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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)