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.