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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, February 8, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)