Take aways

As this was my first formal introduction into the world of international environmental politics, I feel as if I will leave the course with a new found grasp of the challenges and opportunities within the field. In particular, I found our section on food industrialization as well as competing theories within the field regarding potential solutions to climate change.

It was fascinating to me to learn about the Green Revolution and today's global industrial food system. The tension between strategies to eradicate hunger and the long term implications of food mechanization. How can we feed the world's hungry in a way that they will be able to sustain themselves and their families for generations to come? Does the food system need to be overhauled completely as Jenny Edkins proposes or do we need to address market entitlement failures as espoused by Amartya Sen? Trial and error seems to be at work here. How can we know for sure that the solutions we propose will not negatively impact all stakeholders involved?

As we moved through the course and delved deeper and deeper into the challenges of climate change, the light ahead of the tunnel seemed to disappear. For me, I began to regain hope with William McDonough and Michael Braungart's cradle-to-cradle methodology and ideas of eco-efficiency. Although criticized for playing into the very system that has destroyed our environment and impacted human health, I believe their work to be quite effective. I appreciate their vision that "industry can be safe, effective, enriching, and intelligent... humans can incorporate the best of technology and culture" (Cradle to Cradle 87). I think that their approach is key to creating new paradigms regarding our relationship with nature, the way we create products, and understand production and consumption cycles. In this way, Mcdonough and Braungart can be seen as a small group of individuals making a big impact on the environment. I hope to see more of their eco-effective vision in the future.

International Environmental Politics—One of the best classes I have taken

Before taking Global Environmental Politics I knew nearly nothing about the environmental situation; I would also say I had nearly no concern regarding it. As the semester started, I felt a like I was thrown into a freezing cold bath tub shocked as I learned all the insane facts about the strain being put on the environment and the current and potential repercussions.

What had the greatest impact on me was learning about how much growth in population and equivalently consumption has happened since the Industrial Revolution. It blew my mind seeing the charts spike up, and that’s what really made me concerned for the future of our world. Then learning about all the complex contributors to environmental degradation and how changing policy and changing the environmental situation is likewise very difficult helped me grow my abilities to analyze difficult situations faced today. Examining successful changes in environmental policy and innovations, learning about different viewpoints regarding a breadth of environmental concerns, and being presented the opportunity to take my own initiative to help the environment through a class project were the most beneficial aspects of the course. I have never taken a course that has sparked so much interest in me than this has. Because of this class I just decided to switch from concentrating in International Development to Environmental Politics. Next Spring I am even planning to study abroad in India in a program focusing on environmental concerns and will conduct my own research surrounding this.

Overall it is not so much all of the details and facts I learned that were the most beneficial but the strong spark of concern I am left with, the small changes in lifestyle I have subconsciously been making since the start of the class, the knowledge I share with my friends and family, and the enhanced ability to analyze and think critically about how to change the environmental situation today.

Looking Back at International Environmental Politics

Coming into SIS 388 as a senior i saw this class as just another roadblock in my way of graduation. I needed another policy class and i was intrigued by a class that provided both science and politics in the same course. After the first week of class we had the assignment of finding out our individual carbon footprint, after that class i was hooked. I enjoyed many of the in class assignments as well as discussions. There aren't that many classes that I've taken where the Professor allowed the class to fully be open and discuss there views on different environmental topics in this matter and even when people differed in views i learned a lot from both sides. The one thing i learned about the most and found interesting was human consumption on natural resources. Finding out how much we consumed after WW2 compared to now; and then to see charts on future predictions based on statistics struck the heart. Because environmental problems may not seem so big now but when were older and have kids we'll still be dealing with it and will have our kids to worry about while bringing them up in a world where resources might be scarce and the weather patterns will not be stable. This course slowly became probably the best course I've taken in my college years both as a student in New York and here at American.

I was able to use class readings and lectures for my environmental group in my Government class where we needed to pick a topic in the environment/energy and find solutions that the U.S government could use to help better the situation. I went onto portray Professor Nicholson in a class of 50 students where a few of his former and current students were in as well. Though my concentration was Islamic Studies at AU and will be in my future i plan on combining my knowledge in this class with Islam as i get older. Acknowledging environmental problems, respecting our surroundings, and monitoring our consumption are all things that the Muslim world can learn as well as implement into their lives.

Reinventing the World Using Our Brains

 Cradle to Cradle, by McDonough and Braungart expresses a fresh positive view into how to change the environmental situation we see today. They argue that so many products are made to be thrown away. He questions why we can’t use human ingenuity and creativity to produce products that can be continually reused and products that do not tremendously deplete natural resources. A pretty shocking statistic that shows the extreme wastefulness of the current system is that what we see in our garbage cans are only 5% of the raw materials actually used to create and distribute these products. He also expresses issues with recycling, and how it is only slowing down the process of environmental degradation but not solving anything. As items are recycled they become of less quality and then must be processed a lot to get back to a good quality material. This process, they term downcycling, is one of the many inefficient ineffective processes we use to attempt to help the environmental situation.

McDonogh and Braungart seek to change the current vision of eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness. They see this by changing the way items are created, what they are made of, and so forth. His book is a living example of this as it is not made from degrading the forest, but it is made from a plastic that can forever be recycled, without being downcycled. Although I completely agree with their push towards eco-effectiveness, I do however believe there should be a shift in the way people consume. Cradle to Cradle explains that consumption is not really a problem, the problem is how the products are made. Overconsumption itself is a type of disease and no matter how perfect our products are, will always contribute to pollution and waste. I definitely believe that in addition to eco-effectiveness, there needs to be an eradication of overconsumption. Overall I feel that if a decent amount of large companies get on board with creating more eco-effective products, it could tremendously impact the environmental situation we see today. This however will be a challenging feat, but nevertheless plausible.

The practicality of the eco-effective approach

McDonough & Braungart give an interesting characterization of our system of design. They remind us that even though activity is seen as prosperity, cultural and environmental effects are not taken into account. Not only has our system of standardization, mechanization, and efficiency successfully depleted and destroyed the Earth, but our solutions are lacking in imagination. Traditionally, we have viewed the environment as a hostile and in need of control.
Instead, McDonough & Braungart recommend looking beyond our conventional environmental approaches that purport to “be less bad” and advise us to embrace what they call an eco-effective approach. That is, we must shift from a system of controlling nature to engaging nature. We must abandon a cradle to grave approach and work towards a cradle to cradle approach. In this way, we must commit to a new paradigm, transform our values, and design products that are both biological nutrients and technical nutrients. The authors imagine “if each new addition to a human community deepened ecological and cultural as well as economic wealth” (90).
I appreciate the authors’ visionary approach to resolving the environmental dilemma. They explain the ways in which cradle to cradle solutions are not only environmental significant but also economically beneficial. Their textile example in which they developed a biologically nutrient fabric, seems to be an important model for shifting to eco-effective approaches. Additionally, Ford’s River Rouge new sustainability manufacturing agenda demonstrates the ability of large and traditionally destructive companies to shift to improve environmental performance without conflicting with financial goals. While these examples seem to demonstrate hope for the eco-effective vision, I am skeptical of the real impact of eco-effectiveness. In theory their idea makes sense, but when applied to the complexities of the economy, solutions to monstrous hybrids seems daunting. I wish that the authors were more keen to outline the financial and political risks to companies of switching from a cheap, harmful, wasteful, and mechanized system to one that prioritizes safe and biodegradable substances with attention to upcycling. I am skeptical that profit-minded companies will easily become eco-effective designers who “consider the purpose of a product or system and consider the whole” (82).

Review

The book gave a very authentic and original look at the environment and they give some interesting examples on how small things in the house can become big problems. The introduction to the book talks about the home environment but they choose certain objects within it and in a way show a drastic/emotional look at how it can be harmful. They mention how the computer in the house is toxic and it will eventually be burned out and when they throw it out the computer will release its toxins into the environment, the dust from the printer is toxic. They looked at alot of things in a cradle to cradle view and with every object even when it will be disposed the authors talk about how that product will be in another cycle after-wards. The authors also talked or referred to down cycling which is the process of taking old wasted products and making them into new ones.

This book can be a source for many different professionals as they cover different topics from consumption, talk about values of technology, environmental protection and talk about the industrialists. McDonough and Braungart express




there arguments







.

Dr. Seuss inspired poem

Here is our new ending to Dr. Seuss's The Lorax:


So Now..Go Back to town

there's something to do
you must tell them it's true
and make a revolu

a revolu--what's that?

well first gather up those who care
for a cause like ours if you dare
It's time to act it's only fair

For it's this idea, this knowledge you must share
Once it takes root, it's uphill from there

As long as there's change, there'll be no more despair

Obama's on the Fast Track

In Obamas recent speech at Georgetown University he showed how courageous he is in his fight for new sources of energy in the US—as gas prices are rising, he is still sticking to what he believes will help America in the long-run. Obama really hit a key point as he expressed the necessity for the US to rid itself of its long-run dependency on oil. His pledge to reduce oil imports by a third by 2025 is a tremendous step in pushing the clean energy industries forward and putting fire under the belly of new innovations.

Obama is promoting natural gas, renewable biofuels, fuel-efficient vehicles, high speed rail and mass transit expansion, and nuclear energy to replace the fossil fuels and oil we are currently surviving on. I feel that most of these would tremendously help the environment but disagree that nuclear energy should be used. I say this because we do not know if it will be safe for generations to follow. America has a tendency of just approving things and claiming them as safe and then down the line everyone finds out that in fact they are detrimental to society. This is just like some pharmaceutical drugs that claim to be very safe and then ten, twenty years down the line they create serious problems for people. We do not want to jump into using nuclear energy. Also Obama seeks for more oil to be drilled in the US but this seems pretty contradictory to all of his other claims of ridding ourselves of dependency of a resource that is running out—oil and wanting more clean energy sources.

I like that he highlighted the push for a new energy sector would create more jobs because this is what Americans want to hear. It is good to frame the move towards clean energy as boosting our economy, and catching up to the rest of the world, not just focusing on environmental concerns. This being said, I felt Obama could have focused a little more on the environmental concerns surrounding the use of fossil fuels and oil.  We are not just fighting for this because of economic reasons but also for the sake of the environment.

I believe Obama is definitely on the right track as he has already made major steps in efforts to turn the environmental situation and oil dependency around. This has been the first time in a long time that a President is taking action on these concerns. This summer the government will introduce fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks, and will soon spread to cars. Overall, Obama is making great strides in moving one of the biggest contributors to environmental degradation in a direction that will enhance economic and environmental well-being.

Where should the focus be?

Obama’s plan to reduce oil imports by a third by 2025 was announced at an interesting moment, politically. Amid plans to secure a second term in the White House, is this renewed focus on the state of our energy consumption a political opportunity or risk? Perhaps he is thinking of youthful progressives who sway on the side of environmental action or perhaps the public response will be concern regarding funding for his greener vision. In any case, only time will tell how meaningful the President’s rhetoric.

With support from the Obama administration, companies that are already utilizing fuel efficient vehicles and alternative energy sources will likely benefit. In addition, Obama’s plan will likely provide incentives for those who choose to switch to greener practices. This seems to be a good idea…and while I agree with increasing the availability and incentives for fuel-efficient cars as well as investing in high-speed rail and mass transit, I’m not so sure about Obama’s plan regarding increases in domestic oil production. This doesn’t seem to agree with his point that we need to “make the transition to a clean energy economy.” Perhaps the focus shouldn’t be on reducing oil imports by 2025, rather investing in alternative energies, which would decrease oil imports and domestic oil production.

Moving Forward

It was interesting to see that one article was written after he made his speech at Georgetown University and in that same article the writer pointed out to President Obama visiting the UPS shipping plant in Maryland. Something that both articles narrowed in on was Obama's administration and there goal in having the big 5 companies switching their transportation fuels from gas to fuel efficient as well as domestically produced oil. Its a definite sign of moving ahead as he has made a pact with Verizon, UPS, FedEx, Pepsi, and AT&T. These five companies are America's biggest commercial fleets and they have all agreed to use 20,000 fuel-efficient vehicles by saving over 7 million gallons of diesel/gas a year. Between the 5 companies they combine for almost 300,000 vehicles which is an significant amount especially if that will mean 300,000 vehicles that are not being hazardous.

With the way the economy and international world has been going through the first quarter of this year, President Obama has been doing an efficient job in keeping his word from the State of the Union address. On answering the question if there on the right track, they've been doing a lot more recently than Bush did previously or Clinton before him. Washington has been occupied with wars and terrorism for a while and for them to pursue and be persistent in saving energy and changing fuel reliance is a positive sign. I would suggest that the administration also talk to the public school system and push them to make their busses more environmentally friendly as we know that school busses are provided from elementary school to high school throughout the country. And if the President wants to be more specific i would ask him to narrow down to certain cities like Los Angeles and New York to clean up the city via transportation, street vendors, offices, etc. I look forward to seeing where the U.S is in one year with their concern and goals of energy.

A Critical Eye

When reading information regarding almost any topic, one must acquire both sides of the story and weigh these for which is more true. There is much information on the world-wide web about climate change and one must have a critical eye when reading all sides—not simply believing each thing that we read. The Friends of Science non-profit organization clearly does not believe that climate change is a man-made problem. They state “climate always changes without help from man” and that “the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change”. As they use previous data and research, they create claims to support their argument such as CO2 not causing warming but reverse—warming releases CO2 from the ocean, the earth is cooling and violent weather is not getting worse. They are however concerned about the environment and changing polices on pollution. This organization searches for evidence that support their claim in that humans are not the cause of climate change and excess C02 is not the cause. They do not preset counter information so when one views this, they must realize there is much information that is being withheld from them and in return a balanced argument is not presented. Therefore, when I read the articles on the site I was always being skeptical and would have liked to see more evidence and full discussions of issues.  

The section “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming” by the non-profit organization Grist presents clearly people’s most common questions of why they are skeptical about global warming and scientific answers to them. They have evidence refuting the claim that CO2 only increases with warming and does not contribute to it. This website clearly is in support of human causation of global warming and seeks to educate the public and especially those skeptical of global warming about the true causes and effects of it. With over 50 claims, one may also not read everything and believe all that we see. I feel that it is necessary to do additional research to gain better understandings of the issues.

Each NGO presents their side of the story of causes of global warming, backing it up with scientific evidence. The Grist website is definitely more interesting to read and is more convincing as it has clear answers to the many questions that global warming skeptics have. Their answers are also backed up by much scientific evidence and direct you to other websites to find out more. Overall I believe these websites provide a good starting point for a person who wants to understand about climate change. After reading sections on both websites, I am encouraged to delve further into the issues and do additional research to form my opinions.

Compare and Contrast

Though both these websites target the believers, non-believers, speculators, and confused people on the topic of climate change, each website addresses it in a different way. The GRIST.org website targets the crowd that is skeptic about climate change and start off by talking about the stages of denial which i found funny. The website is split into four categories: stages of denial, scientific topics, types of arguments, levels of sophistication. I think this website is great for those are skeptic, confused, and or not knowledgeable because within each major topic they have three main points that are broken down even more and the reader is provided a link for each fact that is said as it is elaborated even more beyond the bullet point. This site is also in my opinion targeted to the older and more educated crowd that goes beyond college as it also brings up many past events, historical significance, and political references.

The friends of science website is a lot more simpler. It gives 6 points which portrays there thoughts and opinions as one of the "things you should know about climate change" include how Al Gore was wrong about CO2 and how computer models were proven wrong. In each of the 6 points the site tries to make it leads to another link where each site has a graph that shows the point that there trying to make. To me personally the graph shows a lot of things that can just make the reader confused or not care.

Both these sites i noticed a .org which probably means they are both non profit organizations. They both have lots of scientific references but i think the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" is a better website since it provides a lot more information and has the facts in bullet points. This website has a section for different backgrounds; if i looked at both websites as someone who didn't know anything about climate change it would be easier for me to read GRIST because the facts are listed right there and the entire argument that they want to convince me with are on one page and it is very easy to see. The Friends of Science website has links/tabs that cover other topics but it just seems like climate change was part of the website and not there specific...again looking at it from someone who's looking at the website for the first time. When i see economic, policies, news/events, census etc it turns me away or just dulls the mood.

Nigeria: Taking Strides

In the article "Meet the Young Woman Passionately Spreading the world on Climate Change in Nigeria", it tells a story about a 25 year old woman who has been a environmental sustainability advocate named Esther Agbarakwe. She's been to over 12 countries talking about climate change and the policy issues behind them. She says that climate change has affected Nigeria with disasterious effects in regards to changes in rainfall and season cycle. Agriculture, food production, and water supply are all adversely effected. in 2010 the Nigeria Meterological Agency predicted heavy rainfall which would bring more floods to the country which is why she is striving for Nigerians to become aware of climate change on top of many other reasons. Her organization works with young people in school in urban and rural areas by using local language and folk tales whereas in the suburban areas they use the English language and ICT tools.

Its great to hear stories like this especially considering the condition in Nigeria as it can be classified as a third world country. The country has gone through military dictatorship, corruption, sky rocketing oil prices, and POVERTY. It's nice to see a form of white light come out of everything and push for something that will also affect the entire world. Any human being living in similar conditions in Nigeria clearly have bigger issues to worry about than global warming and climate change. But even though the global North takes initiative as most countries are well established and functioning we will need help from second and third world countries as climate change also effects them. Having organizations helping out the youth in schools in suburbans and in urban areas definitely is a boost on awareness and we will need nations outside of the usual U.S, England, Sweden etc to push forward with addressing the issues. We can just hope to find more people regardless of gender everywhere to address the issues of climate change no matter what country there from. Hopefully stories like this can trickle into countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India where their is a huge problem in the environmental world their as pollution, toxic waste, and natural disasters have effected them dearly in the past couple of years.

http://www.bellanaija.com/2011/02/28/meet-the-young-woman-passionately-spreading-the-word-on-climate-change-in-nigeria-environmental-sustainability-advocate-esther-agbarakwe/

Innovative Competitions--Motivation to Change

The article, “Can Open Innovation Save the Planet,” gives great insight into how to motivate companies to go more green. Through the Eco-Challenge Series (open innovation competitions) hosted by the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the leading innovation research companies, InnoCentive, businesses have the opportunity to become more eco-friendly while accelerating their business. The goal of this competition is to create more environmentally friendly means of producing and distributing goods while helping the company also maximize revenue through creating new markets, enhancing their brand, etc. They have had successful innovations such as redesigned packaging of McDonald’s, hybrid trucks with FedEx, and next generation solar technology with Walmart. All of these innovations have become a model for other companies to follow.

            InnoCentive brings together the world’s most creative thinkers to solve the tough environmental challenges we are facing today. I think this is a very good way to approach the environmental challenge. With many innovators working together so much more will be developed. Not only this but it allows companies to be pushed in the right direction when they might not have otherwise. For example, because of McDonald’s partnership with the ESF and InnoCentive, it was able to reduce it’s sandwich packaging by 70-90%, reduce paper use by 21%, and more. McDonald's eliminated over 300 million pounds of packaging, recycled 1 million tons of corrugated boxes, and reduced restaurant waste by 30 percent. This not only is tremendously better for the environment but also saved the company an estimated 6 million dollars per year.

            This type of innovation is definitely replicable as many companies can follow these innovations that McDonald’s has had, as well those that other companies have had. Through the challenge series, many more unique ideas can be discovered and applied by other companies. This gives me hope in that companies have an incentive to go green as it can help them with gaining more revenue. If more green innovators teamed up with companies and tried to figure out viable solutions to help both the environment and their business, I am sure their would be a lot less energy used, waste produced, and a lot less strain on the environment.

The article can be found at:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1730712/can-open-innovation-save-the-planet

NYC takes a step for the environment?

Last Wednesday, the New York Times printed an article entitled City to Replace School Lighting Tainted by PCBs . Evidently, the devices that regulate electric current for fluorescent lights was leaking the toxic chemical compound, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) onto light fixtures and tiles in New York public schools. Knowledge of this has outraged parents and officials across NYC for months and has sparked EPA campaigns to address the issue. Although the specific dangers of exposure remain foggy, PCB has been linked to cancer and poor cognitive development. Interestingly, PCB production was banned in 1979 by the US Congress. Luckily, NYC is responding with $708 million and an effort to remove PCB lighting fixtures in 800 city school buildings over the next 10 years. The light fixtures will be replaced with energy efficient lighting. Another added benefit is that the building will be energy audited. The result will be recommendations on how to improve the buildings’ energy efficiency. Additionally, the benefit of energy efficiency is framed in terms of money saved.

The article is interesting in that it doesn’t encapsulate the full danger of PCB. It highlights the health concerns as opposed to the environmental impacts. For example, PCB is toxic not only to humans, but also to wildlife. It is considered a persistent organic pollutant (POP), which basically means that PCBs do not naturally breakdown and accumulate in the environment and build up in human and animal tissue.

This story is an effective form of action, but with a caveat. It appears the city is taking steps towards energy efficiency but only following action from the public as well as leading groups, such as the EPA. The money and plan to replace the lighting fixtures is important because it addresses health concerns and also energy efficiency. Yet, the change’s purpose is health related, not environmental. Thus, this suggests that action is more easily garnered when human health is directly threatened, as opposed to environmental health. This article gives me hope only for environmental issues that are seen as directly impacting human health, as opposed to environmental issues that will impact human health in the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/science/earth/24pcb.html?ref=science

We are what we eat

The notion that we are what we eat is normally what I think of when I walk down the grocery store isle. Although I hate to be considered a yuppie, it doesn’t bother me when my friends laugh at how health conscious I am. I love food and I can’t help but make sure that I am eating exactly that—food. Yes, it’s true. I prefer food, not chemicals. I choose organic, local, fresh, etc, not only because it usually tastes better, but because I like to make sure that what I am putting into my body is something that will make me feel good and will sustain me throughout the day.
While most of my friends are worried about the extra cost of purchasing food at Whole Foods or other healthy grocery options out there, I’d rather spend a little bit more money on my health. I also enjoy cooking, which is why I don’t mind buying raw foods vs. something microwavable.
As it is easy to see, I am more concerned about my own well being when it comes to food over the environment, which in my case doesn’t seem to be such a bad thing considering they typically go hand in hand.

Fluffy Decisions

In answer the first question what exactly do i think about when making food choices. A few years ago i used to just eat what was available as fast as possible and that also meant a lot of fast food. One summer i cut down on the soda and fried food and saw a significant change not in just appearance but in feeling, i felt like crap and always was in a food coma after soda and or fried food. I don't drink soda that much anymore but fast food i have cut off from my food desires, only if late at night and there's nothing else would i get it. In recent years my family has shopped for more organic foods and natural stuff rather than the processed garbage that doesn't do any good for our bodies. In New York and even here at home the one thing i try to get is Omega 3 eggs and milk, i don't know how that impacts the environment though. The main thing i care about on when i eat or when i go grocery shopping is how good the food is going to taste, which is everyone's same concern.

Recalling what i ate in the past two days, this morning i had a nutri bar and that was it until now. Yesterday i had grilled tilapia, kebab and rice for lunch and tomato basil soup for dinner. I would have to say the tilapia might have had the biggest impact to the environment. If i remember correctly its a imported fish which would mean, it is brought on a boat, and then put onto a truck, then brought to the store. And their's probably a few other things that i missed that i have no idea about but anything imported is probably a lot of work which requires energy, which means...environmental impact.

That which you use to survive may also be what kills you--food in America

I have become obsessed and disgusted by food sold and consumed in America. When I go to the grocery store, I build up with frustration seeing the aisles full of dead hormone-ingested animals, pesticide covered vegetables, and the ridiculously over-priced organic products. Why can’t we have animals free of hormones and fresh food not full of preservatives? The government and the Food and Drug Administration are far too liberal with their regulations. I understand by having less restrictions, food can be made for cheaper and the majority of the population can be economically “happy.” But look at the prevalent diseases spread--E. coli, obesity, among others--because of these "advanced" agricultural practices. According to the 2006 New York Times Article, "The Vegetable-Industrial Complex," our food supply sickens 76 million Americans every year, putting more than 300,000 of them in the hospital, and killing 5,000."  Is saving some money really worth poisoning Americans? If regulations were stricter, than healthier food would cost less as demand for it would rise. It works for Europe, why would it not with us? I feel so adamant about not supporting the mainstream American food system that I sacrifice the little money I have to buy organic and hormone- free food.

The environment should also be taken into consideration when food is produced and packaged. As I go down the grocery store aisles, I see how much waste will be created after people make their purchases. I see it, but the inevitable trap makes me buy food all packaged in plastic and cardboard boxes. It is not preventable. One of the only things I feel I can do to curb the environmental impact of my consumption is bringing my own grocery bags to the store.  I also go to the farmers market sometimes to get healthier food and support the environment (less environmental costs due to limited transportation and production). This however is minuscule, when taking into consideration all of the waste my purchases create.

                             I would have to say that out of the food or drinks that I have consumed in the past few days, the one with the most environmental impact would be imported wine. I threw a party last night and bought many bottles that were all imported. This has tremendous environmental impact as the wine is produced abroad and flown to America, then driven by trucks around the country. When buying the bottles, it did not even cross my mind how much environmental impact they had. I will definitely take this into account next time when buying wine and other food and drinks that contribute highly to environmental degradation. Hopefully Americans can take some small steps like the ones I have taken to help the environmental situation that is in dire need.

Weaning in the Right Direction

I agree with President Obama in that the oil industry should slowly be weaned off of the government’s teat. The only way for the US to shift away from a society dependent on fossil fuels is to cut back on subsidies and tax cuts for oil companies and transfer those to clean energy industries.

Yes subsidies distort the market but sometimes we must make sacrifices for the greater good. Life is not all about making the most economic growth. Without subsidies I do not think clean energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower technologies will ever be able to compete with the oil and coal industries. At least in these early stages the US government should subsidize and give tax breaks on renewable energy industries. However, they should be very selective for which industries they choose. I do not believe in supporting technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions and other technologies that are not solving the source of the problem.  

To Dr. Kreutzer, an energy economist who believes in the ridding of all subsidies, I would say the planet may not have time to wait around for clean-technology to miraculously be able to compete with the fossil fuel industry. At least I am comforted knowing we have a president that sees the crucial need for fundamental change in our country. It is however incredibly frustrating how twisted the government is in that our own president can’t make “modest proposals” enacted because of the stronghold the oil and coal industries have.  Hopefully Obama will keep fighting until the clean-energy industries can get a competitive edge against the oil and coal industries. I support Obama and vote for a sharp decline in the subsidies and tax cuts of the oil industry and a swift increase in subsidies for clean-energy technologies. 

Stepping In

I think its best if the government isn't a actor is any energy industry. Its great to see that the new budget for next year and how the oil companies will net get help from the government. There's a rift between policy makers and environmentalists on what seems to more important the economy or the environment. Many people fear that all sorts of energy will not receive aid anymore but as of now it isn't the case for the Obama administration. He supports tax treatment for wind and solar power and a 50% increase in federal research spending on alternative energy resources.

In Obama's recent State of the Union Address we saw him talk about a lot about being competitive with China. He also mentioned putting more investments into clean-energy technology as he said he expects American's to have about 1 million electric cars on the road, and to have 80% of the country using clean-energy resources by 2035.

While these are all great goals for the future, some might argue whether their realistic or not but in my opinion its great to see the President come out with goals that will help better the environmental industry. Knowing that the leader of a country wants alternative source for energy will hopefully help policy makers shift away from fossil fuels and look for cleaner things. In the past 10 years we've been distracted by war, terror, and a recession but now is the time to stand up and start looking at real life, everyday problems. The problems that will effect the future around us, yeah their is going to be a chance that terrorists might attack but its been 10 years and we have top notch annalists and security to handle that. Its time to keep the money within the economy, cut down on hazardous investments, and time for the government to help save the country as well as the environment.

Step in the Right Direction

This debate over subsidies is emblematic of the split between economists and environmentalists. The oil and coal lobby has money, so much so that the oil industry is subsidizing the government more than the other way around. Against a backdrop of economic crumble, the fight in Washington over energy subsidies is understandable.

Yet, is money more important than survival? The endurance of the human species and the Earth as we have known it? If oil and coal create fossil fuels and fossil fuels are the planet’s demise, then we need to ditch oil and coal. The problem is facilitating that transition. Are we going to wait until we use up our resources or until greenhouses gases warm the Earth beyond human living conditions?

This switch from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas that Obama proposes is a step in the right direction. Although H Jeffrey Leonard and others make a good point regarding the subsidy structure and the way that it benefits oil, coal, nuclear, and corn based ethanol, subsidies are not the problem. Rather, what benefits from the subsidies can be problematic. Environmental groups purport that we eliminate subsidies for energy all together, but would clean energies have a chance? I think we need to continue to fight for restructuring of the subsidy process in order to favor clean energies.

As Michael Levi claims, we need better policies to ensure that fossil fuels don’t dominate. There is an uphill battle for those fighting to steer us in the right direction: away from dependence on fossil fuels and towards energy use that won’t contribute to our demise.

Problems In A Technological-Centered World Calls for a Technological-Centered Solution

Technology is a positive force in human’s lives as we so clearly depend on it for our economic, social and physical well-being. Because of technology, there are a lot less people suffering from starvation, a lot more people with access to health care and a lot more people with longer life-spans. Technology could be seen as the savior of mankind if it wasn’t for the extreme environmental degradation it is causing to the world— everything from resource depletion to deterioration of the ozone layer. Due to the positive aspects technology brings to mankind, we cannot simply regress as social greens would like. If you simply cut back on production and technological advances, the world’s standard of living will go down, there will be more starvation, and the benefits will be lost. The only way to be proactive in a capitalist technological-centered world is to create technologies that are not as harmful to the environment.

Though green technology can help the world to tremendously cut back on environmental degradation, it will not be the cure. As Paul Wapner says in his article, Humility in Climate Change, the world needs to take ethical action and cut back on wasteful consumption and heighten their moral compass, understanding that “individuals are not at the center of the universe but simply occupy a distinct order in the place of things.” I believe that technologies should be created with this moral sensitivity, always understanding that the environment is not ours for the taking.

I am not hailing technology and bowing to its knees as I know with new technologies comes new side effects, as damage can be transferred from one area of environmental degradation to another. However, I believe in most cases the benefits from green technology are much greater than their side effects. Regardless of technologies downfalls, we live in a world dependent on it, and this will never change. Human beings have been inventing and progressing since the stone age and I don’t believe they will stop now. The only way to move forward towards a healthier world is through green technology and changing people’s moral compass.

Rediscovering Technology

Debates regarding the use of technology point to both the positive and detrimental consequences. Without a doubt, technology has enabled us to conquer our surroundings, and has simplified our ability to do just about everything. Thus, the question remains: can technology provide solutions to our new woes, that is, resource depletion, just as it has simplified our lives in the past?

Regardless of whether it can provide a solution, it must. Technology is the force behind our generation and we are moving full speed ahead. To abandon technological innovation would be to abandon our ability to be human. We are creators, discoverers, thinkers, and nothing can change our course to continue that tradition. As the Wikipedia page on technology states, technology is meant to encompass the idea of using knowledge to create tools to “to solve a problem or create an artistic perspective.” In this way it is contradictory, an oxymoron of sorts, that by solving one problem, technology is creating new problems. So, what can we do to change this unfortunate by product of our creations?

Perhaps we need to view technology in the way it is meant to be viewed; in terms of knowledge, art, skill, tools, craft, and technique. We need to reevaluate why we are creating and using technology and re-steer the creators. In this way, we can capitalize upon our know how and the resources available to us today to rediscover the purpose of technology.

Thus, we need technology, we need creators, and we need tools to come any where near tackling environmental degradation.

Holding On Tight To Technology

As time has gone on, technology has grown and their is definitely more of a upside to the growth and expansion of technology then their is a negative side. When not looking at our country and many first world or second world countries you have to wonder when poverty stricken countries do climb out of their whole they will be seeking to be at a similar technological level like everyone else. I've been to a few third world countries and they desire to be like Americans, they want the big cars, the kitchen appliances, iPods, computers etc. Being specific in the United States only i don't think we'll see people giving up on things they want for the environment anytime soon. Many things that I've heard immigrants say they love about Americans is that they love the idea of "we get what we want".

I think technology helps more than hurt and that technology is more of an answer than the problem when it comes to decaying of the environment. Its humans to blame for using it the way we do as well as wasting materials that pollute the atmosphere, local marine life etc. 30-40 years ago technology allowed us to go into space, I'm pretty sure we can get the technology to help products be reusable and such but then again their are people working around the clock to help the world but its "politics" which mess it up. At the end of the day its people in government who we have to convince as they have the overruling power over the land. If we can get our leaders to understand and comprehend the problem and needs then people will follow, it be a good to time to play "follow the leader".

Growing to Sustain

"We can't live with growth, and we can't live without it". This is quoted from Thomas Homer Dixon who believes its not possible to grow economically while sustaining the environment. It seems that those who care about the environment are split into two groups, those who say theirs no hope and those who want to help. This article did not show any signs or solutions to the problem but just on-going ranting on how the people of this century need resources that have effected climate change to grow. He says that 2.7 billion people live on $2 a day and that those countries which this type of poverty exists need to use money and energy to pay off debt. Poverty and the environment is an issue but poverty has always existed and unfortunately their are many circumstances where nations do waste money and people have to suffer but that's why their are scientists and researchers and teams that are hired to solve problems.

Its guys like this who make non-believers in environmental change stay the same. As time goes on the advancement in technology grows and their are solutions into using our resources that won't hurt the environment but like everything in life it needs money. Certain government spend money well and usefully but the U.S in the past decade has put billions of dollars into war which has put a negative stigma against the United States. With reforms going on all over the world and especially in the Middle East who says the U.S can't have one for ourselves? A protest, a revolution, one that will change and help the environment and the people.

"Humanity has made great strides over the past 2,000 years, and we often assume that our path, notwithstanding a few bumps along the way, goes ever upward. But we are wrong: Within this century, environmental and resource constraints will likely bring global economic growth to a halt". Who's to say that we can't keep going upward? The topic of environment and many other ones in the United States are usually seen negatively if their cannot be an immediate impact, many give up right away but good things come in time. Reconstruction after the Civil War took 14 years, all is not lost.

Think Outside the Box

According to Clapp and Dauvergne, Market liberals believe that economic growth is necessary to maintain progress and sustainable development. They believe through economic growth, more money is made, and can be used towards cleaner energy, conservation and other environment-improving methods. They are not concerned about the depletion of resources or the billions of more people that will be added to this earth because science and human ingenuity can solve all problems.

Social Greens are quite the opposite, believing that industrialization, capitalism, and overconsumption are the causes of environmental degradation and social inequalities. They call for a regression from industrial life to small self-sufficient communities.

The article, “Economies Just Can’t keep Growing,” by Thomas Homer-Dixon is coming from a social green perspective as it argues that resource depletion and environmental constraints will slow economic growth. Market liberals however do not see these as issues, believing that technological changes can always shift necessities elsewhere.

Homer-Dixon points out a clear catch 22 that he believes we are currently facing. He says the economy must grow to support the growing population and thus must burn more fossil fuels. He then says burning fossil fuels is contributing tremendously to climate change and could most likely stop economic progress. He says "humankind is in a box" but I think he needs to think a little outside of the box. Homer-Dixon does not take into account any path towards greener technology. He simply says that there is no way of avoiding the environmental crisis. Maybe it is just my market liberal side talking, or just the side that doesn’t want to be scared into a corner, but I believe there are definite probable ways--through innovative technology-- that can contribute to economic growth as well as a lessening of Carbon Dioxide emissions and environmental degradation. Human history has had a trend of adaptability and although I believe the environment is in dire need, I do not believe we cannot dig ourselves out of this dilemma. 

Do we really need to halt growth?

As Clapp and Dauvergne explain, there are four major environmental world views. Market liberals focus primarily on economic growth and high GDP, which are viewed as essential to human welfare and the maintenance of sustainable development. In this light, globalization is viewed as vehicle to address environmental concerns. On the other end of spectrum, Social Greens view social and environmental problems as inseparable. Social Greens condemn economic globalization for fostering inequality and unequal access to resource. In their view, the only way to save the environment is to return to local community autonomy.

In light of Clapp and Dauvergne’s explanation of the Environmental world views, Thomas Homer-Dixon’s view of the environment aligns more closely with that of Social Greens. He warns the reader of the dangers we face if we continue to view the Earth’s resources as everlasting. He explains that humankind is trapped by the wheels of economic growth and our reliance on energy use. He cautions that if we do not mitigate economic globalization, carbon emissions will sky rocket causing climate change. Homer-Dixon says “the economic damage caused by such climate change would probably, by itself, halt growth”.

The way in which Homer-Dixon frames growth as something we can’t live with or without is quite pessimistic. Implicit in his argument is the idea that we cannot have economic growth and environmental sustainability. He characterizes this relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability as contradictory. Rather than presenting some sort of solution, he sets up the challenge as “humankind's biggest of the century” and leaves it at that. This nihilistic approach doesn’t seem probable to me, particularly, within an American context. Rather, we need to combine environmental views and sustainable practices with our economic/growth framework.

The Grass is Greener: Not Yet

"Were treated like like children by environmental elites and political too timid to call forth the best in us or too blind to that which has made us a great nation". Its not only politicans that can be blamed for the sad donations that some of us give to help save the environment. The education system can take a hit for this as well. Like learning a language, the best time to learn is when your young. Many children around the world know two languages by the time their 10 years old but here in the United States the average American only knows one language. And like this we need to implement this into the youth as well. When kids come home to their parents to talk about what they learned and what's going on it will ring a bell to the parents that their 5 year old knows more about environmental conservation and its surroundings more than they do. In D.C they now charge .5 cents for any plastic bag at grocery stores. This is what is meant by being treated like babies; people might feel happy at the end of the day because they used a recyclable bag or buy organic foods but this is only in the capital of the United States. If the governmental wanted to they can put pressure on States to do this as well but technically cannot get into the thick of business.

Depending on where you are in the United States their seems to be a different culture wherever you go. Being from New York, whether you have a small family or a big one you'll see gigantic SUV's and trucks that are being driven by everyone. On the Long Island Expressway they recently added to the HOV lane that if you have a Hybrid you can enter in, but very few cars in the HOV are hybrids. In Virginia, at Tysons Corner Mall, one can get the closest parking entrance to the mall if they have a Hybrid car. Majority of the times when I'm their these spots are empty. The United States as many of us know and many around the world see us are very materialistic, complain if you want but its a fact. We get what we want and if we can't afford it we take out a home equity loan and everything is well..haha. Their needs to be a revolution in saving energy and going green. I think we need to start with the kids, because since this is effecting the future why not educate those that will be their when we will be gone.

We need more than 10 easy steps

The ways in which cultures around the world think of and use the environment is fascinating. It seems as if the way we relate to nature is directly related to the societal culture that we are surrounded by. So, what is it about American culture that makes us a leader in environmental genocide?

Maniates seems to think of environmental degradation as a problem of perception. That is, when Americans think of the solution as simplistic and our role minimal, we continue to perpetuate the cycle. Environmental leaders who frame the solution to one of the most challenging problems of today as easy only deepen the American obsession with that which is fast and effortless.

Perhaps, as Maniates suggests, we need to rework the conversations we are having in order to change the way we think of our society’s impact, and ultimately “fire(d) our individual and communal imagination, creativity and commitment.” Of course, we shouldn't expect much environmental change if we don't expect much change from the primary environmental abusers.

"Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"

The article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” gives great insight into the core reasons why the problem of environmental degradation is so difficult to tackle. I agree that America needs to be shocked with the harsh reality of the world’s environmental situation and let go of the false impression that just recycling will heal our planet. I personally had a very naïve perception of environmental problems. Americans definitely need more education on this problem. Right now it seems that people act eco- friendly because it’s “in” oppose to really understanding the problem.

It was pretty eye opening to read that America would need to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent to avoid climate change. One point that I somewhat disagree with is that other countries would follow Americas standards if we drastically changed our carbon emissions. Countries may still be very resistant to changes due to the expensive costs associated with it. Overall, the article expressed critical issues that need to be addressed such as leaders demanding to reduce environmental degradation as well as Americans being enlightened on the real situation the planet is in.

My Eco Footprint

Eco Foot Print
ecofoot.org is not working so I went to myfootprint.org to calculate my footprint.
Apparently we would need 4.89 earths if everyone lived my life style : /
My footprint is: 189.54

-Harmony