Cooperation for a Successful Outcome

It is difficult to sum up all that I have gained through this course because it has had a tremendous impact on me, to the point that I have decided to pursue a future carrer with a focus on the environmental challenges of the future. Before entering this class, I had some knowledge on the environment due to science courses I have taken in the past, but this course has allowed me to look at it from a different angle- the global environmental politics. I was able to learn about the conventions, protocols, theories, arguments, challenges, and politics of the environment movement, among many others. Thus, I was able to expand my knowldege in this area and realize that there were many more actors involve than what I had previously though. It seemed to me before that the solutions to the envionmental challenges were easier to pin-point at.  But in reality, its such a complex issue to address because it affects everyone- the businesss sector, goverments, communities, species, individuals, cities, housing, biodiversity, etc.With so many actors, where do you start? This a question that many probably ask. I believe that the most important thing I have taken friom this course is the ability to understand that this issue is full of complexities but it own nature, so to try to find a one-fits all type of solution, would be wrong. First, one must understand that there will have to be compromising, losing, and sacrificing from all these sectors. But most importantly, the believe that there has to be understanding and cooperation between all sectors, and especially, environmentalist must not focus on one envirnmental challenge, they need to be more open-minded to others and thus adapt solutions that can be more successful.

Final Thoughts

I transferred into American three semesters ago because I wanted to study environmental policy, D.C. seemed like the right place to be, and of the schools in D.C., AU had the best environmental studies program geared toward a basic understand of science, policy, and political change. Of course, I'm a college student and as such I have changed my career path about six times since being here.

After being in school a while, I realized that I hate politics. I enjoy policy, but only from the angle of how it can be informed by politics. After years of ducking interest in science in an effort to not be my parents (a biophysicist and a plant systemitist), I realized that what I really want to do with my life is research. True confession: I want to be a scientist.

That doesn't meant that I don't think that this class was superfluous to my academic interests. Au contraire, this class will stand out in my memory for the lessons I learned about science communication. It can get frustrating when other people don't understand what you're saying, when they ignore facts, and value party politics more than the truth. As easy as it is to chalk that up to stupidity or assholishness, I've come to learn that the biggest fault lies with me, the communicator. If someone isn't getting it, than I'm not explaining it right. Sure there are always going to be people who push back (the 6 Americas), but I shouldn't waste my time on them.

I want to affect social change. Just because I also want to be in the laboratory, doesn't meant that I can't be a communicator, that I can't spread a message that can change this world for the better.

It has sucked to be on the liberal side of any issue for the past 2 years. Even when we succeed in accomplishing something, the country devolves into an argument of what is fiscally responsible. I want to use the lessons I learned in this class to change that conversation to what is morally right. I know that I can use what I have learned to affect social change through whatever means I choose.

The End

I came into this course with certain preconceived notions of environmentalists and their movement. Because of the militant, aggressive attitude that I had previously encountered with environmentalists, I was quite apprehensive about the class and any discussions that would take place. Any support I have for the environmental movement has been eaten away by the condescending treatment by the movement’s supporters – often, they do more harm to their movement than they know. However, contrary to my low expectations at the beginning of the semester, I ended up really enjoying the class. Despite being in the minority for most discussions (with my decidedly market liberal approach in a fairly social green class), I did not feel completely ostracized by the professor or the class as in previous cases. Rather, I felt that my points were acknowledged, and sometimes, even taken into consideration in their search for environmental solutions. Because of this attitude shift, I actually enjoyed learning about the environment and started to care more about finding a solution for the problems that it faces. The class showed me that there are more problems than just climate change, and that there have been successes in the past – so we should have hope for the future, if we can continue the efforts of environmentalists before us. In the end, I will take away a better understanding of the current environmental situation and the different environmental camps that are all lobbying for separate solutions to these problems. Also, and what I think might be more important, is that I will be taking away a kinder outlook on environmentalists and the movement as whole. As we learned in class, meaningful change stems from a fundamental shift in attitudes, so this class was a turning point for my relationship with environmentalism. I enjoyed my time in the class, and learned a lot that I can take with me into my future.

Towards the end...

This was my first time taking an environmental course, and I have learned a lot from it. Before taking the course, I had some knowledge about the environment today, but it was just too broad and general. Throughout the course, I've learned that the environmental problems that we face today is actually a lot complicated than I thought. I would say, most of the factors, such as poverty, innovation, and pollution, that exist in the world do affect the environment, and they are the causes of the environmental problems. I also learned that there are several thinkings towards solving the environmental problems--Market Liberals, Institutionalists, Bioenvironmentalists, and Social Greens. After knowing these concepts, I am favored of both Market Liberals and Social Greens because economy (technology) is capable of solving some of the environmental problems that we face. This is because it is essential that we have enough capitals to implement whatever the project is. In order to do so, we need our economy to keep enhacing. I agree with Social Greens to some extent because we definitely need to value our planet because if we keep on harming the environment, we will lose natural resources. As a result, our economy will fall down. Even worse, it will threaten human security, such as diseases, due to pollution and the climate change. I've learned so many from this course, and everything that I learned was new to me, so I was always engaged to the class. I will definitely take some environmental course when I get back to Japan. Thank you so much for the wonderful class!

Infiltrating Industry

The most interesting section of Cradle to Cradle for me was the section in which William McDonough and Michael Braungart describe their work with Ford Motor Company to redesign their Rouge plant to be eco-efficient.McDonough and other environmental architects (David Orr, etc.) are known for their work on college campuses, but it is hardly surprising that colleges (bastions of liberal, forward-thinking professors and students) would be engaged in next wave of environmentalism. What is more surprising is that not only a company, but a company that produces a product so harmful to the environment as cars, would be interested in making their oldest plant eco-efficient.

What is especially interesting about the case of Ford is that even for the automobile industry, the company is not known for being environmentally proactive. Like other American car companies, Ford scrapes by, producing cars that barely meet CAFE standards (although this has changed slightly since the most recent recession). It is encouraging that this company could adopt eco-efficiency in their building design, if only for one plant.

What is needed is a revolution in industry so that more companies adopt this model on a wide scale. Why has the Rouge plant not been more widely advertised? Why is this not pushed in every single commercial? An adoption of eco-efficiency in construction would lead to a healthier, happier workplace for so many Americans.

Kudos to Ford for giving this a try. If only this could expand into other factories and into their design aesthetic. They've seen how eco-efficiency works for them, it's time for them to share the wealth and design eco-efficient cars for the rest of us.

Cradle to Cradle

While reading the book Cradle to Cradle the concept that struck me the most was the idea of upcycling. Growing up I have always been taught that recycling was good for the environment. That one should not throw away a water bottle or piece of computer paper that might be used for paper, but recycle them instead. In fact, the whole idea of recycling is one that everyone has heard before and is one of the major points that is countered in the book Cradle to Cradle. The authors William McDonough and Michael Braungart argue that instead of making products with recycling an end result of the product, we should design things with their future use in mind. They counter recycling by raising the point that once an item is recycled it a item until it is no longer useful, in which case it gets thrown out and still finds its way to a land field. The only purpose of recycling the item was to delay the step of it reaching the land field.
The same is said of recycling a water bottle or pieces of paper, yes it does save some of the original product but the inputs that have to be put into the original item to get it to the state of renewal is sometimes more harmful and takes more energy that the benefits of recycling it is not even worth it. And that is where the idea of upcycling comes in the authors’ purpose designing products with the idea of the future use of the product in mind. They not only state their claims in the book they also designed the book with that in mind. I am still not entirely sure what the book is made out of, but I do know that if I were to recycle the book, which is water proof, the ink on the pages can be stripe off with hot water and the cover too. The book does not have to go through an elaborate dismantling and remodeling stage like most other books that might be recycled. And because of this, this book is lessening the inputs that have to go into it to the recycling process or upcycling process, I should say. The book can also be made in to other things that are worth more than the book is now.
The whole concept of the designing things that can be reused for something in the future instead of making the product for now and then deciding what to do with it when it is thrown out is a novel idea. I not only loved reading the book, but also enjoyed the fact that the book was water proof and could be used in multiple ways. In fact throughout the week, I would walk up to people and ask them to hold the book for me, they were at first shocked at how much the book weighed and then where amazed at the fact the book was water proof. This experiment was probably one of my favorite. I was also shocked to see how many of my friends were in to the concept of making things with the items future in mind.

Cradle to Cradle: Easy, Reinforcing, and Engaging Reading

I found the book titled, Cradle to Cradle, by  William McDonough and Michael Braungart, to be insightful and a great general view of the environmental challenges that exist. For someone with a vague knowledge of this subject, this would be a perfect book that would expose the reader with an accurate overview of current environmental issues ranging from the history of environmental movement to air pollution. The very material of the book, made from plastic resins and inorganic fillers, is already making a statement of environmental conciousness.

As I read, I encountered many environmental issues that McDonough and  Braungart explained of which I already had a strong knowledge of, thus for me it was an easy, reinforcing, and engaging reading. Yet there were also many arguments that were raised by both authors that expanded my knowledge of the issue and made me think more about certain points I had not analyzed before. Especially in one chapter, they went through the Four R's, also known as reduce, reuse, recycle and regulate. For them, actions with good intentions such as reusing and recycling products became additional environmental problems. For example, in many places where sewage sludge is recycled and used as fertilizer, it carried many harmful chemicals due to the current design and treatment of the sewage systems. Also, I learned the term, downcycling, meaning that the recycling of certain products reduces the quality of the material over time. Thus a product such as soda cans, which are made from aluminum, when melted for recycling results in a weaker and less useful product. I agree with their argument that we sometimes automatically believe that by recycling we are making eco-friendly choices, yet in reality our choices and actions can become an additional burden on the environment. Overall the authors presented a variety of issues, and raised many questions with relevant data that placed them in a good track in their attempt to explain an overview of the current environmental challenges.

"Cradle to Cradle" Reaction

I am actually really enjoying “Cradle to Cradle,” because it is one of the most hopeful books that we have read this semester – while still maintaining a feeling of realistic action. McDonough and Braungart posit that the actual conflict doesn’t have to be between economic growth and environmentalism, but rather, between environmentalism and the natural instinct to get ahead and take advantage of an expanding market. The authors argue for the transition to green commerce, and basically start to lay out the steps that a business should take to start being sustainable (but not losing their edge in the market). I think that McDonough and Braungart are absolutely on the right track, because they recognize that it is impossible to empower the environmental movement without the support of businesses. They are the backbone of this society, and therefore, cannot be ignored as many environmentalists are wont to do. Likewise, I genuinely appreciate the realistic approaches that the authors are offering. Personally, I think their suggestions are attainable because they are still acknowledging business’ need to make a profit. It is struggling to address two very different camps, and I think it is doing an admirable (and unprecedented) job.

Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle introduces the transformation of human-centered activity to the environmental-centered activity. They have lists of things that people could do in order to improve the environment. They also proposes "upcycling"--making used materials more valueable--instead of "downcycling"--what we are doing right now. I think that the book contains a lot of good points. However, at the same time, I also think that they did not include the explanation of well-designed strategies that illustrates the process of these proposals. In other words, they did not state clearly that "how are they going to do these?" Thus, it seems to me that the proposal is a utopian concept. However, I still feel that the proposal is do-able under such high-technology. They need more interpretation, variation, and experimentation to improve.

Lorax: Take 2

Our take on the final page of The Lorax:

"So...
Here!" yells the Once-ler
As he opens the door.
"I have on last Truffula seed
And I won't hide anymore!"
It takes more than one person, or two, or three
To change the world and live free.
Our actions must be bigger than you or than me
To stop a repeat of the Truffula Tree.
The steps that we take should reach for a solution,
Like saving a species or stopping pollution.
Each of us has a role in a bigger play,
So it is important to listen, then say:

"We are here and we matter,
But we aren't here alone!
We must learn to coexist
Before we're all gone."

The Obama Administration Should Choose a More Complete Plan..

After reading about President Obama's speech last week on reducing oil imports, it was clear that this is becoming a more prominent issue for the Obama administration. Al thought President Obama has in multiple times mentioned his commitment in cutting by a third the amount of barrels of oil a day imported from abroad by 2025, I believe that for this estimation to be a better calculation, there should be stricter regulations, and more commitment, incentives, and concern from the general public about the importance of being less dependent on imported oil.






President Obama proposes achieving the previous goal by producing more domestic oil, increasing energy efficiency and relying on cleaner alternatives. I think these measures are necessary yet I also believe that he is leaving out a key component- public support, commitment, and knowledge about this these changes. Indeed, investing in more high-speed rail and mass transit, in more fuel-efficent trucks and cars, and makaing use our the nation's natural gas reserves will decrease our oil dependency. However, what use is this off if the public is not also actively engage in these shifts. The Obama Administration should not estimate that these changes will just happen smoothly, instead they should also invest in programs that educate the public on alternatives that can save more energy and about the importance of changing out wasteful habits. Also, the funding for these new measures do not sound convincing to me. President Obama mentions that our economic situation is not the best and that leaving these energy shifts for later will just result in higher prices, yet he does not mention how will these be funded right now. For these reasons, I feel that the plan could be more complete if it also implemented an educational program.

Speech on Oil Reduction

President Obama clearly stated in his speech that the US will reduce importing oil because gas prices are getting too high. He further stated that all large companies are now required to use fuel efficient vehicles. He is also aiming for puchasing only fuel efficient government cars and trucks by 2015. He is confident that "If we're going to upgrade all of America's fleets, our businesses need to step up, as well." This proposal seems like the Obama administration is reducing the oil imports because oil prices are too high; they are not doing it for improvements of the environment. In other words, what they care is a success in the economy, not improvements of the environment. I felt that the proposal is so selfcentered. Moreover, it is unrealistic to me because as far as i understand, you definitely need a car to go somewhere in the states. In DC because public transportation is quite good that we do not have to have cars for individuals. However, when I went to Florida, it was so inconvenient without the cars. The states is just too big that we need cars to go somewhere. Whereas Japan, which is almost same size as California state, has good public transportation. Although many of the households own cars, they do not use cars that often. People usually use bikes to go somewhere, or they walk and use public transportation. One of my friend, who is not Japanese, came to visit Japan one day, and she was surprised how people use bikes to go everywhere. I think the land of Japan is small compare to the states that it is possible for us to use bikes or walk to get to destination because everything is compressed. Hence, I feel that the proposal is too unrealistic, and he will definitely get oppositions especially from the large companies that use vehicles.

Interesting statement on politics and agriculture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/04/the-watchdog_n_844433.html#2_almost-two-dozen-congressmen-receive-farm-subsidies

What it means to make a promise

President Barack Obama has broken my heart. But it's my own fault.

When I began campaigning for Senator Obama in the summer of 2007, he had not announced many of his policy positions. He was the young, upstart candidate and many of the other volunteers and staffers I knew in New Hampshire liked Obama for his charisma, for the fact that he seemed to listen to his constituents, and made decisions based on rational thought. A lot of thought. Many of us liked him because we assumed that after all of his thinking he would reach the same conclusions we had reached.

Obama had many opinions forced upon him. "Anti-war," "environmentalist," "tax-increaser." You name it, somebody in this country probably thinks or thought he fit that description. It's not entirely unjustified, he was against the Iraq war from the start, we supported far more environmental positions than any of his opponents in either the Democratic or Republican fields. But once you bear those labels, it's hard to live up to them fully, especially when you're president.

Even as a staffer, I had to espouse and argue for positions I didn't necessarily believe in. I am a pacifist, Obama believes the war in Afghanistan is justified. It breaks my heart that he has now gotten engaged in the Libya conflict without employing the diplomacy he pushed for during the campaign. I support alternative energy and I am opposed to offshore drilling, but I remember dealing with the backlash in Florida when Obama announced he favored offshore drilling during the summer of 2008. I remember specifically two days before his announcement talking alternative energy with a constituent who demanded that Obama support offshore drilling. "He can drill right in my backyard if he wants to," he told me. And I told him about the dangers of offshore drilling and why alternative energy was a better solution, because based on my opinions and Obama's energy positions to that point, I thought he would agree with me.

My point is, for the past two years we've been treating Obama like he's a sell-out. To some extent this is true, there are issues I wish he could have pushed further, but to a large extent it's a fault of our own perception that Obama thinks like us. That Obama supports everything entirely different from past administrations.

USA Today took on Obama's speech at Georgetown from this perspective. But looking at the key points, they are exactly the same as when he was campaigning. Although we may disagree, we have to remember that this was the most progressive environmentalist of the candidates. Aren't we glad we didn't end up with someone who wasn't doing anything? Even though it's taking the back burner, the NPR article points out that Obama is still pushing for high fuel efficiency and in other ways reducing fuel consumption.

The problem is that environmentalism isn't popular today. People are not going to make large changes to their lifestyles for the environment, and so the Obama team has to find a way to address environmental issues through other avenues.

Today Obama is filing papers to run for re-election. So many people are frustrated with him, but we can't give up yet.

A new debate on an old problem

The proposals spelled out in President Obama’s speech at Georgetown, last Wednesday on lessening the nations dependency on oil from aboard is an encouraging one. It is also a topic that has been repeated multiple times throughout different presidencies. But even with the cry for the American people to become more energy efficient as a nation, we still have not cut our ties with foreign oil.
Thinking back to it, during the Bush administration, the talk of the US people becoming energy efficient was on the drilling up in Alaska and taking oil from this country. This obviously got knocked down, and even still did not address our addiction with oil. As the Bush Administration moved out of the White House, and the Obama Administration moved in the focus has shifted to looking at cleaner energy, instead of having the focus primarily on drilling. That was the focus of the conversation at Georgetown University.
After reading the reviews of the speech, I could not help but think of Will Steger’s speech last week on climate change, and how he talks to climate skeptics on climate change, especially when it comes to fossils fuels, and how he frames the problem more in terms of security. Reading Obama’s speech our energy problems were frame again as a security matter, but more so as an economic solution. Obama’s plan would have it so that trucks would be more fuel efficient, higher fuel efficiency for cars, and possible drilling for natural gases and oil, and a possibility of opening up nuclear plants for energy. He made the claims that even though the on starts of these programs are going to be high they would create jobs. And the investments made now will be paid off in the future.
The interesting thing about Obama’s speech is the fact that Obama mentioned the option of drilling in this country for oil and natural gases. Something I thought we were trying to get away from. This new approach, in my mind is a way to gain support of both sides of the political spectrum, those on the political right who are more in favor of drilling in this country, and those on the left who are more open to alternative energy sources.

Speech without Substance

In his speech at Georgetown the other day, President Obama made it very clear that we are too reliant on foreign oil. One of his main goals is to reduce daily oil imports (which total an average of 10 million barrels) by a third. However, the requirements that he laid out to reach this goal seem unrealistic and slightly misguided. In the USA Today Washington’s review of the speech, they listed Obama’s main objectives as:

1.       Tap into the nation’s large reserves of natural gas.

2.       Increase reliance on renewable biofuels.

3.       Decrease reliance on oil by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient.

4.       Continue investing in high-speed rail and mass transit.

I’m not sure that simply shifting our reliance from one natural resource (oil) to another (natural gas) is an appropriate solution. Likewise, I have to take issue with his investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because they are still not very widely used or available in the United States, and I’m not sure that they would be able to an efficient use of resources.

Also, one of the huge issues facing environmental reform is the initial price tag. Understandably, there is a sticker shock associated with the start-up costs of “going green.” However, I don’t think that the President appropriately addressed this issue. Rather, he seemed to just barely gloss over it in his speech. His quote is that “we are already paying a price for our inaction…if we do nothing, that price will only go up.” Quite frankly, this doesn’t seem like a very convincing argument. If Obama expects the opposition in Congress to support the initiatives and citizens to shift their lifestyle habits, he is going to need to be more convincing than “well, we may as well.”

In the article on NPR’s website, they included an analysis of President Obama’s speech on Friday as well. It seemed very similar, except it had extracted a promise from 5 major companies (including Verizon and PepsiCo) to start incorporating fuel-efficient vehicles into their fleets. However grand this seems, a mere 20,000 fuel-efficient trucks is just a drop in the bucket of what is needed to actually make a difference – considering the US alone has over 3 million commercial vehicles alone. Honestly, as sad as I am to say it, this energy push does not seem to have the push that a true change needs, and I think Obama realizes it. Because there is not even a bill attached, the political clout is lowered; it is even possible that it is just another speech to give Obama publicity, a positive image, and some press for the environmental community without too much effort. It is good that the issue isn’t being ignored, but there needs to be more substance in the speech before it can become a rallying point for America and actually point them in a new direction.

Climate Change

I think the purpose of these websites is to let the public know about the climate change. Although these two website contradict each other, they still give some sort of information of climate change. One is arguing that climate change is caused by the sun, and they believe that climate change is real. On the other hand, the other is arguing that climate change is not the real thing. "Friends of Science" is more fact-based. On the other hand, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" is more idea-based. It was interesting to know many ideas that deny the existence of climate change, but I was more conviced with "Friends of Science" website because it has more facts to rely on. When it comes to academic, I think factual information is more important than the ideas.

Don't Take All You Read as Reliable

After navigating through both websites, “Friends of Science” and Grist’s “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic”, I was clearly able to see the differences between them. Friends of Science is a more science focused website, all their statements are supposedly “proven” through science and they even state that they have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of climate scientists from all over the world to offer the most current science on global climate and climate change. Yet their science is obviously geared towards one main objective; that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. And they plan to educate the public that this is the reality of the climate change issue and thus encourage governments to uphold this hypothesis. They are also a non-profit that is directly influenced by the donors and their interests, for all these reasons the claims this website does, are not convincing to me.

As for the website, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, is focused to serve the public as a green media platform in where issues concerning climate change and articles that highlights people, ideas, and organizations working toward sustainability are discussed. In their section titled, How to talk to a Climate Skeptic, there were various sections with possible questions that climate skeptic might approach one with, and it offers a brief answer to these questions. Yet, these are not backed up by strong, hard scientific data, some graphs are offered, yet the sources do not seemed reliable by looking at their publishing names and date such publication. for example, one was written by “Coby Beck“ on October 26, 2006. The date is very outdated and with an issue such as climate change that demands the latest information, this article is not very convincing either.

With all the previous conclusions, I believe that the best manner to evaluate the scientific claims made by both websites is to take a set back and consider the following questions. One should look if the source is not depended on donations, since when they are, they tend reflect the interests of the donors. Also, avoid agreeing with over-arching statements such as the one presented by Friends of Science that climate change is mainly caused by the galactic cosmic rays. It is difficult for me to agree that this is the main driver of climate change, when I know that there are many other arguments backed by strong data. For these reasons, I believe that there are many more reliable websites that one should check out when looking for information concerning this issue, I always try to evaluate the assertions I encountered keeping in mind the previous questions.

How to make your opinion credible

The purpose of both "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" seem to me to be to arm the choir with information so that they can preach the supported message. Both websites feature a "fact/myth" section in one format or another that provides the reader with the appropriate response to a comment with which they disagree. Although I definitely fall into the readership of "How to Talk to Climate Skeptic," I think that the "Friends of Science" website was more successful in communicating and advertising its message.

One of the first criticisms many have about climate skeptics is that science is not on their side. Even without any content about science on the page, the title of the website immediately seems to give them credibility because they have science in their name, the assumption is that the content is also scientific. Apart from their title, the "Friends of Science" were successful in entertaining audiences by making their website colorful, including graphs and images on the home page. Additionally, everything is easy to find. The site map/side bar has clear labels, and not too many that they are overwhelming.

The fact that "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" is disengaging is not entirely the fault of the author, but of "Grist." Because the website is part of a larger news website, there are links to other articles, ads, etc. However, what is the fault of the author is the condescending attitude he takes when considering those who don't believe in climate change. Yes, there are people who will never believe in climate change even given all the information, and yes, we might have a few choice words to call them on our own time, but in an article that purports itself as a way to communicate, it is inappropriate to refer to those with whom you are arguing as "silly" "naive" or at best "specious." If that is how climate change believers think of and address non-believers, then it's no wonder they haven't joined the bandwagon. Perhaps their failure to believe is really our failure to communicate.

How do you view climate change?

The purpose of both websites is to get their views out there about climate change. “The Friends of Science” is a climate change skeptic website. It provides information on all the reasons why climate change is not caused by green house emissions. After clicking the link for the website the first thing to catch my attention was the myths about climate change. Such as the Earth is actually cooling and the sun is the real reason why the Earth is getting warmer. The website provides graphs to back up their claims. The graphs were a useful addition to the website, but even with the graphs I did not buy the websites claims. I was more curious about finding out who, was running the website. I was shock to find out that “The Friends of Science” website is run out of Canada, and is complied of retired scientists who are all skeptics of climate change. After reading about where the websites sources were coming from, I started to wonder if the retired scientist retired because they did not see eye to eye with others in the science community on climate change. The other website “How to Talk to Climate Skeptics” provides the alternate view to climate change. The website strategically lays out bullet points of the major remarks made by those who do not believe climate change is a real thing. It is easy to follow and go down the list of all the counter arguments that can be made. When clicking on one of the bullets it appears that someone blogged in to state why this was not a plausible reason for climate change to have not happened. There were no credentials of the person listed as to why they were an expert. This website also did not provide graphs like the other one, which even though I did not spend too much time looking at graphs on the other website, it was a useful tool, no matter how skewed the information could have been. When going to these two sites, like any website on climate change, I kept in mind that they both were trying to spread their message on climate change. To switch and alter as many people’s views to how they see the world. With that in mind they were both going to highlight scientific claims that supported their views and disregard those that did not. In terms of lay out I thought the anti-climate change website had a better set up. The website presented sources for their information and I was able to find an About Us, to fully understand the reason behind the website. With that said, I still do not believe the information presented on the website.

Climate Change Website Comparison

The main purpose of both of these websites is to inform the public about the basic issues of climate change in an accessible manner. They both attempt to address the issue of climate change and present the scientific facts to the skeptics and the uninformed. To evaluate the scientific claims that these sites make, the viewer needs a little discretion and common sense. Personally, in the comparison of the two sites, I was immediately drawn to the “Friends of Science” website and turned off by the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” page. While the “Friends of Science” clearly tried to present a balanced professional presentation with facts and references that were prominently displayed, the Grist article seemed very condescending and less focused on presenting the scientific support for climate change. Because of this blatant difference between the two websites, I have to suspect that they are directed towards two very difference audiences (or at least this is what I felt). While the “Friends of Science” site is more focused on presenting to the general public, the Grist site is focused on climate change believers that need tips on how to convince a non-believer. The Grist site just seemed much more opinion-based (taking full articles from a series by Coby Beck) and it doesn’t strike me as quite as professional. My personal preference was for the “Friends of Science” site – I think it would be the more effective tool for the general public.  

Yasuni-ITT Project

http://yasuni-itt.gob.ec/blog/2010/12/01/ecuadors-amazon-drilling-pledge-still-to-take-shape/ is the link I found about the Yasuni-ITT project proposed by the Ecuadorian government and accepted by the United Nations Development Programme. President Rafael Correa of Ecuador proposed leaving the area of the Yasuni National Park free from oil drilling in exchange for $3.6 billion from national and international donors. This amount is calculated to be half of the total profits the government would be making if it drilled in this area.  So far countries such as Chile and Spain had provided the Ecuadorian government with $100,000 and $1.3 million, respectively. Consideration for this plan also came from the indigenous communities that live in this area of which two remain in isolation, the Tagaeri and Taromenane Nations. For these communities, conservation is essential to their welfare, as a native explains, “For us indigenous people who work in conservation, drilling is one of those projects that would destroy nature”. This project has two main objectives; develop ecotourism in this area and to discontinue oil drilling that destroys the biodiversity of the region. 


When this project was first proposed in 2008, it was an innovative manner of dealing with oil extraction in this area of the Amazon that has suffered a lot of negative environmental impacts from  international companies and the lack of interest from the national government. However the government is now more than ever committed with conservation. The Ministry of Tourism has developed an enormous campaign stressing the importance of visiting natural sites throughout the country, which has also launched a huge campaign of investing in ecotourism. 


Personally from my visits to this country, I do see the interest of citizens to visit these sites, they usually opt for eco-friendly cabins in the Amazon, the highlands, or on the beaches. I do see a success in this type of tourism because it is not only bringing back a greater connection of citizens to nature but it is also raising the income for the communities that sell their services and goods in these areas. I do not think that ecotourism is replicable in all areas, there are a lot of factors that should be taken in consideration. For example, are the citizens of the country concerned with the state of nature, and is the marketing of ecotourism emphasizing important benefits that a citizen can gain from visiting these sites, among many other factors. I do see hope by these types of initiatives, especially when I see a countries adhering to these types of commitments of conserving the environment, at a time where the international community has been largely criticized for their lack of response. 

Green Roads in Italy

This is a great story from a few months ago about making solar power more efficient in Italy. A highway connecting Catania and Siracusa just got a 30km extension that will be entirely solar powered. The tarmac includes photo voltaic cells that will power any lit signs along the road as well as emergency phones. Excess generated energy can be used to meet local needs. This is the largest project of many that Italy is taking to make its roads more carbon neutral. Italy is also looking at using LED bulbs for traffic lights.

One of the biggest complaints about solar power is the amount of space that the panels take up. It is true that if we attempted to power the world's energy needs through solar power that the area covered in solar panels and the infrastructure necessary to distribute that energy would be inefficient. However, this story is about the success of providing local solar power in a way that does not take up too much space, is not unattractive or harmful to wildlife (big complaints with wind power), and can demonstrate how simple it is to make a small change to make the world a better place.

Although the solar road is only 30 km long, this method could easily be replicated elsewhere in Italy and around the world. In some places (where sunlight is not as abundant year round), it would be less cost effective, but in many places this would be an easy way to begin the shift to solar.

http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/11/italy-goes-solar-first-sun.cfm

Attack on the Antarctic

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/business/energy-environment/28green.html?_r=1&ref=environment

This article talks about increased international concern for Antarctica that was sparked by the sinking of a cruise ship in the region. As tourism in Antarctica grows, the environmental harm is beginning to show and both activists and scientists are concerned about the effects that human contact will have on the natural environment. So now, states are attempting to strengthen regulations to protect the habitat – with new rules such as only allowing 100 passengers to disembark a vessel at a time and forcing ships to use lighter fuels (causing many cruise lines to cancel their routes).

The Antarctica problem is being effectively and quickly addressed by the international community. Because it is a shared international space, with clear benefits for each state to maintain the habitat, countries were willing to take fast action to protect it. Also, the Antarctica region has a very high profile – with its lovable penguins and majestic ice floes – and therefore, it is newsworthy and will grab the attention of the general public. It might be hard for the average person to care about the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (which they can’t see the effects of or understand), but the suffering of a baby penguin is a very real and touching story. The protection of Antarctica is also being supported by many different actors, which is helping it to be more effective. Nations are addressing the issue, as well as scientists, environmental activists, and even the International Maritime Organization.

The quick and effective actions in the Antarctica case are potentially replicable and definitely give hope to the environmental fight. The actions could be replicable if the next problem is presented with the same international and emotional appeal as Antarctica was. Without widespread support from nations and the actual interest of their constituencies, it will be very difficult to replicate this success. However, as more regulations are created to protect the Antarctic region and tourism is being controlled, a sliver of hope should emerge for environmentalists – it certainly did in me.

Top Retailer Trying to Make a Difference

My article is not really about the environment, but is about a company taking an initiative to improve both public’s health. In the article, it was announced that Wal-Mart, out of all companies, has banned polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), a chemical that is a flame retardant and used in electronics, furniture, sporting goods, pet supplies, curtains, toys, and etc. The chemical has been found to cause health problems in lab animals. And recently the EPA listed PBDEs as a chemical to be concerned about. Even though it is on this list it is still not banned in the United States.
So Wal-Mart banning it is a huge step forward in lowering the usage of the chemical, and that is why I chose this article. It is also shows Wal-Mart in a different light without all the flank the chain gets from multiple sources, the fact that they came out before the government in banning a substance, instead of being told to do it afterwards, so kudos to Wal-Mart. And since Wal-Mart is a major buyer of almost everything, it is going to change the usage of the PBDEs. Producers that use PBDEs are going to be reluctant to use it if they cannot get it to the major retailer. Wal-Mart is taking the same steps that Whole Foods took when it refused to sale bottles that had BPA’s in it.
This story also brings in a bit of hope. If a major retailer, in the future, is able to say that they do not want a product for fears of it not being environmental. This could cause producers of those certain produce that use unsustainable materials to change their production patterns and supplies, so they do not lose out on the market. It is as the top scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, Richard Dension, states about the new Wal-Mart ban, “The companies producing for Wal-Mart are not going to a special line for them and another line with those chemicals for everyone else. And this is going to make it easier for other retailers to follow suit.” I know it is a bit far fetch, but one can only hope that m in the future more companies would require higher environmental standards for the produces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022502977.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Turning Tough Trash Into Food-Friendly Fuel

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/07-turning-tough-trash-food-friendly-fuel

According to the article, biological engineer, Ratna Sharma-Shivappa, is trying to investigate the way to "break down the problematic woody material in grasses withour harming the energy-containing carbohydrates that the plants also contain." We usually use corn to make biofuels, but this research could lead to make inexpensive biofuels by using inedible crops.

I think this research is an effective form of action because if she founds out the way to break down the woody material in grasses, we do not have to rely too much on corns to produce ethanol. However, this requires a lot of money and time. So this research can be replicable to those countries that are economically developed, but it is difficult to do the same research in developing countries.

Why I eat What I eat

When I was seven I became a vegetarian. This started because my sister (who was nine at the time) had read an article in version of Smithsonian for kids about slaughterhouses. My mom explained to her that the article was a thing called propaganda (the cover had a picture of a cow on the front with a large cartoon tear coming out of its eye), but since she had been a vegetarian on and off when she was in college, said that we could give it a try. We hardly ever ate meat anyway. About a week later, we were all dying for hamburger. Since then,  I have never intentionally eaten meat. I gave up fish a few years later because I couldn't stand the idea of boiling a lobster alive.

When I'm purchasing food, this is what I think about most. It's fairly easy to shop vegetarian. Eating out can be trickier. Traveling can be the worst. But being vegetarian is a good way to reduce excess consumption. Eating from low trophic levels prevents calorie waste. For each calorie of meat you consume, ten calories of plant were consumed.

I've tried to eat locally as well. I grow a garden at home. I frequent farmers' markets, both in New Hampshire and here in D.C. Eastern Market provides great diversity of produce, and I highly recommend the Dupont Market.

Food Choice

Just like Christine said, my food choices are based on my preference. I personally think that food in the US is all greasy and unhealthy. I did not hate it at first, so I kept eating American food for couple months. After a while, I realized how I gained so much weight. Since then, I stop buying food and started to cook for myself. I personally think that food in the US is not eco-friendly because the amount of food that they serve is too much. Also, by eating too much food, people tend to gain weight, and as a result people tend to rely on technology (i.e. cars) because they do not want to move.

I have consumed Japanese food and orange juice in the last few days. I think the tetra packs of orange juice have had the greatest environmental impact because I could have used Brita and could have drank tap water so that I did not have any trash nor waste resources. However, I think I do not waste too much food because I only cook the amount of food that I can eat them all. Also, I usually eat only two times a day, so my trash can does not get full for a week.

My Considerations When Purchasing Food

We all eat food, but I always wonder if we even take the time to consider the history behind the food item we are about to purchase? While growing up, I never thought about these details- food was taken for granted. However, now that I live on my own and must go grocery shopping, such questions come to mind every time I make the choice to purchase food.

The first question that comes to mind is usually, how unhealthy does this food item look to me. I make my first filter by looking at the food for a few seconds. Yet, if I get puzzled I then look at the nutrition facts to get a better idea of the amounts of elements this food might carry per serving. I  base my decision on the amounts of calories per serving, trans fats, sugars, and sodium. Yet, when it comes to juice, milk, eggs, and yogurt which contain high amounts of calcium, I them only purchase them if they are low-fat or organic.

Although my first consideration is to look at the nutrition facts of such foods, recently I also think about their environmental impact. After learning about the waste of packaging food, inefficiency of agricultural lands, energy lost in transportation and fish that is in danger of extinction, I now make sure that I am not contributing to such negative impacts. Yet, I feel largely disappointed, as many others do too, at the lack of knowledge and information about which products are environmentally sustainable, or how the product is taking more environmentally friendly choices. It is very difficult to even try to considerate the impact such food has on the environment because of the previous reasons,  in addition to higher costs of organic food choices. For these reasons, whenever I ask myself how is this product environmentally, it is usually an unanswered question.

Furthermore, when thinking about my recent purchases, I believe that the packaging of beverages- plastics and aluminum-has the greatest environmental impact. This always becomes apparent when collecting the bottles for recycling. Although, I try to recycle as much as possible, the packaging of other items always generates so much waste. I feel that this is because we are a market for products and the more elaborate and attracting a product looks, the more we want to buy it. Having lived in Ecuador for a great part of my life, I am always impressed when I go to the market there, and at how little packaging this type of shopping requires- usually a large basket in which all the fruits and vegetables are thrown into. I wonder if here in the United States, will we be able to see this as a common practice in the future?

What to eat?

When it came to looking at all the food that I have eaten over the weekend a lot of it was process and probably had some environmental impact. For the last two days I was at a track meet and ate foods that I associated with being at a track meet. This means my meals consisted of a lot of bagels, bananas, power bars (Luna and Soy Joy), PowerAde, water, and pasta dishes.

All of these foods have caused some type of environmental impact. For example the banana, it most likely did not come from the United States, but somewhere in South America, where it had to be shipped or flown in to the supermarket where I purchased it. The flyer miles that my bananas racked up probably have more than exceed the amount of miles I will fly this entire year. Plus there is the refrigeration that has to be accounted for. Bananas have to be kept at a certain temperature while traveling so they can arrive in the supermarket fresh, I cannot imagine how much energy must be used to just keep the bananas refrigerated.

Moving on from bananas and to my power bars, bagels, PowerAde all of this product include some form of corn or soy product. Soy and corn both dominate a vast amount of agriculture space and has lead to environmental degradation in large amounts of the Mid West. As large corn and soy farms are often monocultures that destroy the local ecology of the area. These farms also require a great amount of pesticides, fertilizers, and water. The first two find themselves in waterways and makes their way down into rivers creating dead zones.

My pasta dishes also probably had some corn in it. I had both of them at an Italian restaurant and can only assume that the meal was not entire cooked in the restaurant but instead made somewhere else and simply heated up and served to me. All the ingredients had to get assembled somewhere probably a good distances away, before making it to the restaurant, so like the banana my pasta dishes had to have racked up some flyer miles.

This is just looking at the environmental impact that my food had and not at the fact that everything was wrapped in plastic that was for the most part thrown out, because it had food on it was, non recyclable. The only things that did not get thrown out were the PowerAde bottles, because I can use them multiple times as water bottles.

After looking at this blog I realized that most of my choices when it came to choosing food over the weekend were based off of what was convenient and familiar to me. Think about the environment and what role my food had on it did not even cross my mind. But if I had to guess if I went to the exact same places and tried to eat with as little environmental impact, I am not sure I much I would be able to eat over the weekend, considering I was away.

Thoughts on Food

Honestly, my food choices are solely based on my own taste preferences, convenience and cost. I tend to like more organic, vegetarian-like options, but these (unfortunately) are almost always more expensive than the typical fare. Environmental considerations are not usually at the forefront of my decision-making process in the grocery store or at a restaurant. They might influence my choices more if I was more informed on the subject of the environmental impact of different food items.

In regards to the food items that I’ve consumed over the last couple of days, I would say that the food item with the largest environmental impact is rice. Rice paddies have posed a huge environmental problem for Southern China, but new irrigation techniques are slowly eliminating this impact. The beverage that caused the most environmental harm is the plastic bottle of Coca-Cola that I bought on Saturday. Unfortunately, the plastic bottle is very bad for the environment and could end up swirling somewhere in the Earth’s oceans – as we learned last class. 

Which Approach is the Right One, Obama?

       There seems to be many different approaches when it comes to reducing our country's reliance on fossil fuels as our source of energy. President Obama will propose ending the annual $4 billion in oil company subsidies, however when looking more in-depth into his proposal, it seems that we would be substituting one fossil fuel for another. Obama's policies support and encourage the switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas, and spending enormous amounts of money in developing technology that captures carbon dioxide emissions from oil refineries and coal plants. In other words, we would still be encouraging our reliance in fossil fuels by supporting the expansion of the natural gas industry, as well as the oil and coal industries, if a carbon capturer was created. Indeed, President Obama is also supporting alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar with a fifty percent increase in reserch spending for these, yet with heaving lobbying and a history of reliance it seems to me very difficult that President Obama will be successful in continuing with his proposed plan.

       Furthermore, as the country recuperates from the economic recession many people believe, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, that "if the president were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers". Many believe that by ending the subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, unemployment will soon follow. Yet they have ignored that by expanding alternative sources of energy, more jobs can also be created. The reality is that these industries, based on fossil fuels, have an enormous advantage over alternative sources of energy. Although some people propose putting a a price to carbon emissions or ending all subsidies to create an equal ground for all industries, I believe that if the government seriously wants to consider doubling the amount of electricity produced from cleaner technology by 2035, about 15 years from now, it should support the expansion and development of alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar energy.

How do we get to clean energy?

John Broder's piece in the New York Times makes the case that President Barack Obama is playing a two-sided game with oil and coal. Can he ever win? For the past two years Obama has been proposing moderate solutions to problems his addressed radically on the campaign trail, not because he believes the moderate solution is the correct one, but because the "right" solutions get shot down as socialist or big government before he can even propose them.

Playing with the economy is a tricky subject. If the 112 congress ends all energy subsidies, it will be on their heads when energy prices go up (and they will go up -- we do not pay even close to the true cost of energy). This does not mean it's right for congress to sit on their hands and pander to their biggest donors. Rather, it means we face a political system where it's far easier to do the popular thing and get reelected in four or six years than to do the right thing. Like a teenager needs the guiding and disciplining hand of a parent (although he may not realize or appreciate that until later), so America needs the guidance of its government.

Ideally, if all subsidies were removed from the energy market, clean energy would become the popular choice.  Realistically, it would take years for this to happen and our planet does not have years. Americans must be persuaded to make the right choice for their environment by subsidies for clean energy, low energy usage, and a removal of subsidies for coal and oil.

To Subsidize or Not to Subsidize?

I personally feel that the oil companies should not receive any more tax breaks or subsidies from the American government or any government for that matter. The oil companies are already a highly profitable industry, and the market for oil does not appear to be dying down any time soon. I am not quite sure, why tax breaks and subsidies are given to oil and coal companies, I can only assumed that it is because at one time they were seen as not having an advantage on the world market that has since changed. And since oil and coal companies now dominate the world market there is not further need to subsidies them.
The same cannot be said about other energy sectors, especially the renewable energy sector. The government should provide tax breaks for these industries at least until they can get their footing. Obama in his State of the Union Address stated that more jobs should be created in the renewable energy fields and in green jobs, but no one wants to privately start up these companies because there are high setup cost with no guarantee for returns, so one of the only ways to get these jobs started is to subsidies and provide tax breaks for them.
The flaw in this, however, is that no one is going to want to subsidies these industries once they are well off, this is to say that the renewable energy market gets off the ground. This is the major problem when the government steps in to subsidies any industry. Once the industry is up and running and no longer needs the help and the money, the government faces opposition from the industry for trying to cut back the tax breaks and subsidies. But with this aside if one of the current goals of this government is to get sustainable energy moving forward then, I feel that they should provide start up money to these industries. Michael Levi, the energy and climate change analyst, at the Council of Foreign Relations, makes and interesting point when he states, “But an effort to eliminate all energy subsidies without instituting better alternative policies should be understood for what it is: a recipe for cementing the dominance of additional fossil fuels against their competitors (Broder, NYT).” That statement is true if the government did not help support these industries the current energy companies such as oil and coal would continue to have the market advantage since all of their start up endeavors have already been laid down and they are at a point of making a return.
So what should our government do? In my opinion they should stop listening to oil and coal lobbyist and put the money they would have been provided to these industries into renewable energy sources. That way no new money is needed, it is just redirected into another industry.

Pick a Side, Any Side...

Even though I am not very well-read in this subject, I think that I can understand the basic thought process behind President Obama’s decision to cut subsidies to oil companies. The oil companies represent the enormous “big business” powers that he is trying to fight, and they have one of the largest (and strongest) lobby presences on Capitol Hill. However, I disagree with the way that President Obama is carrying out his plan to fight oil. First of all, although oil represents that largest energy sector in the United States, the article points out that there are many other environmentally damaging energy sectors that will still get incentives and subsidies from the government without punishment. It is an unfair attack on a single actor in a multi-actor problem.

Quite frankly, I think that President Obama needs to choose a definitive path for all energy options and stick diligently to that road. Either eliminate all subsidies on the energy sector or put them in (in smaller numbers) for both fossil fuels and clean-energy alternatives. Personally, I think that the subsidies should be removed entirely, but regardless, it is clear that President Obama needs to make a stand in one direction or the other – he cannot continue to meander down the middle of the road. 

Obama's Right Decision

I personally agree with President Obama's decision because as Dr. Kreutzer said “petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies." However, this also means "slowing development of cleaner-burning fuel sources," but I dont think it's going to be a big problem because there is always demand for coal and petroleum, and the US is one of the developed countries in the world, I dont think its economy drastically decreases just because there is no longer subsidies for an industry. Another good thing about eliminating subsidies is that we can reduce greengas emission because if there is no subsidies for oil companies, the price of oil increases, and people would not use cars as often as they used to be (probably). I think the government can use $4 billion for investing in clean-technology ventures that helps to improve the environment instead of using it as subsidies for an industry.

Cleaner technology is not our savior

Hlaue makes a point an excellent point as she established that if we are to use technology for our environmental problems, we first ought to address the root causes. It seems that many people are confident that technology can be used in a positive manner to reduce carbon emmissions.Indeed, many corporations, cities, and governments have come up with "Green Codes" or clean enery iniciatives that will reduce our fossil fuel consumption and create greater enery efficiency. Even Thomas Friedman has laid out the missin of statement of this new movement, "To built a technologically advance America, a shining green city on a hill and then the Chinese will emulate us". Yet it is important to understand that there is much more than a mission statement to resolve the environmental crisis.

Technology can absolutely be used in a positive manner by focusing in the creation of products that can lower their impact in the environment. It seems that cleaner technology might be our savior, yet we cannot leave behind the social and economic aspects that motivate us to actually make use this "new technology". There are great ideas in mind, even the United States plans to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020. However, for this transformation to occur we must also acknowledge how will this technology complement our social and economic plans we as individual have, as local communities and as a nation. For this reason, I strongly believe that it is crucially important to include these sectors too; cleaner technology is not our savior.

Global Carbon Emissions, total and per capita

The Use of Technology as a Diversion

While part of me agrees with  Yumiko and Christine - technology has improved some aspects of our lives such as food production and medical care - there is also no denying that in addition to causing harm to our environment, some technologies have left us with a deteriorated quality of life. Our ability to think creatively has been diminished by mass media and and non-participatory entertainment. Because of this, we are unable to effectively use technology to reduce our impact on the environment to the extent necessary.

In the past 30 years there have been a number of technological advances that have prevented toxins from escaping into the atmosphere. We have developed SO2 scrubbers and hybrid cars. But these "solutions" do not address the true problems behind sulfur or CO2 emissions. SO2 scrubbers do not reduce the amount of sulfur being produced, but merely capture that SO2. Hybrid cars do not address the harms of personal transportation or fossil fuel dependence, but merely reduce the CO2 emitted (and they're not even particularly good at that).

Technology has allowed us to create solutions for symptoms while still denying the severity of the underlying cause. What is worse is that many of the problems we face arise from previous technological advances. Yes, it is wonderful that we are able to produce enough food for our ever-growing population due to agricultural technologies, but would we have the problem of over population and land-use change (forest to cropland) that we have if we had never developed the farm technology we have today?

We must accept that technology cannot be the solution to our environmental problems, if we continue to deny the root of those problems.

Technology good or bad?

Technology has moved us forward to the place we are now, but at a cost to our environment. Technological advances really started with the Industrial Revolution and have continued into the technological age, but with every technological advance environmental damage is being done. For example, back in the 1800’s the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the start of what can be said is the advancement of technology, no one knew the amount of damage being done to the environment. They might have had a slight chance of knowing that damage was being done to their health however, when they were not able to breathe the local air or see the sky for that matter. A new technology brought the industrial world out of seeing skies filled with coal smoke and into a “cleaner” world and that technology was the world’s developed to the use of oil.

But as time has gone on the realization that oil, is not the clean substitute that it was held to be. And now in the 21th century, it would make sense for us to look at our world and change. Some people call for more technology, but what I am beginning to understand about technology is even if we find some substitute for oil, the new technological advancement, could have environmental impacts that we just don’t know about yet. Then when this new technology comes out, there is the process of getting the materials, through extraction of the environment.

An example of technology appearing to solve a current problem is the technology used to spark the green revolution. Farmers in Asia were able to approve crop yields by buying genetically modified seeds; the seeds however needed more water, which required a mass amount of irrigation along with a need to buy more seeds the next year instead of relying on the same seed to produce future yields. Not only did it this new technological innovation lead to a heavier increase in irrigation, but also a heavier use of pesticides, that went into destroying the local environment and creating a dependency of farmers on expensive seeds and tools, all in the name to increase crop yields, that were made available with technology.

Which leads me to my conclusion that technology on one side appears to be good for the human race in general, but as we use technology to solve of our current problems, new problems emerge.

Tied to Technology

Because technology is such an integral part of daily life in the industrialized countries (such as the United States), I think that it is impossible to present it as a negative force – any significant environmental change will have to evolve in tandem with technological advancement. And as developing countries experience exponential growth, their key to success is technology. Consequently, neither party is willing to give up technology at the cost of their current or future economic success and societal happiness.

While I understand that technology has harmed the environment, the benefits of technological advancement should not be ignored. As Yumiko already stated, human quality of life has vastly improved as technology improved; these advances are clearly seen in higher life expectancy rates, the lowering of widespread disease (and sometimes, the total elimination of a disease), higher education levels, and an international economic boost. Since people are very acutely aware of the ways that technology has helped their individual lives, they will be loath to decrease that technological influence. Therefore, regardless of whether technology holds the key to a resolution of the world’s environmental challenges or not, the public is too attached to technology for any other solution to be totally accepted.

Personally, I am constantly impressed with the ways in which technology vastly improves our lives, and I think that people will use technology to help the environmental problems in the world. Technology is a slippery slope, and I think that the global society has passed the point of no return, and therefore, must embrace technology as part of the ultimate solution to the world’s environmental challenges. Technology must be included in any meaningful conversation about the deteriorating environmental condition, but it doesn’t have to be the only solution that the world relies on. I think that we should embrace technology but supplement it with additional solutions that the environmental experts have suggested.

Technology

I think to a great extent, I think technology is a positive effect in our lives because our quality of life has improved (well, at least I think) than what we had long time ago. Without technology's help, we wouldn't be able to get such high life expectancy rates, literacy rates, and more. Today, because of the Internet, we can readily search something that we want to know. Before technology had improved, we had to go to the library, or find some type of sources to answer the question. So in terms of quality of life, I think technology is a positive effect. However, I also think that technology is a negative effect on the environment. And this negative effect is actually reflected on us. For example, due to Ozone layer depletion, we, humans, absorb more heat (ultraviolet) than ever before. And this increases the posibility of getting skin cancer. Also, some of the people, who live close to the shore, lost their homes because the temperature of the planet has been increasing over the years which triggered to increase the sea level due to melting ice in antarctica.
So, I think technology has both a positive and a negative effect. However, even there is a negative effect, humans won't stop relying on technology anyway because we are all sellfish (that's what I think), and we want to live comfortably and happily. So I guess we have to find a solution that we can continue using technology while save the environment. And I'm sure one day, someone will find it! :)

The Reality of Living with Limits

Thomas Homer-Dixon’s essay clearly states the limits of resources that exist in the world and how these are already restricting economic growth. I agree with this assertion, yet I think there are many ways to address this issue. Indeed as the “market liberals” argue, economic growth is crucial for the development of a community by funding education, cleaner water and air, technology advancements, healthcare, and infrastructure, among others. Yet, the problem is that inevitably this economic growth also creates inequality. The results are developing nations that struggle to meet their population needs; therefore they must exploit their natural resources, often creating great environmental damage. While, the more developed nations continue to grow, creating better health and social conditions for their citizens, yet also increasing consumption and omitting enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is the reality of the situation, the reality of our economic system. Indeed, economic development has created better conditions, but at the expense of the environment. Although the market liberals also agree that economic development generates environmental degradation, the solutions they propose do not emphasize the urgency of taking immediate responses. It is clear that their focus is on economic growth, and I do not believe that the solution to this issue should have one central focus point.

Similarly to the social greens, I agree that there are many steps that can be taken to better manage the environmental situation of the Earth. Among these, directing greater attention to local communities and generating sustainable practices that generate profits for social services. For example, the Ese’eja people, from the Peruvian Amazon has parternered with Rainforest Expedition, a tourist company, and opened an eco-lodge called the Tambopata Research Center. This area offers an opportunity for natives to share their in-sight knowledge about the region and the tourist to enjoy wildlife viewing and a truly unique experience. I believe that to respond to the reality of the state of natural resources, there is not one solution, yet it is an effort that must require a variety of actions and creative alternatives. I do believe that the power and value that local communities have is exceptional, yet often underestimated.

No More Growth

I think there is something to be said about Thomas Homer Dixon’s article “Economies Just Can’t Keep Growing”. He hits an issue that we all should be looking at and that the current growth that we are used to seeing in markets that are based off of the Earth resources is going to come to an end as we deplete more of these resources. Take for example the United States dependency on oil. Oil is not an unlimited resource and someday oil is going to be depleted. And with its depletion leading to new hard ships, sure there are those who say we can switch to other resources. But someday those resources are going to run out. This argument can be said with not just oil but with also coal and other natural gases.
What I find refreshing about Dixon’s article is he does not only present us coming to a shortage of these raw materials as being an environmental problem, but an economical problem and a development problem. All of our economies are based off of what we produce and if a country is unable to produce anything because they no longer have any resources. Then their economies are not going to be able to grow, leading to economic decline or just flat out stagnation.
Dixon also shows how this is going to be a problem for the developing nations who are looking to advance economically on the global stage. With a decrease in raw materials this will be even harder for these countries to get a footing, keeping them in the same position that they are in now. And for developed countries a decrease in raw materials will lead to people having to readjust their lives and learning to accept the fact that they are not going to be able to live the life style that there use to. In a board sense Dixon is alluding to a world where we are always in an economic recession, with no outlook of growth every again.

The Feasibility of Home-Dixon's Social Greenism

The article by Thomas Homer-Dixon paints a grim picture for the future of our society. “Unconventional Wisdom” lays out an exponentially increasing path of destruction for the Earth as economic growth expands beyond the natural resources available to fuel it. He gives a number of different examples of future failings in the environment – rare-earth element shortages are already threatening many industries and the petroleum is requiring more and more energy to harvest (Homer-Dixon says that it has dropped from 100/1 in the 1930s to only 15/1 at present in the United States).

However, after Thomas Homer-Dixon lays out the grave circumstances of continuous economic growth, his conclusion is even more disturbing. As he states, “humankind is in a box.” For everyone in the world that is living on under $2 a day, economic growth is necessary for survival now – but this same growth is leading to an early end for life on the planet. It is a vicious cycle that Homer-Dixon thinks can only be altered through a drastic restructuring of societal thought.

Because of the direction that he believes society must take in order to reach a solution, I agree with Hannah and Yumiko that Homer-Dixon would be classified as a social green based on the system developed by Clapp and Dauvergne in Paths to a Green World. His argument is based on over-use of the planet, massive harmful consumption and the destruction that this use causes, and his answer is focused on societal change. In his mind, people must first change their mind before they can actually make a significant and meaningful change in their actions. Is this possible?

Unfortunately, I don’t know if this sweeping societal change is feasible. Ultimately, in the mind of Thomas Homer-Dixon, the world’s poor are actually the hingepiece for change. He places them in a catch-22 in regards to the planet’s future – survive now or survive later. How can you explain that choice to someone living in a mud hut in rural Kenya?

Homer-Dixon's I=PAT

Thomas Homer-Dixon takes on fossil fuels as a symbol of uncontrolled economic growth in his piece for "Foreign Policy." This growth increases climate change which will, as he says, halt growth. Homer-Dixon places himself in the camp social greens, as described by Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne in their book Paths to a Green World, focused on the harm of over-consumption

We are, in Homer-Dixon's mind, a stubborn population, set on continual growth, and hurtling ourselves towards self-destruction. Without a fundamental change of mind, we will continue to wreak havoc on our world, until the world will force us to stop.

Worse still, Homer-Dixon argues that the first world unfairly puts the burden of environmental change on the residents of third world countries. He points out that 2.7 billion people live on under $2 a day, and need economic growth to survive. But, as he also mentions, first-worlders need economic growth to escape debt and maintain peace. So who do we ask to cut back first?

Small steps are not enough, especially if not everyone is taking them

     Michael Maniates opinion piece titled, Going Green? Easy doesn't do it, mentions the question that it is often asked by many, What else can I do? As he argues, there is a strong campaign for conservation and recycling that many citizens are following either through guides in books or simply by listening to what others are doing. They are advertised to be "simple" and "easy" steps that may guarantee a more sustainable future. Yet are consumer choices a strong enough force to make a significant difference in the already damaged Earth?
    Indeed, there are many Americans that are more aware of the condition of our environment and of the implications that come in hand with the current state of the Earth's natural resources. Many people are now adapting more "eco-friendly" activities and practices. And as Maniates argues, some people are even willing to go further and are asking more advise on what to do next. Yet, how many Americans are actually thinking this way? Not as many as we hope to see, and even if all do our part, Is this enough?
    Us, consumers can only go so far, if we really aspire to change the direction of climate change in the future, in addition to more sustainable practices, we must advocate for and encourage more strict regulations and policies for environmental protection. Maniates is highly optimistic in his idea that Americans are willing to take more action. This might be true compared to other societies, but just us won't do it.
     The reality of this argument is that the majority of us have by now heard of the degraded condition of our environment, yet not all of us are doing anything about this. We might feel encourage to take these "easy" steps, but to be able to actually make a difference, we must first start by changing a lot of our consumer habits and in a country based on consumerism, this will take a revolution in the mindset of many. It seems that the day we will see more evident changes will be when it directly affect us more harshly.

Going Green

In Michael Maniates; opinion piece, he writes for environmentalist and politicians to ask for more from the American people when it comes to taking ‘green steps’ to improving our environment. The common pleas from politicians to just recycle and to change our light bulbs to conserve energy is something that he feels should be reconsidered, and that politicians and environmentalist should ask for the American people to make bigger adjustments in their lives. I agree with Michael Maniates to a point, that the American people should try to make more of an effort to preserve our environment, like trying to reduce their over all consumption. But that is easier said than done.
Take for example the DC bag law that went into effect last year. I do not know the political back and forth that went on, but I can imagine there was some opposition to the new law. An arguement could have been for the lower income families, who simply saw the new $0.05 price on bags as adding up in the future. Getting the bag law past, probably took a large amount lobbying. But according to Maniates a policy such as the bag law is simply not enough to make a change, but I would disagree with him and say that it puts in people’s mind to the idea to use reusable bags, because they do not want to spend the extra $0.05. It reduces the cities consumption of plastic bags, which in turn can possibly reduce the number of plastic bag manufactured. It is one small step that adds up in the bigger picture.
Yes, it would be great if Americans decided to drive small, efficient cars or instead of driving cars decided to use more public transportation. But for a politician to push for something like that, he or she would probably lose his office. With the way this country works sometimes it takes several small steps to make one big giant step. The American people first have to get comfortable with the idea of actually going green is more than reusable light bulbs and recycling, but bigger changes. But for now using those reusable light bulbs and recycling is a good step in the right direction. It’s better than nothing.

Is the easy too hard?

One of the things that strikes me about Michael Maniates' op-ed piece is his faith in the American people to act. The underlying assumption of his piece, which argues that Americans are willing to do more to save the environment they just don't know what to do, is that the fault lies with "environmental elites and political leaders" who ask too little of those they lead.

I would argue that the willingness of most Americans to save the environment peaks with asking the question of "What can I do?" So many of us know the easy answers of recycling, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, taking shorter showers, and fail to do even that. How can Maniates expect anyone to ask for more?

I wish the world were as Maniates suggests - full of people sitting on their hands, anxiously awaiting the next instruction on how to save the world. But the reality is the world is more like a preschool classroom, where everyone stopped paying attention as soon as the directions started.

I am sure there are people who have taken these first steps and have not gone further, but I don't think this is because they don't know what to do. Rather, I think these people have taken the steps they are willing to take, and have decided that their ability to save the environment ends there. Most people know exactly what the next step they can take to save the environment is, they are just unwilling to take it.