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".