test

Just trying to remember how this works.

- Jacqui

Environmental Injustice in Hyde Park

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

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

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

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

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

Reflections

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

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

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

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

Provoking Thoughts

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

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

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

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

This quote is by Garrett Hardin in Lifeboat Ethics:

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

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

Cradle to Cradle: Subverting the Paradigm

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

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

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

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

Cradle to Cradle

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

Too Much Too Often

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

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

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

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

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

A new way

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

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

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

A stary night

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

My favorite place in the world

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


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


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


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

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

Complex conversations

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

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

Agreeing to Disagree

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

So many questions!

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

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

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

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

You are what you eat

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

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

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

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

Packaging

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

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

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

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

Eating veggies isn't too hard

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

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

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

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

Technology: Making Global Environmental Problems a nanobyte

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