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.