business major after I told him that I was very interested in environmental studies. The first thing he did was roll his eyes, laugh, and say, “Oh you’re one of those.” I refrained from getting offended and instead asked his opinion on things.
He said that government and saving the environment will never coincide. He felt that as long as business is for profit, the environment will come second. Businesses have no drive to save the earth. And, he explained, it is absurd for the government to enact legislation because there is no mode of regulation to back it up.
My response began with the acknowledgment that business is for profit, and I doubt that will ever change. But, I said, the environment does not have to come second. I feel that businesses can take responsibility for the environment, AND make a profit. In fact, the environmental factor can enhance a businesses appeal. I agreed with his assertion that the government cannot impose rules if they go unregulated. Because then, some will follow and others just won’t.

Complex conversations

I went home for a few days over spring break, so I talked to my family a bit about some environmental issues. A lot of my values concerning the environment were inspired by my family, such as reducing consumption, not being wasteful, and just a love for the outdoors. However, we still disagree on many topics concerning the environment. I remember over winter break, my dad told me that he thought that the warming of the planet was just a part of its normal cycle. I brought the subject up again last week, and I think he's starting to change his mind because he said something like "I need to look into that more." My mom and sister also argued that scientists don't have enough information to prove that global warming is caused by humans, and that for every study that implicates humans as the cause, there is other information to refute it. I pushed my mom to back up her opinion with facts, but she couldn't do it. My dad has a copy of An Inconvenient Truth, so I told them that they should all watch it together.

It can be really frustrating talking to my family about the environment, because as I said before, they are part of the reason why I'm so interested in the environment and why I feel like it is so important to protect it. Therefore, it's hard for me to accept that they don't hold all of the same values that I do. I occasionally send them links to articles that I find interesting and encourage them to make small changes, such as buying more organic food, using reusable bags instead of plastic ones, using safer cleaner products, and using compact fluorescent light bulbs. My mom did buy a compact fluorescent light bulb, but then when we went to put it in my sister's bathroom, it didn't fit - so that was annoying! It's difficult to get them to change their habits, but I'm still working on it.

Agreeing to Disagree

Over break I had the opportunity to speak with my father about global warming. This is a topic that we have always disagreed about.  My father feels that it is mainly a natural phenomenon and that we don't know enough about the earth patterns to know the real effect of what we are having. He also feels that since it is economically impractical to change at this time that we should hold off until we know more, since it would be such a huge investment.  While I agree that we don't know much about the earth's cyclical patterns I feel that we know enough to realize that we are having some impact and that as our population and global economy get bigger and more fossil fuels dependent it will be more difficult to change in the future.  As many counties are just beginning heavy energy usage it would be better if they skipped the heavily polluting stage and began using alternative energy, except for the huge dam projects which have negative ecological and social impacts.  This is something that we have never agreed upon, and has been the source of many debates between us.  He does not dispute that the earth is warming, just that the earth's system is too complex to know the real causes.  There is a little bit of truth, but I feel that it is best to be safe than sorry, since by the time the problems really hit us it will be to late to change and its not fair to inflict the effects of our mistakes onto future generations.

So many questions!

Over spring break i have not had the chance to speak with anyone who disagrees with me.  However, one particular conversation has stuck in m mind for several years now.  When I was a senior in high school, a teacher of mine questioned the class and their views on the environmental issues that were so popular at the time.  I, to this day, am still unsure of his angle with this class.  Maybe, he just wanted us to think outside the box.  Maybe he actually believed what he said.  Perhaps, he wanted us to simply question authority.  I do not know.  But, the lesson has stayed with me ever since and has skewed my thoughts towards environmental scientists and the popular environmental issues everyone is talking about.

In this class, he asked us to look for proof in our science books that the whole in the ozone was an important catastrophic immediate problem and to also find proof that people were the cause of it.  He pointed to gas weights and said how the gasses scientists claim to have made the whole are simply too heavy to reach those altitudes and gave us a bunch of scientific arguments, none of which any of us understood, but this made me think about how scientists pushing the arguments my teacher was so against, could also say anything they wanted and have us believe them, as they were "scientists," and we were just students.  The teacher also went on to show how none of our books actually proved or even simply stated that humans were the direct problem and that several facts had been left out of them, such as how the whole gets larger and smaller during certain parts of the year, how there was a whole the same size before humans were around, how there is actually a thing as too much ozone, an so on.  His whole argument pointed to his belief that scientists were using us, filling our heads with worries so that they could keep making money.

I have struggled with his argument for a very long time now.  We tried arguing with him at first, but the more he told us about what we did not know, the more used and lied to I felt.  Not to mention, the ideas and final arguments he made made more sense than the graphs and scientific speeches in our books.  I, to this day, struggle with what I should think about the ozone. I cannot argue anyone on this, as I do not have certain facts either way.  I'm just trying to keep my mind open and formulate my own opinion.

I have never really had much thoughts on my environmental impact of my foods. To me it is simply food. I grew up with my family explaining that God provided animals and plants so that we may eat and live. But, now that I've grown up, other things come to mind, in stead of me sitting at a table and food magically appearing on my plate from God. I may not have much thought of my environmental impact of where my food comes from, but I have started to worry about it's impact on my health. During my travels abroad, I lived with a family who owned a farm. It use to be a slaughter house in its prime, but today it just consisted of a few cows for milking and an apple orchard. At first, I was weary about eating the apples and cream from there, as it had not been treated. But, I have honestly never tasted anything better! Now, I cannot eat an apple or drink milk here without making myself sick thinking about what has gone into or on it.
On the same note, my great-grandfather use to own several acres of land in Michigan. The land was used for several purposes but most recently as a dairy farm and a mobile home park. Do not ask me why together. But, I cannot help but to wonder about the people living in the mobile homes there being far healthier than I have ever been. They ate the vegetables my great- grandmother grew in her garden and drank the milk from the cows. I am not sure where they got their meat from, but I'm sure they did not know either. However, they knew more about their food than I do. Their food also tasted better. At home, despite what some of the reading implies, it is NOT easy to get locally grown foods. No one near me can either afford or reach a "local" farmer's market, esp. if they work. It disgusts me to eat processed foods, but without them, the majority of the people at home would starve. They do not have the luxury of eating fresh foods right off the farm and wondering about their environmental impact.
I suppose we should think more about our environmental impact of our foods, if we can afford to. I guess my pizza the other day has made a huge impact on the environment. Each of the ingredients has, I am sure, come from different locations. The meat, cheese, tomatoes, wheat for the bread, and spices all came from different farms. The transportation from these farms to the places that freezes them, their packaging, their shipment to the pizza place, and then to me once cooked has cost a lot of energy and resources. The box it came in will have a negative impact on the environment if not properly recycled. I cannot imagine all of the processes that went in to me having my pizza. Perhaps if I had more money and time to travel to a local market and the time to learn how to cook it myself, I could reduce this environmental cost, but not everyone has that luxury.

You are what you eat

I'm in another class called Practical Environmentalism with Professor Paul Wapner, and a couple of weeks ago our focus was on agriculture. One of our assignments was to keep a food log for two days of everything we ate, and then try to trace our origins. (So if you're really interested in my thoughts, I have a 6-page paper you could read! Haha.) As a result of this, I have definitely started to consciously examine not just what I eat, but where it comes from and what kind of an impact my decisions have on the environment. I get

I do try to think about the environment when I buy groceries and make decisions concerning food. However, for the most part I put more emphasis on eating right for my body. Certainly, this can go hand in hand. By eating less processed foods and more fruits, vegetables, dairy, etc., I am not only getting the nutrients I need, but also cutting down on negative impacts that big factories can have, such as pollution, waste, chemical use, poor working conditions, and more. Of course, these issues also arise on farms, so I also try to eat as locally and organically as I can. I shop at Whole Foods and try to pay attention to how the foods were made/ harvested and where they come from. However, I do have a meal plan, and I get some of my fruit from MGC. Just this morning I ate a banana from Ecuador, which probably had the greatest environmental impact of the foods I've eaten recently. There are a lot of things to consider when making food choices, and sometimes the best option is not easy to see.

After discussing how eating locally is a much better choice for the environment, Professor Wapner sent us this article that he found: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter. Shockingly, the article explained how sometimes eating local foods leads to a higher carbon emission than eating imported foods. For example, growing apples in New Zealand and shipping them to New York or Northern Europe has less of an environmental burden them growing them locally. This is because there is more sunshine in New Zealand, so there is a higher yield with lower energy requirement, and most of the electricity in New Zealand is generated by renewable sources with low carbon emissions. This was a revelation for me, and it was a little disheartening to find out.

Making the best food choices for the environment is not an easy or simple process, but I think that by being more conscious of our decisions we can reduce negative environmental impacts. Too many people never question where their food came from or how it was produced. I think that by eating foods that are in season and grown locally and organically, we can reduce negative impacts on the environment and also improve our health and well-being.

Packaging

When I walk into a grocery store I try to avoid the middle aisles. These tend to be filled with the packaged foods, and I try to only buy the basic goods (like pasta, rice, etc.) from these aisles, with most of the other food that I eat being vegetables and fruits that don't have packaging. I try to eat local as much as possible, and often go to the local farmers markets. I am a vegetarian, and I also rarely eat soy because of the deforestation it causes and the mono cropping that is going on. Because of the factory farms I only buy organic and range fed milk and cage free eggs, both for animal rights reasons and for environmental reasons. I do not want to support people who keep their animals in horrific conditions and I am willing to pay extra or not buy milk if there is no good alternative.

Packaging is a problem since it is mainly plastic, which is not biodegradable and most packaging cannot be recycled so it builds up in landfills. I try to only buy things packaged in paper, since is biodegradable,although it is not always possible. I also don't want the plastic to leach anything into my food, since many have been shown to do that if it sits on the shelf and we don't know all the health repercussions. To avoid using more plastic at the store I bring my own reusable bag, which is great because it holds way more stuff and is better for the environment, making it a win-win situation!

I am not very good when I go out to eat though, since I have no idea where the food comes from, how it was produced and how it got there. Though I only eat out a few times a month it is my guilty pleasure, where I don't worry about it because there are few alternatives, though the Chinese place I order from is organic, as is the pizza place I like.

I believe that the food I ate in the last few days that had the biggest environmental effect was the rice that I ate yesterday since it was imported and rice production produces a lot of methane, which is a greenhouse gas. The footprint of that rice because of the transportation and the plastic bag it came in, one of the few things I buy that comes in plastic.

Eating veggies isn't too hard

As I sat in a doctors office three weeks ago, I started to skim a book called May All Be Fed by John Robbins. I was so fascinated that I bought his other most recent book called Diet for a New America and I have become a vegetarian. He writes about the food industry and its relationship to the developing world, health, and the environment. Three weeks, so far, and going strong. Look him up online or check out his books if you haven't heard of him already. It may convince you too!!

As a former meat-enthusiast, I thought it would be impossible to give up one of my diet staples, but knowing the impact food has on the environment has made it easy to stick to a certain diet. Knowing that your food choices are so influential to the environment makes diet changes easy.

It is difficult, I admit, to completely buy organic or locally-grown, as it is significantly more expensive and farmers markets are hard to get to. But, I have made small changes like looking where produce is from or buying things with the least packaging. The other day I chose a smaller Fuji apple that said "from Pennsylvania" instead of somewhere in Latin America. I'm hoping that decision will make a difference if I continue to do it in the long run.

Of the latest foods I've eaten, the one with the most environmental impact was probably a cheese that my roommate received as a gift. It is from France, so it was probably flown or shipped over seas, polluting the air with emissions. Then, even more emissions were added when it was shipped by land to the supermarket. It is hard for me to think of other things that would have a greater impact because I am a pretty conscientious eater. I do not eat processed foods, I only drink water, and I buy what little groceries I need from Whole Foods. I recently bought a box of cereal that was probably manufactured in a large factory, caused deforestation for the plant location and the box packaging, and there was trucking to transport the finished product. But the overall environmental impact was probably equal to the French cheese because a box of cereal lasts me at least four weeks to eat, so I will not have to buy other breakfast foods for quite a while.

Technology: Making Global Environmental Problems a nanobyte

With the world's growing population, technology has been seen by many as our savior. It has provided enough food and resources for everyone, although these may not be distributed evenly. Biotechnology has allowed local farmers in developing countries provide for their family, increase their incomes, and sustain their crops. Genetically modified foods can be a good source of vitamins and nutrients for those who could not otherwise receive them. Genetically altered fish may be the solution to our suffering fisheries. Technology has already provided us with an abundance of resources to cure diseases and feed the poor. It not only has allowed us to better sustain our crops, but it has also enhanced our sustainability.
Who know what technology will bring in the future. Future technology may mean that we will never have to worry about our resources depleting. We could just fly to another planet and take the resources there. Environmental pollutants may be cleared by gadgets and systems established by technology. Technology has come a long way since the industrial revolution and will continue to do so. All we have to do is keep the focus of the up and coming technology towards solving environmental concerns.
However, this is where the problem lies. Technology is being primarily focused on our entertainment. Ipods, computers, and other gadgets that make us lazy are constantly being put out into this consumer driven society. It is not enough to have all your tunes or access to your friends in your pocket. Instead, the device has to be so small that no one can tell your actually talking to anyone but yourself. Ipods, phones, laptops....all this energy and effort and time going in to make them smaller. WHY??? This technology will eventually suffocate us. All the tiny little parts will eventually grow into a gargantuan pile of rubbish, smothering all these wonderful resources other technology has allowed us to make use of. If we can get a grip and realize what a useless waste of money it is to keep making things smaller purely for fashionable purposes, technology may save us. We may have the technology, but it's what we do with it that matters.

Today, most of the voices that hold power in the environmental movement believe that there will be technical solutions for our environmental problems. What is not addressed though is that it is technology that is creating many of these problems to begin with. The 'advances' have allowed faster resource extraction, cheaper production methods (although falling wages and benefits contribute to cheaper goods too), and greater consumption. All of these factors have contributed to our using resources too fast.

Technology is not all bad, and there are options out there that can help,but it certainly will not save us. Assuming that we can create technological solutions to problems caused by other technologies seems to just keep moving down the path of destruction, as we may find that that solution causes problems as well. The focus on technology is preventing discussion about the increasing consumption rates and worldwide inequities. Technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen engines can contribute to a solution, but lifestyles must also change. Each of those solutions uses natural resources and with the increasing population there will not be unlimited natural resources much longer.

The global inequities also have environmental consequences as resources are stripped from the third world, for the consumption of the first world, and the people in those communities can no longer support themselves and must move onto more marginal lands. Those at the top of the income brackets and those at the bottom create the most environmental damage, but for very different reasons. Increasing globalization and technology has led to people becoming worse off than they were 30 years ago as jobs disappear oversees and wages have not kept up with inflation. The current technology based economy is allowing an elite to benefit and the rest to move backwards.

Once the hidden costs emerge, technology no longer seems green, and there has been a lot of green-washing of certain technologies in recent years for economic reasons, corn ethanol being a prime example, since once everything is accounted for it has more negative environmental impact than benefit. This is the case with a lot of technology, making it difficult to see past the current bias towards a solution that could work, such as reducing consumption, making longer-lasting goods (which there already is technology for based on models from before the '50s) and localizing food production. These rely not on technology, but on people, creating more jobs as we end the trend of technology replacing people. The path we are on is not sustainable, but assuming that a technological solution will magically appear right when we need it (now!) is unrealistic and allows the problem and alternative solutions to be avoided.

Is science fiction becoming science fact?

In my opinion, I believe technology will play a huge role in saving our planet. In the current state that we are in, we must rely on technology to find solutions to our environmental problems. Although advances in technology helped to create these problems, I think that it is ultimately up to the people to make smart decisions about how to put technology to good use, rather than abusing our planet. Personally, I think it's a little far-fetched that technology will overcome us, but I guess it's not out of the question. Just in the past week, technology has been in the news a lot. One article said, "Machines will achieve human-level artificial intelligence by 2029, a leading US inventor has predicted." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248875.stm) Also, I recently saw an article that said that players will be able to control video games with their brain waves. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3485918.stm) These both seem pretty incredible to me, and even though there's no guarantee that they will come to full fruition, these are just two examples of the huge leaps in technology that are possible. 100 years ago no one could have understood the kind of world that we live in today, so I don't think that we can possibly imagine what our world will be like 100 years from now.

I'm optimistic that with these technological advances, we will find ways to reverse some of our effects on the environment and also decrease our future impact. If we could find a clean and safe energy source, already our environment would be in much better condition. There are brilliant scientists and inventors working on this issue and so many more, and with better funding and support, I think that some great solutions could be discovered. With the help of government subsidies and incentives, these technologies could be successfully incorporated into our society.

I also think that technology is very important for dealing with our waste. Ideally, we could go through our landfills and find ways to reuse a lot of the materials currently found there, and then compost or decompose the rest. Then for our future waste production, we could have more of a closed-loop system where everything that we got rid of had a certain place to go and a new purpose.

Of course, technology alone cannot save us. I think that governments need to take the first step in supporting cleaner technologies, and they need to make it desirable for corporations to adopt greener practices. This way, our societies learn to function in a different and environmentally-friendly way. Also, citizens need to be conscious of their use of technology and really know the effects that they have on the earth so that they can understand why it is important to change our habits.

It's a tech world

Technology will not SAVE us but it is one of the most promising solutions to environmental problems, in my opinion. Technology is so engraved in every part of our lives that it is never going away. At the moment, technology is one of the largest problems concerning the environment because the technology does not take the environment into account. However, I feel that markets will soon demand a change in the purpose of technology, and this is fundamental. As more people become increasingly concerned with the environment, as the the trend is heading, people will also demand that their technology be environmentally friendly. As we talked about in class, I agree that the economy drives just about everything. So, since the economy is so reliant upon technology, if people want technology to help the planet, then it will.

I am very optimistic about the potential of technology. To "save" us means that it slows the damage we are doing, and I think that someday there will be technology that actually reverses damage. I know that some people think that the damage is done, and while I agree that we cannot re-freeze glaciers, bring back extinct animals, or replace the ozone layer, I see hope if re-planting forests, and cleaning water that is currently deemed un-usuable. I see future technology cleaning the air and "greening" communities and cities. I am hopeful.

It is very important for us to understand that this optimism is by no means a reason for us to sit comfortably while "someone" fixes things with cool technology. Ohh no. This wonder technology will only get to that point if we continue to pursue environmental issues with full-force, and if we, make dramatic lifestyle changes in addition to the technology. Technology alone will not save us. But with a concerned people, it will significantly help.

Are we ready?

I think that Michael Maniates has a great argument that the little things Americans can do everyday are not the drastic measures which will save our environment. I think that at this point, it is really up to our government to step up and take charge of improving the way we affect the earth. If the government does not get more involved, people will not have enough incentives to change their habits. In order to truly make a difference in the world, our leaders need to use economic measures to influence the actions of the American people. This is the only way to affect a majority of citizens and really make them question their behavior; money is the best motivator.

However, I also believe that we need to make the changes at an individual level, as well. We need to show others that we care about the environment for more than just economic reasons. We need to lead by example and hopefully show our government that we are ready and waiting for them to make the big changes. I don't think that looking for "lazy" things that we can do is necessarily a bad thing. Here in DC and in other big cities, there is a lot more awareness about the environmental problems we are facing and what we as individuals can do to help. However, I'm from the Midwest, and I know that many people aren't even doing little things to help out. I'm continually amazed by how many people don't recycle, don't try to lower their energy consumption (or consumption in general), and don't think twice about buying the biggest SUV they can find and using it to drive their preschooler around. It's easy for me to forget about this while I'm in DC and surrounded by a lot of eco-conscious students and citizens, but I have to remember that this isn't the norm. I don't think most people would relate to these sentiments by Maniates: "The time for easy is over. We're grown-ups who understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices." I don't think that the time for easy is over - we still need to work on encouraging many people to start making little changes so that when the government finally does make the big changes we need, the American public will be ready.

PS

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_52/
b4064057939494.htm?chan=search

This is a really interesting article about Abu Dhabi's plans for a green city that we discussed in another one of my classes. It's pretty ironic that while we're so dependent on the Middle East's oil, they're using the money from our oil purchases to create a sustainable environment for themselves, and they're using technology from New Hampshire.

Michael Maniates calls for more drastic action. In his opinion, we are not doing enough to combat environmental problems. Instead, we are allowing our politicians to spoon-feed us simple "easy" steps to follow. He mentions our consumerist ways and highlights that even our attempts to help the environment must be stylish, fashionable, and easy to sell. No one wants to do more than this. However, it is exactly this point that I feel he is missing throughout his article. It is great to have such wonderful holistic views of humans and their ability to change so easily, but it is unfortunately not reality. This article presented yet another wonderful idea Michael criticizes. It is nothing but a wonderful idea, as Americans will do nothing in place of the simple small steps. If Americans are not willing to hold their politicians responsible for global environmental problems, but are willing to take small actions, that could in another generation stimulate larger ideas and a stronger passion for change, they will not wish to do anything further than simple everyday actions. Just as in the revolutions he mentions, Americans did not follow them easily. Either we must have another revolution, that is complete and successful, or we continue the small easy steps. If we do not, and the revolution does not capture the hearts and minds of all Americans, we may take two steps backwards. The campaign will show Americans that what they are doing now is not good enough. This may lead to a sense of hopelessness, and the steps being taken, although small, will be stopped. Nothing will happen. Which is worse not enough action or inaction? I agree with Michael that much more drastic steps need to be taken. However, I am not sure Americans are ready for it. Once they see the effects their small steps are making and feel empowered, then we can talk about larger steps, but if we start too soon, we may end up worse off.

Reviving People Power

Michael Maniates argues that the government and those working on environmental problems at the top are underestimating what people are willing to do to contribute to saving the environment. The opportunities and information being given to people at this point is very small and easy things that can be done without making too much effort, but that also will not contribute much to the eventual solution because the do not address the underlying problems. The solutions being put out there are only those which are both economics friendly and eco-friendly. This is occurring because those at the top are still driven by the growth model and still are not seeing the long-term consequences. This is causing information to not reach the people and so many are not aware of the extent of the problem.

I believe that he is right and that if people knew all of the information and what will be most effective in solving it they will want to help. Most people want their children and grandchildren to lead good lives and would not want to knowingly and willingly partake in activities that threaten future generations to survive. Today though it is hard to be totally green because of the way society has been set up to revolve around cars and consumption, so although people need to push and be the drivers of change the government will be needed since infrastructure and regulation will have to play a big role in any change. The drivers of social change are that people want better lives for themselves and their children, and up until now it has been commonly accepted that growth will make our lives and future generation's lives better. If information was disseminated properly and people found out the truth, that it is endanger in the future generation's ability to live then this could cause a period of change as we move from a growth driven model to a more ecologically and socially friendly model. Globalization and current growth models have not made most people better off, as wages get driven down, health care benefits dry up, retirement packages go down the drain, and work hours increase, all while the top 1% reap the benefits of the continued growth. The average American has not seen a gain in lifestyle and have only been supporting their habits by being in debt. While some growth is required, the current model does not even benefit the average person, but instead benefits those in power both economically and within the government. Since those in power are benefiting in the short term they do not want things to change and so are keeping information and are preventing information from getting out there.

It helps us look at effective political action because while people today pat themselves on the back for using LCD lightbulbs, and they do have some benefit, it prevents people from thinking that they have done their part if they stop there. Although the small things should be done, we also need to see the true implications of our actions and be able to trace the footprint of a good on its path across the world. People today don't think about this because it is not a part of education, mainstream though, government education programs, etc. Everyone has a stake in this because we cannot survive without a healthy earth, and the implications on their own lives or children's, since global environmental problems are coming faster than previously expected like air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss, fisheries collapse, etc. Without these fundamental processes and lives we cannot live.

This is a useful way of looking at things and of driving political action because it puts the power in the people, and Americans throughout history have stepped up to the plate and gone to bat for policies that are not easy, but are necessary. For example the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Those moments had people who cared enough to move past doing what is easy to do what is right. Consumption has gotten out of control, and has major transportation implications. Although are current lifestyles will not be possible much longer that is okay, because we may be able to go back and find out what makes us truly happy and end our nation's reliance on Prozac and other medications.

Go BIG or go home

I think Michael Maniates makes a terrific point, and to be quite honest, it makes me feel guilty myself. I have always emphasized the little ways in helping the environment, and while I feel very strongly that larger efforts are essential to actually make a dent in the grand problem, I've felt like it is hard to make huge changes myself if others around me aren't doing the same. So I have taken the attitude of basically, if you're not going to trash your car for a bike, at least recycle the newspaper every morning... And now I see that's a pathetic way to look at it.
It is my opinion that Americans get buy with trashing the Earth far too easily. Apparently this thing called "freedom," gives us an excuse to continue our merciless abuse of the environment. God forbid anyone should demand we change our lifestyle in order to have breathable air, to say the least. People act concerned, but should the government ever step in, suddenly we are restricted from living the way we want to live! How about we call it "helping" us out?
I completely agree with Maniates-- we must make huge, dramatic lifestyle changes. We must stop tip-toeing around the big issue which is that the Earth just WILL NOT be able to stand our consumption for too much longer. Maniates mentions that political leaders must step in, however I feel that these positions are so full of too empty rhetoric that people do not listen. And, unfortunately, politicians are too moderate on every issue. They uphold the political culture that says, don't upset anyone!
An uprising at a grassroots level is necessary. And I mean a serious uprising. One that involves everyone, not just the tree-hugging hippies environmental elites. People need to mobilize together, accepting that it won't be easy. And with this type of large-scale effort, I believe we will find that it's not as hard as we imagined. That's the best part of a free market society. If enough people commit to changing their lifestyles, markets will have to adjust to the trends. It is time for some big changes.

When I read McCain’s short commentary on the environment, I was very disappointed. While I am liberal, I would hope that each politician would still show enthusiasm for protecting the environment because this is not a bipartisan issue. But his brief, vague “plan” was less than promising.
McCain can be classified as a market liberal because he stressed the symbiotic relationship between the economy and the environment. His goals to lessen impact is to limit carbon emissions by “harnessing market forces,” making advancements in technology, and investing in nuclear energy. These policies coincide with market liberals’ “faith in the ability of modern science and technology to help societies” (Clapp 6).
Obama, on the other hand, has an impressive plan that should give anyone hope for the future. I would classify his as being between an institutionalist and bioenvironmentalist. He emphasizes changes to national institutions in the form of a cap-and-trade system to limit pollution, incentives for farmers and forest owners, and limits use of harmful energy while funding energy initiatives in the U.S. These efforts are more bioenvironmentalist than institutionalist because they do not include foreign affairs. They focus on national policies. But institutionalist policies come forth in his plan to create an international energy forum and limit dependence on foreign oil since these involve international institutions.
I feel that Obama’s policies out-do McCain’s by far. He has very specific, straight-forward goals, and if they are actually implemented, I think they will create significant change. His policies extend further than parks and open space, as McCain refers to. They include efforts to change the way we live and our position on the environment, like his job and education goals. Changing our way of thinking is the key to a change for the future.

Environmentally Friendly Campaigns

No politician would be wise to ignore environmental concerns. Although environmental issues may not be at the forefront of all American's minds, such issues will shape much of the future presidency. Depending on how the new president views these issues depends on whether security, the economy, or social inequalities will be examined. In this close presidential race, each candidate has spouted their share of ideas for making the United States more environmentally friendly. Each of them differ in drastic ways, as they each view the problem differently. Each provide very different solutions, which could all work, but it is up to the American people to choose based on how they see the problems and what they believe to be the best solutions.
On his campaign website, John McCain lists a variety of steps he could ensure will take place to make America more environmentally friendly, if he were elected. Such policies include, "Ensuring clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace - and the faithful care and management of our natural treasures, including our proud National Park System" (as stated on http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm). He insists, like a market liberal, that the economy and the environment are linked. Sustaining resources and our clean environment is in the best interest of our economy and vice versa. A stronger economy allows us to focus more on our environment and allows us with more opportunities of finding a solution. Although his website does not mention much about the actual steps he would take to ensure his promises, one can speculate that as a market liberal, his solutions will stem from strengthening the economy. He mentions that he would encourage more technologies and reduce our dependence of foreign energy in order to speed up and strengthen our own economy. Knowing that he is a market liberal and his possible solutions allows us to better evaluate whether he is the right candidate. Is the economy the main component in the I=PAT equation? Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and energy supplies may strengthen our own economy in one aspect, but will hurt it in others. Countries supplying us with the oil will no longer have the US dollars to trade, and therefore, our imports and exports will be negatively effected. This approach will drive consumerism, placing a larger role on developing countries, which supply our goods, on impacting the environment. As the environment is a shared commodity, reducing the US emissions and pollutants and encouraging our forests while devastating others will not provide a solution for solving our environmental problems.
Barack Obama shows some market liberal tendencies as well. If he were elected he promises to introduce a cap and trade system in which pollution credits could be auctioned off and encourage technological breakthroughs that will enhance our ability to be sustained by clean energy. He would set standards for auto manufacturers and help them to meet these standards. Each of his proposals involves providing more jobs for Americans. This will, in return, also help to strengthen the economy and perpetuate the funding for the programs. In this respect, Obama is a lot like McCain. He views the economy as a tool for encouraging environmental solutions and vice versa. However, Obama also believes in strengthening international institutions, which identifies him as a Institutionalist. Unlike McCain, Obama proposes to introduce a "New Forum of Largest Green House Gas Emitters," which would encourage international cooperation. This could potentially solve the problems McCain's campaign present. Other countries may have their voices heard as to how our policies, pollutants, and market driven ideals affect them. Obama also wishes to strengthen our ties with the UN. He proposes that we re-engage in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. His ideas involves solving our environmental concerns through strengthening our economy, but he also implies that the US cannot solve them alone. International cooperation and further steps will need to be taken. Of the two candidates, it seems that Obama's presidency would be more environmentally green.

Environmental persepectives of McCain and Obama

Looking over McCain's views of environmental issues, I can see that he is concerned about the environment and that he has proposed ways to make positive changes if he were elected. He acknowledges that global warming is occurring and that something needs to be done about it. In this sense, I think he leans towards being an Institutionalist. He says that he supported America's decision to not join the Kyoto Treaty, but also said that now it's necessary to convince China and India to join and then we should join as well. He spoke about the importance of working together globally to fix environmental problems, which goes along with the Institutionalist view of emphasizing a global commitment to improving the environment. McCain also believes that environmental issues and the economy are strongly linked, therefore he also has some Market Liberal beliefs.

Obama has a much more detailed plan of his goals to improve the environment if he were elected. I think that he leans more towards being a Bioenvironmentalist. His major point of emphasis is that of the depletion of natural resources and the need to decrease our dependency on fossil fuels. He promotes investing $150 billion in clean energy such as biofuels over the next 10 years, and wants to reduce our consumption of oil by 35% by 2030. Obama also says that he thinks it's important to work with other leading energy consuming nations to reduce greenhouse gases. I think that many of his ideas go along with the Bioenvironmentalist views that we will not be able to continue to grow at the current rate and still use the same technologies, and that we are depleting our natural resources and need to work with other nations to improve the environment.

I think that McCain does want to improve the environment, but I doubt that he would actually do much to change our current situation. He doesn't have nearly as detailed of a plan as Obama, and he is definitely trying to appease conservative voters. In a video on his website, he starts off by saying that global warming is a huge problem and that we have to do something about it, but then ends by saying that actually, it's in the best interest of the economy and international security. I think that Obama has some great ideas and I am especially supportive of his plans to work with industries and workers to create a "clean technologies workforce." I think that the government needs to create strong incentives for manufacturers to be environmentally friendly before we begin to see any major changes in our treatment of the environment.

Political Dialogue

This presidential campaign year the environment has not been the focus that it should be, with the downturn in the economy and the increasing importance of immigration policy in peoples' minds. However the candidates have put forth their environmental views and would be policies were they to come into office and many of the differ in the way they approach issues.

Ron Paul, is a small "c" conservative and so believes there should be small government, with a little regulation, but not a lot of services. His major ideas on environmental issues are to protect property rights, which he believes would correct the environmental wrongs and would increase the cost of pollution for the polluters. This is a 'market liberal' approach since he focuses on correcting the broken markets, which favor the polluters and the wealthy, and that make those having their rights stomped on suffer. For instance he voted against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests, which ties in which his belief that government should not tax much but also should not spend much.

Hillary Clinton takes a different view and it is more 'institutionalist' since she wants more regulation and more government investment to promote green energy and technology. Her plan put emphasis on a mandatory cap and trade policy that would have 100% of permits and would also invest to become more energy independent. She proposes that we should reduce electricity 20% from proposed levels by 2020 by becoming more energy efficient and would want to put $50 billion in a Strategic Energy fund, partly paid for by oil companies to invest in alternative energy. Most of her other programs rely on regulation and believe that government is needed in the solution, but she has one proposed policy that is more 'social green'. This policy is a Connie Mae program which which would give middle and low income people the ability to buy green homes and to invest in green home improvements. This begins to address the power issues and gives support to those who want to be more environmentally friendly. In the US it can be expensive to be green!

In my opinion Hillary Clinton's plan is better because Ron Paul does not address the global warming issue (he is a skeptic). CO2 is the only pollutant, and it is only a pollutant when it overwhelms the Earth's sinks, that does not decrease with affluence, but increase and causes more harm. Although his ideas would help solve local environmental degradation, probably even better than straight regulation, he does not address the global pollution problems, in which we all bear the cost because of the nature of the planet. Although I believe Clinton's plans are not strong enough to really solve the problem, she has a good start and believes that global warming is a problem that must be addressed. Although I like many of Ron Paul's ideas I believes that he falls short on this issue, although he does believe that local environmental degradation is a big problem.

Living Environmentally

I do not have extensive knowledge on environmental issues beyond the well-known ones, and that is why I am taking the class. But right now I feel the strongest about the lifestyle of the consumers in America. The excessive packaging of products, wasting food, not recycling, and driving excessively (to name a few). The second part of Green Planet Blues that we read for this week really hit home for me. I feel the biggest problem is the ease at which people thrown away trash, fail to recycle, and waste unused products.

Recycling and reusing is so easy that everyone should do it in some way. And making small lifestyle changes will go a LONG way. It goes much farther than saving a few trees. People can improve others' lives by giving unwanted things like clothing, furniture, or appliances to charities rather than throwing them away. Recycling can raise money for special causes or reduce the size of landfills, making room for more homes, schools, etc. And by simply asking the McDonald's drive-thu window to hand over the burger without the extra bag and handful of napkins... may seem trivial, but makes a difference.

Living in an environmentally friendly way has a different meaning for everyone. One can take it to the extent that is possible for his or her personal situation. Since I was young, I have been concerned about the environment and mindful of little lifestyle changes that will make a difference. It is due to the Sesame Street clip of a child brushing his teeth with the water running, and as he does, a fish pictured in the ocean simultaneously loses its home. It's amazing how that was so influential. I make sure to pick up litter where ever I am, I recycle as much as possible, and I give everything I do not want anymore to charities. As a busy college student however, running from one place to another, I tend to slip out of these ways. Eating on the run is the biggest problem. I cannot stand the huge plastic containers that to-go food comes in, but when I have 5 minutes to get to class, there just is not the time to worry about it.

I am very aware that I should be doing more to live environmentally friendly, and I am very eager to learn all of the ways that I can do that. As I get into the habit of making more substantial changes to my daily routine, I will be able to help foster the same sense of environmental responsibility in others. And I am looking forward to that.

The most valuable resource

In my opinion, the most important global environmental problem is the growing lack of access to fresh water. Of course, there are many environmental problems in addition to this one. We are continually depleting resources like oil, coal, and wood, and in doing so we are also polluting the atmosphere and causing climate change. However, I believe that with time, effort, and new technology, we can find different sources of energy and reduce the effects of global warming. One thing that we cannot replace or find a substitute for is water. It is vital for every single person's survival, and yet we continue to overuse and abuse our access to fresh water in so many different ways. Rivers, lakes, and oceans are continuously polluted by factories, ships, and other watercraft vehicles. Also, access to water is a huge problem because corporations and individuals use more than their fair share. The production of most goods uses a copious amount of water, and oftentimes the companies that produce these goods are so powerful that they use up precious water even in times of drought.

Relocation of water is another huge problem. Although it seems ridiculous that someone could claim to own a body of water when it should be a shared natural resource like the air and the sun, I was shocked to learn that in 1998 Ontario was in the process of making a deal to export billions of gallons of water from Lake Ontario to Asia. I'm from Akron, Ohio, so I've grown up very close to the Great Lakes. They are the world's largest source of fresh water, and it scares me that there was even a possibility of relocating that much water to the other side of the globe. The Great Lakes are so important for many major cities' water supply, and it is vital to protect this resource. Recently, a compact to protect these bodies of water was approved by the Senate, but it still needs to be approved by Congress and all eight states bordering the lakes.

Since everyone needs water to survive, no one is immune to this environmental problem. If the water supply is polluted, or if there is no water available in certain areas, large groups of people are affected. As our population increases, our demand for water does as well. We need to realize that we only have so much water, and there is no replacement for it. We cannot survive without water, so it is necessary to recognize the importance of keeping it clean and preserving it. We can do so through legislation to regulate the waste disposal methods of factories, the emissions of watercraft vehicles, and the distribution of water. Individuals can help as well by conserving the amount of water they use for everyday tasks such as doing laundry, taking showers, watering lawns, and washing cars. Every action counts.

Environmentally friendly?

For environmentalists, living in an environmentally friendly way may mean to live in such a way that does not exceed the earth's ability to erase your ecological footprint. A person who lives in an environmentally friendly way would not over use the earth's resources or pollute more than what the earth could naturally cleanse. Perhaps some people may live like this, but the majority of humans do not. Those who believe they are, do not understand all of the processes that go in to making their goods. Although they may be recycling and do not consume much, what they do consume was made by people or machines that do use resources in excess. Those who only have one child, so as to stave off the population boom, may coo at a baby reception, encouraging the pregnant mother to have more children. Even those in the poorest countries, who only consume and waste to survive, do not live in an environmentally friendly way, even though they hardly live at all. The "environmentally friendly way" is impossible for any human to follow exactly, no matter how well intentioned they are.
So, in my opinion, to live in an environmentally friendly way involves stepping outside of one's comfort zone and at least trying. One should educate themselves, as much as one reasonably can, and make a conscience effort to be more environmentally friendly. One cannot be expected to have the time to calculate their exact ecological footprint, which involves calculating every process and resource that has ever gone into anything that person has ever consumed. However, one should take the time to educate themselves on the policies of politicians who can pull people together to calculate such processes and limit or reduce them, and then vote based on these concerns. One should hold their politicians as much accountable for environmental issues as they do for issues of security, as they are one in the same. One may not be able to walk everywhere they go, but they can make an effort to carpool or take a train when they have the extra time. Recycling everything in the proper way or ensuring that it is disposed of in the proper way may be limited, but one can pick up liter off the streets or encourage their children to recycle in the ways available. In my opinion, living in an environmentally friendly way would involve taking those small but vital extra steps.
Honestly, I do not live by my own definition of being environmentally friendly. I do pick up liter whenever I see it and I do recycle. Where I am from, it is not practical to walk anywhere, and the buses are unsafe. I also travel by plane frequently, but I would not even know how to get a ticket for a voyage across the ocean to London. I, however, teach younger children or friends to not liter and not to waste. I live as environmentally friendly as I can with the abilities I have, but I could always make more of an effort.

Discussion Question 2

I believe that the most important environmental problem is Climate Change, but it does not stand alone as many of the other environmental problems feed into it, like deforestation and consumption.  Climate change will affect the entire globe, making life worse for many people by making weather more extreme and unpredictable.

In my own life I try and reduce my carbon footprint, which is high because I have done a lot of traveling, by eating mainly locally produced and grown food, as well as being a vegetarian.  I also do not own a car and try to ride my bike or walk as much as possible instead. I believe that current consumption rates must go down, which I don't think will worsen out standard of living, because it is not goods that make us happier, but relationships and feeling economically secure, instead of having to over-reach to 'keep up with the Jones'.  Also promoting locally grown food, and the eating of more reasonable diets, without all of the processed food and huge amounts of meat would have a huge impact if more people  did that. I think that people can change and would change if they knew the true meaning of their actions and if they learned what they could do to help.

Welcome

Hi Everybody! Welcome to the blog.