Quotations

"And in this sense the extinction crisis- the race to save the composition, structure, and organization of biodiversity as it exists today- is over, and we have lost."

-Stephen M. Meyer, The End of the Wild

"A regulation is a signal of design failure..."

-Bill McDonough in the Cradle to Cradle film

Final Quotes

Our groups interpretation of the Lorax

"I won’t take the seed but I will take a stand
Against the capitalist forces destroying our land"

Cradle to Cradle

"What would it mean to become, once again, native to this place, the Earth--the home of all our relations? This is going to take us all and it is going to take forever. But then, that's the point."

Creating Real Change

I really liked reading the "Leverage Points" piece by Donella Meadows. I'll admit when I first started reading it, I thought that it was going to be very dry and full of a bunch of crazy ideas that made no sense. However, she was very clear about her definitions and the different jargon that she used. Her analogies were incredibly helpful in understanding just exactly what she meant when discussing the different leverage points that are in a system.

From her definitions of the different leverage points to intervene in the environmental realm, it seems as though today's environmental movement is stuck too far near the bottom of her list of 12 leverage points. Most of the actions taken by those who deem themselves as environmentalists are somewhere around number 12 on her line of effectiveness. It has become ingrained in the minds of most Americans that by simply tinkering around the edges of a major problem, we are actually solving it. By creating slightly more efficient cars, lightbulbs, and other electronics, we are saving the world. Or so says the conventional wisdom. However, these small changes are really only putting off the inevitable and are simply buying time.

Instead of focusing the environmental movement on these "edges," we need to begin to focus on the real issue at hand: the system itself. When we get to numbers 1, 2, and 3 on her list, we see how we need to change the goals of the system, the mindset out of which the paradigm arises, and to harness the power to transcend paradigms. These goals are all about changing the heart of the issue and acknowledging that without considering these problems, we will never really be changing anything. I think that if people who truly care about the environment and are passionate about creating positive change begin to look at these ideas, we can actually get somewhere.

But still many people think that it simply is not possible. They are content with playing with the margins instead of getting down to some real work. They always say that the system is too much a part of our culture and our lives to be able to be changed. I admit that I still think this way a lot of the time. There are so many people who may not be willing to go for these far-fetched, "crazy liberal" ideas. But as we have seen this semester, there are a lot of people on our side. In just 20 minutes in class, we came up with 5 off the wall ideas to create a real change in our society. So lets do it. Stop whining about how things can never get done and get out there and try. The future of the environmental movement need not be one in which we know nothing truly helpful will be done. The future can be bright if we are just willing to try.

With the given assignment to have a conversation about environmentalism and climate change, I set out over Thanksgiving to coax anyone willing to take the bait into a discussion. I'm normally extremely passive in my environmental views, speaking with others about them only when prompted or when they've shown interest, and I jumped at the opportunity to be a bit more aggressive in my approach. However, no one would entertain my activist advances, which I found strange, due to the often volatile nature of the topic. My first victim was my dentist, who engaged me in light conversation about college, how it feels to be back at home, etc. The reasoning was that even if the conversation didn't go well, she still had to stick around and clean my teeth. I divulged my major, environmental studies, which usually puts people on the defensive, now aware of my tree hugger ways. When she asked me how my break had been so far, I saw my chance. I said something about the increasing suburban sprawl in our town, especially the new Walmart that had been built right across from my neighborhood at the expense of farmland. Her response? Nothing.

I chose my mother as my next prey. She's been dealing with my pet causes and soapboxes since about second grade, so I knew that a discussion about consumerism, capitalism, and their connections to climate change would be no novelty to her, and while she might not listen, she also wouldn't explode in an offended rage. When she asked me what I wanted for Christmas, I told her nothing, explaining both the philosophical and practical reasons for eschewing the equivocation of love and goodwill with the acquisition of material goods that is the status quo during the holiday season. I expected at least some discussion, but all I got from her was, "Sarah, if you keep being this weird, you're not going to have any friends." Thanks, Mom.

I gave up on trying to talk to people about climate change, which was frustrating, because I felt that I had so much more to say on the subject, armed with facts and resources after having taken this class. It was my aunt's wayward comment at dinner on Friday night, however, that made me really think about how environmentalists perceive and express our movement. She asked me if my long-term vegetarianism was still ideological, or more of an identity. Perhaps the biggest hindrance to the environmental movement is that is has created a community and an identity, which can be a good thing, but can also alienate people. The best way to get people on board is to create a movement based on action, not identity.

Last Post :(

Over the break I talked to my dad a little about climate change. I am definitely not one for a provocative approach because I think that can easily turn someone off. I tried to talk about what I have learned this semester as calmly and as scientifically I could but on the spot I wasn't able to communicate all my ideas as accurately as I wanted. I have a hard time articulating my thoughts when I'm wrapped up in the heat of the moment. I tried to talk to him about the climate change and even how the individualistic approach isn't the right way to go about the problem. I also tried to talk to him about the wedges exercise in class. He thought some of the wedges were kind of extreme and not going to happen within the next half century. He was glad to talk about it though with me. I think everyone has different styles of communications and are better at some than other. Sometimes I feel like debates or trying to enlighten someone over the holidays just comes off as condescending. I feel like I am more of a behind the scenes person such as I would rather design promotional materials for my beliefs than talk about them. The project I'm working for the presentations is more my style. I hope to show him it when I go back for break.

Although I did end up having a brief environment related conversation with my grandmother over the break, I avoided having the discussion I should have had with my cousins out of fear. My cousins are slightly older, both graduated from college, and live in Pittsburgh. I dont see them all that often, but when I do I always notice the differences between their experiences and my own. Although they hold most of the same values that I do, and were raised in a more or less similar family, their actions and beliefs about the world are drastically different from mine.

The reason I avoided speaking with them was due to a handful of conversations I have had in the past with them, including one on environmental issues. Even though they are substantially liberal guys at heart, they tend to be much more passive and pessimistic about politics and social change. For some reason, they have gone through life with the understanding that big systems like government and the economy are neither fundamentally misguided or succeptable to change, so they have somewhat given up on supporting any real change. When I discussed climate change with them a few years ago, they essentially agreed with all of the points I made, but they refused to accept that any of the proposed solutions would ever work. They cited pragmatism and practicality when arguing about changing our transportation system, and hid behind governmental inertia to ignore claims that meaningful legislation to curb emissions would ever come to pass.

It seems to me that this is a common affliction among Democrats in this country. Sitting back and refusing to participate in social movements is easy, and the arguments against getting involved can be convincing. After all, changing the way we structure our economy is an extremely daunting task, and its hard to blame someone for feeling insignificant in the fight for sustainable living. However, I ended up regretting my avoidance of the conversation, because I bet that the new ideas that I picked up this semester, especially recently, such as leverage points, and Professor Maniates trinity of despair, could have been much more helpful in convincing them that their attitude about environmental change could be improved without too much effort.

I have always prided myself in being a pragmatist, and avoiding grandiose idealism, something that seems common in environmental politics. However, one of the many things this class has taught me is to never give up on long term goals, and to believe in the power and importance of every small step in the right direction. I hope the next time I see my cousins I will get up the courage to engage them about their beliefs, and maybe I can convert a couple more people to subscribe to a more optimistic and involved view on envrionmental issues.

Oh hey, blog group!

I know this is kind of far-fetched, but would anyone be interested in perhaps putting our CRADLES idea, or something like it, into action over winter break? We have the vision, the contacts, and the time (I know I don't do anything but eat cereal and watch It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia over breaks), and Professor Nicholson's reaction made me think that this is all very feasible. Or maybe I just woke up on the right side of the bed today. Thoughts?

Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle is definitely different than all of the other pieces that we have read so far this semester. While many of the other pieces focused heavily on what was wrong and only gave a small view into what we should do about it, this book focuses more on the future and what can be done to truly create positive change in our society. The way that the authors go about explaining the different topics is also very interesting, discussing the two separate nutrient cycles and the 3 key points to master in order to understand their ideas. They make extremely valid points in an easy to understand way. As I read through the book, I kept feeling like "oh yea. Why hasn't someone thought of this before?" Their ideas seem so simple in theory, but I do worry about the implementation of these ideas any time soon.

I think that in order to actually convince any producers to start creating their products as "cradle to cradle certified" or to create buildings in the way that McDonough and Braungart suggest, we must make sure that there is something in it for them. As much as those of us in this class may hate it, our society today is built on the economy and big business is not going to be willing to simply sit back and take massive cuts for the sake of the environment. However, if there can be quantifiable measurements on items such as worker productivity that coincide with the move to a new, greener building with more fresh air and natural lighting, more businesses may be likely to move to these buildings. It will be both benefiting the environment as well as their own business. For individual products, I think that these "cradle to cradle certified" products will remain a niche market for those of us who already believe it is important to buy green. That being said, legislation needs to be passed in order to make these ideas necessary. If the government regulates the amount of waste that is allowed in a final product, the industry will have to comply, and going to the cradle to cradle method is probably the most feasible choice. Overall, I think that these ideas are great and do seem like wonderful theories. However, there still needs to be a change in the mindsets of both producers and the government in order to truly see a change to this "2nd industrial revolution."

I found McDonough and Braungart's Cradle to Cradle to be enjoyable and interesting for many reasons. Firstly, it was such a novelty that the cover was waterproof; it was nice to be able to read a book while waiting for the AU shuttle in the rain. Secondly, my interests, and hopefully my future career plans, are in green chemistry, and scientific fields. The work that the authors have done was inspiring, and their innovative ideas about how to redesign society to create a system that mimics nature got my wheels turning about sustainable design and the future of technology in the environmental solution. While most of the articles we have read for this class have condemned the use of science and technology in addressing climate change, it was refreshing to know that there is a place for human intellectual creativity in the debate that does not aim to just increase our growth and repair as we go, but completely overhauls our current paradigms of consumptions.

Cradle to Cradle was optimistic, but not overly so. It is the healthy dose of optimism that makes the solutions proposed in the book more likely to be implemented. While most of the readings in the class have identified the problem, but not the solution, or have presented a solution so impossible and futile that it depresses the readers, McDonough and Braungart lay out answers that are completely feasible and sensible. This provides an outlet for action, without having to change the environmental ethics of a considerably anthropocentric population.

Cradle to Factory

The optimism of McDonough and Braungart when it comes to improved industrial methods and materials is palpable. And some of their successes are very impressive, especially the fabric that is completely organic and can be tossed on a compost heap to decay naturally. The idea that waste equals food is a seductive one for environmentalists, and it holds a lot of promise for the world of manufacturing and industry, if not global society as a whole.

That being said, and I hate always sounding like the pessimist, its not the only solution, nor is it practical for all things. The fact is our entire consumer economy is built on consumption of hazardous chemicals and petroleum. Everything from computer chips to cosmetics requires petroleum in its production, and not just to produce energy to power the industrial process. Some of these products can be made safely, others will probably have to be eliminated altogether. Whether we can live without the more dangerous products is not clear, especially given the absolutist nature of the waste equals food paradigm.

None of this means we shouldn't adopt the whole waste equals food paradigm. In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it. It's just that it's not so easy when it comes to the more backbone products of our industrial society, and there will be much resistance to change, not least from the industries that make these products, but also possibly from the public at large.

Cradle to Cradle

It was great to read such an optimistic book before the class comes to a close. As with everything we have read there are some pros and cons but over all. I think the way of thinking about the environment they introduced was pretty revolutionary. They argue against what they call down cycling and and call for making products for their reuse in mind. Waste equals food, respect bio diversity, and use current solar income are also great concepts they emphasize.

One idea that struck me as really simple but at the same time beautiful, was to design after the greatest architect of all time: nature. Everything in nature has a use and can be reused and have another function. He also mentioned how shelter in nature is multifunctional. Not only does a tree provide shelter but it also provides food, reproduces, and creates oxygen among other things. I loved how his buildings tried to replicate this with the incorporation of plants and producing their own energy and filtrating their own water.

Another thing I thought was great was they seem to place the responsibility on the industry, which I think is a better idea because they have the funds and can reach so many different people that they can make a difference.

One problem though is just how feasible these ideas are. I thought about why hasn't this book been replicated, then I remembered what the price was. It's almost 30 dollars. Also the buildings and other designs sound amazing but how affordable are they. I think there still needs a lot of work that has to be done to make these more available to the general public.

I obviously don't think this is the end all be all solution to the environmental problems we have been facing but I think this approach of building for reuse rather than recycle could have a significantly positive effect.

Circles of Life

I definitely appreciated the optimism and hope outlined in Cradle To Cradle. In contrast to many of our other readings, McDonough and Braungart did a good job of providing much more specific answers and solutions to our environmental problems. Rather than dwell upon the complexity and overwhelming nature of the situation, the authors provided a realistic and logical approach to moving forward. I also agreed with their emphasis on waste and nutrient flows. It really makes sense to focus on the discrepancy between the linear nature of human economy and the cylical nature of the environment. It is certainly true that humans and our economy are firmly entrenched within the environmental systems that dictate life, and trying to force a linear model upon simply will not work in the long run. Learning from nature is always a good idea, since Mother Earth usually beats human ingenuity for form and function, and coming up with truly renewable resources and solutions is a perfect example of this.
On the other hand, I think the implementation of this trend needs to lose some of its rosy idealism. Like I mentioned in class, I think the fundamental problem with this pattern is the inequal distribution of sources and sinks throughout the world. Since the international community is broken up into nations that do not cooperate at a very high level, the closing off of loops could easily end up benefitting some at the expense of others. This could be especially possible in terms of the split between developed and developing nations. In addition, I feel that there are certain global populations that, by the very nature of their surrounding geography, are incapable of truly ending the concept of waste and resource degradation. The number of people that live in island nations without any discernable natural resources can never be truly sustainable, because they require the support of other countries for their wellbeing.
However, these challenges are not enough to prevent the Cradle to Cradle economy from functioning. I think the authors have prompted an important revolution in the environmental community, with their tenets of respecting diversity and not simply doing 'less bad' things. I hope we as a global community can ultimately understand and appreciate their genius and begin adopting more and more cyclical resource flows that foment real sustainability.

The Trinity of Despair

Before having the video conference with Prof. Maniates, I admit I was a bit skeptical about his ideas and his belief that individual action really doesn't account for that much. After all, that is what the "environmental" movement is all about in our country. When I read his articles for class, I thought that it just seemed almost as though he was against any type of individual action, but during the conference, he explained that individual action should be something as commonplace as personal hygiene. I still believe that individual action should be stressed, since in the collective, the action will start to actually matter. So I guess in this way, I am still a bit skeptical of his Environmental Strategy standpoint. I think that encouraging individual action is a good place to start getting people to think about environmental issues. By giving people some examples of things that they can do in their own lives, you are getting the ball rolling for more substantial change at a higher level. If people do not believe that changes on a grand scale will actually benefit the environment or themselves, they will most likely disagree with the changes.

Overall, I really liked the "trinity of despair" diagram. I think that the most important part to take from is the Social Change aspect, saying that we don't need 100% of people to be with us. I think that a lot of the time, we get too caught up with the climate skeptics, wondering how they can still be against the idea of climate change even when all of the science points to these anthropogenic causes. But as illustrated on the hand out, the number of people who believe in it/are worried about it far outweigh those who are in complete disbelief. I think that by keeping this fact in our minds, we can start to move away from the feeling of despair that we can't get anything done and instead focus on those that are with us. We have it by the numbers, so we just need to get going with it.

I think that all major social changes have to start somewhere. They have all begun at a grassroots level, convincing people on the street of what they can do to help the cause. It is time now, however, for us to start to move from the individual to the collective. By encouraging those who are with us to come together and ask those in charge to make real change, we might actually see something important happen soon. And as we all know, it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

The Trinity of Despair

After last class, I think the thing that most resonated with me was the discussion about social movements. It really does only take a committed minority to make great change. The key word there is committed. We have to really want the change, at the expense of other causes, and we have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to bring that change about. With climate change, I believe we have an issue to galvanize public opinion to the point where changes can be railroaded through. The sticking point is always Congress, and some serious politicking has to be done in order to get the government to change, but we can always lobby state governments and follow the example of California, which is pushing ahead on limiting emissions, leaving the Federal government behind.

As far as the little things are concerned, we have to be careful about how we use them. We shouldn't totally abandon advocating them to the public, but I feel that we've gotten carried away with extolling the virtues of little solutions because they're easy and tangible. And its true, that if everyone in the world did little things, we could make great strides toward solving our environmental problems. But the fact is that you'll never get enough people on board to enable you to combat environment issues just through little solutions alone.

For the last corner of the triangle, I don't believe that people are inherently selfish, but they are lazy or too busy to care when it comes to environmental and political issues as a whole, which often has the same effect. Whether people are selfish or lazy, it doesn't matter because its still a herculean task to get them to do anything to put pressure on private business or the government. However, I do believe that there will always be enough people who care to mobilize social movements to enact change, for the environment but also for other political issues as well.

After reading Maniates' article, I wasn't convinced about the futility of individual action. True, an even greater indebtedness to consumerism isn't going to solve any of our environmental problems, but could it really hurt to ask people to take small steps to helping the environment? This was my mentality before Maniates' video conference; it seemed that by convincing enough people to make the environmentally-sound decision, there would be an eventual shift in paradigm and mindset by the general public, swinging popular opinion in favor of stricter legislation. I was of the opinion that it was actually irresponsible to eschew responsible, personal lifestyle choices in favor of government action. It seemed dangerous to leave such an important issue to bureaucratic institutions, especially if it gave people an excuse to continue wasteful practices.

Now, I am entirely convinced of Maniates' point of the need for larger actions in place of individualized environmentalism. The most powerful example was that of the compost demonstration. Sure, changing the hearts and values of people is ideal and would definitely lead to change, but that's impossible, thanks to the "knuckleheads" Maniates so affectionately described. It would be simpler, and more effective, to completely overhaul the rules and force the system (or, The System, to extrapolate) to be more environmentally friendly. Intentions are great, but not necessary. I posted the Billion Trees Campaign to the blog earlier this week without realizing how perfectly it related to Maniates' presentation, but the ridiculousness of "encouraging" everyone to plant a tree as a solution for climate change is well, silly. It's not related to environmentalism, but I can see the future of environmental action to be a lot like taxes. You might not like paying taxes (I don't mind them, but that's for another post), but you don't have much of a choice. Taxes are not only necessary to a functioning society, but they're legally required as well. Today's environmental movement appears similar to the "optional taxes" option on IRS forms, which I'm sure do not garner much revenue. I am now completely with Maniates' in his opinion that we need to make change happen first, and then worry about shifting society's environmental values.

Video Conference

I was not able to make it to class on Monday but I did my best to read the discussion answers my fellow bloggers wrote so I think I have a grasp on his triangle theory. I think Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" is a great model but not absolute. I can even say I've felt the despair triangle freshmen year when I was involved with trying to green up my own life. Having to micromanage every meal I ate, every pruchase, and every car ride was really starting to get to me. I was convinced that nothing I did was enough because so many people around me did not do anything. That only a disaster would get people to change their minds about the environment maybe not even that. I eventually gave up for a year until I took this class. I think his triangle theory is correct. It can be very useful in analyzing the current movement and how move pass the trinity of despair. I read Collin's post and I would have to agree also with paragraph on social chagne. I had never thought about it this way but Professor Maniates is right about the fact that we don't need a majority of environmentalists to change policies. Small interests group lobby congress all the time and are able to accomplish what they want because they are small and concise about what they want. An example of this would be American farmers.

Of course his theory is not absolute but it is definately a good analysis tool to see what we can do better and to motivate activists.

I think the aspect of Professor Maniates' approach to the environmental movement that gave me the most insight was his perspective on social change. I confess that until his videoconference, I had a preconceived notion that social change did require at least a large majority, if not the whole population, in order to be truly effective. I think his analysis showed that real change can be brought about by a motivated minority, and that so many people in the world are passive or ambivalent enough to go along with it. This perspective has given me a new sense of optimism and positivity about the environmental movement. If we can continue working through governmental and local initiatives to essentially force people into making the right choices, there might be a way out of this mess.

However, I find myself remaining skeptical about the idea as well. I think that the graph that Professor Maniates used to emphasize his point about who is with us and who is against us was not fully indicative of social trends. Although a large majority of Americans may either believe or not have an opinion on global warming, a great deal of those people are also firmly entrenched in the economic system that they are accustomed to. When it comes to creating a wide-reaching compost system that essentially changes nothing about people's behavior, Maniates' idea of social change is very accurate. However, if we try to make systematic changes to the economy in order to slow down global warming emissions, or reduce our practices of deforestation and biodiversity loss, these changes will come with economic costs to the greater population. A certain percentage of Americans may be ambivalent enough to go along with a general trend towards sustainable practices, but when we start making their energy bills higher, I worry that we will lose their support rather quickly.

That being said, I think the 'trinity of despair' concept is extremely useful. The problem mentioned above is no doubt an important one, but it is something that we can perhaps overcome with proper education and policy implementation. If we get stuck in the current trend of environmental change, we wont even approach the solutions we are looking for.

Plant A Tree

This isn't for an official post, but just thought it was relevant to our past few classes, and funny in a sort of sad way. With impeccable timing, GOOD had an article today about UNEP's Billion Tree Campaign:

"Billion Tree Campaign
Posted by: francesco.franchi on November 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched a major worldwide tree planting campaign. Under the Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign, people, communities, business and industry, civil society organizations and governments are encouraged to enter tree planting pledges online with the objective of planting at least one billion trees worldwide each year. In a call to further individual and collective action, UNEP has set a new goal of planting 7 billion trees by the end of 2009. The campaign strongly encourages the planting of indigenous trees and trees that are appropriate to the local environment."

The best part of this is that they "encourage" tree planting. That sounds effective.

People soon started gathering 'round

and the message of the Lorax began to resound.

The more that they heard, the more they were moved

by the fate of the Truffulas and how they were removed.

A general consensus rose up from the crowd,

"This destruction of Earth- it should never be allowed!

We've had it up to here with this market-based liberalism,

what we need in this world is a dash of biocentrism."

Individually, they would have just gone on their way,

But together, the people decided to stay.

They made plans to talk, and plans to petition,

Changing social constructs became their sole mission.

The Lorax stood proudly and looked at the boy

Saying, "The voices of these people brings me such joy.

I'm so glad you looked past the power of the dollar

And saw that what people need to do is stand up and holler."

Continuing the story...

"You have finally come" he expressed with such glee
"Someone has cared enough to come and find me!
But just you alone cannot tackle this issue,"
the Lorax expressed, wiping his tear with a tissue
"We'll have to start now, we must go right away,
And tell all in the world what the Tuffulas would say."
They walked down the road, creating their plan
Deciding what they would say to "The Man."
They held a big rally in town as a call for attention
About the Tuffulas and the issue of environmental protection.
"If we do not act, the Tuffulas will be gone forever!
Please don't turn back now, we must all act together!"

I'm not good with this rhyming thing but here's my attempt.

The boy left the Onceler alone in his sad lonely shack
He decided he needed a plane of attack
So he went and looked around for a long while
But when he found the Lorax he couldn't help but smile
The Lorax looked sad and quite grim
But then he learned why the boy had come so far to find him
He hugged the boy and let out a big sigh.
He was so happy he had a tear in his eye

"Good luck," said the Once-ler, as he sat alone in his chair.
"Good luck getting so many people to care.
People like to buy things, and make their bank accounts grow.
Making changes like yours would deal them a huge blow.
You should relax, just be patient and wait,
Until the newest technology can determine our fate.
The systems not broken, its working just fine.
All our problems can be fixed with just a little more time."

Best Dr. Seus Appendix Ever

You think you can solve this with one little seed
But we must show everyone that they don’t need their thneeds.
One person alone can not make this happen
We need a world full of people, a big call to action
It won’t be easy with the systems we face
So brand new ideas must become common place
A tree would be nice but its not the solution
The problem arises from our warped institutions
I won’t take the seed but I will take a stand
Against the capitalist forces destroying our land
Grassroots campaigning, we’ll take to the streets.
And share the tale of the Lorax with all that we meet
Using truffula trees to make ourselves happy
Has turned our whole world into something quite crappy

Discussion Question 8

I had difficulty accessing the second website, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" so that is why my discussion question is late. The site would not load until now, however some of the links I click on bring me to a database error page. I found the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" overwhelming. I thought it could have been better visually organized. However, I did like the idea of having the topics categorized by common points you would hear from a skeptic. I also noticed there were a lot more links to outside information and they clearly cited a lot more scientific data than the other website. I definitely thought "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" did a good job covering all of the bases. Maybe of the topics were things I have heard skeptics say or even thought of myself.

To be honest the Friends of Science website caught me off guard. I thought it was a prevention of climate change website at first because of the revolving earth logo and the "scientific" layout and design of the website. When I started reading though I realized ...not so much. They took a very scientific approach to disproving that humans are causing climate change. It would be hard to argue their points unless you were a scientist or did you own research and read their sources. Most people though are not too familiar with climate change and if this was the first time I was being presented with scientific information on climate change I would probably by into it. I noticed there were very few link references but if you do go further into the website you can download an annotated bibliography. The annotated bibliography is from a book (which you can also download), which purpose is like the website's to disprove climate change. The sources looked pretty legitimate to me but I'm not a scientist. Also the question comes to mind... Are they misquoting the data for their own agenda?

They'll Find Any Point to Argue

The Friends of Science website brings up mixed feelings for me. In one way, it makes me laugh, because the true science so completely disproves everything that these people are claiming. But on the other hand, it makes me a bit worried, because it means that there are people out there who still don't believe in climate change. And without everyone being on board that this is an issue, it will be much more difficult to create truly effective policies to change the problems. Even though most of the science that they put forth is false, they organize it in a very convincing way on the page. One such example is their Myth #10. It says that oceans aren't rising and threatening small island nations. If it wasn't threatening the Maldives (which they specifically stated on their website), why would the President and cabinet take the time to go under water to hold a meeting? Overall, this website makes it seem as if they really know what they are talking about and could be instrumental in changing some people's opinions.

The Grist article brought me back to my days of high school chemistry. My teacher was probably one of the biggest climate change skeptics I have ever met. Now, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, seeing as I live in a tiny town full of Republicans. But as one of the oldest (as in, he taught my mom chemistry too) and most respected teachers at the school, most people would just believe anything that he said. One of the most distinct "climate change skeptic" viewpoints that I remember him sharing is about the "fabricated" hole in the ozone layer. His justification was that ozone is a molecule, and thus it cannot create a layer, much less a hole, because the molecules are always moving around in the atmosphere. Since everyone respected him as a teacher, no one really refuted his points, knowing that he was very set in his ways. Everyone just took what he had to be true.

What I don't understand, then, brings us back to the Grist article. In today's world, there are so many indicators and scientific proof that climate change is happening. And it is happening at such a fast pace that it cannot possibly just be a natural phenomenon. I think there were some funny ideas brought up, but it all came back to basically the same idea that no matter how hard you try, most skeptics will not listen to you. They will always bring up the same justifications for the fabrication of climate change, like Democrats wanting more tax money and wanting to kill capitalism and the American way of life. What they don't realize is that with a bit of work, we can change the basics of the system to make it better for the environment, without reverting back 300 years to 1709. Maybe one day, with enough persuasion, all of the skeptics will finally see the light and realize that they are incorrect. Until then, all we can do is hope for this turning point and make sure that we don't lose any support to them.

My sentiment mirrors Colin's: climate change skeptics have gone from mildly irritating to painfully obnoxious. In the beginning stages of data collection and analysis, it could be understandable why some, even scientists, would be hesitant to fully accept such a monolithic concept as global climate change, which has such apocalyptic predictions and effects that most logical human beings would look for an alternate answer. The time for questioning, however, has well passed, and with solid data supporting climate change as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels, any refutation of this phenomena is warranted, and reeks of an ulterior motive. Although I couldn't locate any foul play on the Friends of Science site, it seemed impossible that the organization was run by legitimate scientists, working without an agenda or hidden intentions.

That said, the biting sarcasm layered throughout the Grist article highlighted the fact that you just cannot argue with climate change skeptics. Grist, which confronts environmental news with a humorous tone, set up an elaborate, rational, logical outline for answering the qualms and concerns of the Ostriches, my new term for those who prefer to hide their head in the sand while the Earth is quickly warming. The irony is that these cynics don't respond to this left-brained thinking, and it is futile to confront the unabashed denial with cold, hard facts. The skepticism is political and value based, often steeped in fear, or some vague notion that environmentalism is killing the "American Way" or profit-driven capitalism. What is most difficult to understand about climate change skeptics is their argument that the environmental is a left-wing conspiracy. What would be our motives? Why would we create a disaster scenario for no reason? Perhaps the most effective mode of reasoning would be to persuade cynics that environmentalists have nothing to gain from the movement, and that we, along with the rest of the world, would be better off it climate change weren't happening.

Real Science?

I have to admit, I find myself becoming less and less tolerant of climate change skepticism. There is no unifying objection to the patterns of climate change, it just seems that politicians, pundits, and bloggers find random, unassociated problems with the phenomenon, making it seem like they are reaching for holes in the logic without understanding the concepts themselves.
The 'Friends of Science' website is one of the more compelling cases I have seen. Usually, skeptics are satisfied merely claiming that there is no evidence or consensus and that its all a liberal conspiracy. This site, however, addressed individual scientific claims and refuted them. Nonetheless, I found most of the arguments to be trivial points that were exaggerated to seem crucial. For example, a main point made was the importance of CO2 in the greenhouse gas effect. They argued that water vapor and other gases constitute a larger percentage of the effect itself. However, this point is irrelevant when you incorporate data that show human induced CO2 emissions compared to human induced increases in other GHGs. Just because CO2 is a small part of the atmospheric composition, does not mean anthropogenic increases of its presence in the atmosphere cant affect the greenhouse effect.

Although I am certainly biased, I definitely found the grist piece more convincing. The arguments presented were more detailed and provided a clearer picture of the situation, rather than an attack on the other side's position. I also appreciated the long lists of supporters in the international scientific community for each argument. This is not to say, however, that the Friends of Science site was poorly done. I think it is very well done, and is probably very successful in providing evidence to those who agree with it. I just dont believe that it was scientifically successful enough to make people change their minds

I personally try to ignore the debate over climate change science. I find the arguments to be largely irrelevant and unnecessary; they seem like pure distractions. I think there are plenty of good reasons to stop burning fossil fuels and revamp our energy policy, and there are more than enough reasons to fundamentally change our consumptive habits. If people cant agree about the scientific basis of global warming, they can at least agree that oil will eventually run out, and that our impact on the planet is exceeding its limit in many other ways. If we dont put down our partisan fighting on these issues, we are going to find out who is right and wrong the hard way

Biodiversity

Probably the most exciting experience I had with nature was when I went snorkeling in Hawaii. First of all Hawaii was probably the most beautiful place I had ever been. We took a boat to a spot where they told us there were supposed to be sea turtles. I was really nervous about snorkeling because I thought I might freak out if I saw a shark or any fish that was bigger than my hand. However once I got in the water, I had so much fun. I was so surprised to see there were actually sea turtles. They were the most beautiful animals I've seen in person. They were so majestic and graceful. At the same time they were really quick in the water. I was one of the last persons back on the boat because I didn't want to leave.

Not everyone will agree with me on this but I would say yes. We should concern ourselves with "saving nature" considering we're the ones that are wiping them out. We rely on nature. The End of the Wild made a good point when it talked about how wetlands kind of act as a natural barrier to hurricanes. When we destroy these or build on them, we are putting ourselves in danger. I think we can learn a lot from different species and it would be unfair if we only focused on industrializing and take nature for granted.

The End of the Wild

It is hard to pinpoint the absolute most thrilling or magical engagement I've had with the non-human world. If I could just lump them all together, it would certainly be the year that I spent in the Philippines, but to pick just one of my experiences while there would be to leave out some of the other amazing things I got to see while there. If I absolutely had to, I could narrow it down to three. First would be my experience ziplining through the Macahambus Gorge. After walking across a narrow bridge through the tops of the trees, I was able to take a flying ride back to where I started. It was amazing to look down over all of the trees and beautiful plants on the forest floor. Second would be the rafting trip down the Cagayan de Oro river; this river, which ran through my host city, it the only river in the Philippines to have natural rapids. During some of the calmer parts of the journey, we were able to see native birds and animals on the riverbanks and see many beautiful rock formations and plants. The third and final item I would point out is when I went to the island of Boracay, a famed tourist island in the central Philippines. The eastern coast of the island with a 3 km long pristine white beach is very developed, with many resorts. There are options, however, to explore the significantly less developed western side of the island. It was absolutely beautiful to be on a secluded road which suddenly let out to a gorgeous beach with its crystal clear water.

As great as all of these things are, however, I am not sure that saving random species of plants and animals should be our most important concern. Obviously everything in the environment is connected and you can't simply consider on thing and completely forget about the rest. I am simply saying that some of the examples that Meyer used in his book seemed almost pointless to try to save. He wrote about one species of grass that is only in one county in California. Has this grass proven to be of any sort of benefit to the area or to humans? He didn't specifically say so. In my opinion, then, we should not focus our time, energy, and (arguably most importantly) money, on saving this one tiny species of grass. I don't agree with the vast destruction of yet untouched areas. I think that we should try to keep what we have and try to make it better and to use our time and energy preserving what isn't destined to disappear within the next few years. Nature is important and everyone, today and in the future, should get to enjoy it. Without creating some form of regulation, the natural world will certainly fall into even more of a decline than is already present.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

The most magical, reverent, and awe-inspiring moment I've had with nature occurred last year in Utah. I spent spring break at BYU with my best friend, taking advantage of the fresh snowfall with a week of sledding, snowball fights, and more importantly, snowboarding. Perhaps it was the novelty of mountains in general (being from the East Coast, I didn't see a mountain until I was 16), but standing at the top of the slope, surrounded by snowy monoliths, was a truly magical, humbling moment. Sure, the view was breathtaking, but the massive presence of the mountains commanded respect. With feet strapped into the snowboard, I realized just how much I was truly at the mercy of nature; the mountains, impassive and impersonal, could not care less if I made it down the slope in one piece or not. The duality of the moment, the absolute beauty of the clear, cloudless sky, the untouched snow, the jagged peaks covered in powdered firs, and the simultaneous aloofness of the forces of nature to human wants or needs, proved to be powerful.

On that note, nature, both its non-human organisms and inorganic elements, needs to be treated with respect and seen with inherent value in itself. Nature (a term I use to encompass all of Earth and its multitude ecosystems and biomes) is bigger than all of us; this longevity and relative permanence should remind humans that while we try to control the world around us, we are merely genetic happenstance, and are only as important as we perceive ourselves. Humans are products of evolution, no different from any other organism. Even inorganic aspects of nature- mountains, bodies of water, etc.- are the results of chemical shifts and reactions; if we can recognize that all of Nature, and our existence on Earth, is simply the combined effect of really fortunate chance events, then the value of Nature becomes apparent. Placed on a level playing field by probability, if we consider humans to have value, and understand our equality with all of life on Earth, connected by the same impartial laws of chemistry, biology, and physics, then all of Nature has value as well; we cannot hold ourselves in higher regard just because evolution granted us the ability to even decide what value is.

That was an extremely long-winded biocentric rant, but I think Carl Sagan sums it up perfectly in Cosmos:

"This oak tree and me, we're made of the same stuff."

Feeling Wild

When I began reading Meyers' End of the Wild, I was pleasantly suprised to see that when discussing the Earth's decreasing numbers of true wildlife preserves, the Monteverde Cloud Forest was on his list as a precious resource. I had the great fortune of traveling to Costa Rica in high school, and had a spectacular time wandering through the cloud forest. It was the closest I've been to seeing a tropical rainforest. I have yet to see the immense biological diversity of places like the Amazon, so being in Monteverde was a thrilling experience. I was astounded with the thickness of the forest and the variety of its small inhabitants. While I wasnt lucky enough to see some of the forest's more exciting or famous animals like the quetzal, I was still very impressed with the grand amount of life that existed there. The plants and trees were unlike anything I had ever seen, and the small insects and amphibians were a marvel. Therefore, I was pretty upset to read in Meyers' book that the preserve, like many of its kind, is being severely threatened by human activity within and around its borders.
Meyers made a very compelling case for the ineffectiveness of wildlife preserves. His theory reminds me of the phrase we refer to often in this class, that 'the earth is one, but the world is not'. We have created false wildernesses under the assumption that within their borders, they can survive perfectly without any interference from the outside world. Globalization and climate change are drastically increasing the effects of human activity on the remote parts of the world, and it is pholly of us to believe that drawing imaginary borders around certain forests will protect them from our ever reaching hand.
I want desperately to believe that we can change our ways and reverse our damage to the natural environment and biological diversity. However, I think we are indeed too little, too late. Our presence exists everywhere, and no one seems to care enough to change that. In my opinion, the way out of this path is to begin challenging the widely held idea that humans are a superior force on earth. Organized religion and cultural beliefs that are deeply entrenched in our values systems have led us to believe that we have a right as so-called 'sentient beings' to take advantage of the earth's systems and behave in the way that we please. If we ever hope to return to natural selection, instead of human selection, we have to understand that our place in the global ecosytem is no more valuable than that of an ant or a fern. Ignoring the planet's immense species diversity in the name of superiority is a downright criminal act. We should act now to reverse this ideology, and begin promoting the wilderness around us.

Eco-Tourism

Eco-Tourism, a relatively new term in the travel industry, has become extremely popular recently. A lot of people, as shown in the webisode video, believe that just because a website or ad says "eco-tour," they are actually doing something good for the environment. Even with the ideas of low impact travel and staying at places which do limit trash and other environmental pollutants, the idea of staying in an "untouched by man" type of place is simply bringing the harmful effects of mankind to that place. Sure, it might be beautiful for the first few years, but eventually it will leave its mark.

Another issue, as mentioned in the question, is the air travel in order to get to these exotic locations. In today's super globalized world, everyone wants his or her chance to see it all. With relatively cheap airfare, this has become possible and has encouraged fast trips via the air to places that are not even that far away. I did a little more research on this to see what the environmental harm would actually work out to be. According to Boeing, a 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile. This sounds like a huge amount, except that there are a lot of people on the plane. With an average of around 500 people, the entire flight works out to about 100 miles per gallon per person. So overall, it works out to being about the same (per mile) as a family of four taking a trip in an average fuel burning car. (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm). Obviously not a good thing, but maybe not as bad as we had originally thought.

My final point is one in full support of the eco-tourism industry. By traveling, people are exposed to the issues that those in other countries face on a day to day basis. Although you may only be right in the touristy areas of another country, you are usually hard pressed to not notice some amount of environmental and social hardship around you. By taking tours of wildlife preserves and seeing nature in action, people may be affected by what they have seen and be more likely to act on it. I think that going on these tours and even simply advertising about them really helps to get the word out to the general public about all of the issues surrounding other areas of the world. Overall, I think that eco-tourism is a good thing, even if getting there and staying there may have small environmental impacts. It is a way for people to learn about cultures and issues in other parts of the world and hopefully will generate a response towards helping others throughout the earth.

Eco-Tourism

I watched the webisode posted on the class' blog. I thought it was really great and I appreciated Professor Nicholson's cameo appearance. I'm really interested in eco-tourism and I thought it was insightful how the video addressed how not all companies that promote eco-toursim are really practicing it. They are just on the green band wagon for profit.

I love traveling and next semester I hope to study eco-tourism in Australia and just how feasible it is. Is it really good for the environment to travel half way across the world? How close can you interact with endangered animals without disturbing their natural habitat? Does eco-tourism boosts struggling economies? Does it protect forests that would have otherwise been torn down, if they hadn't attracted so many tourists? All of these questions I find really interesting. Part of the reason is probably because I want to justify my own desires to travel and not having to feel guilty.

I read something freshman year about how endangered species who were before being hunted were now being left alone because the local economy had been benefiting from the tourists who were coming to see them. I know it can be that simple though. However, I think it is a better way to preserve the environment than telling developing nations what they can and can not do with their resources, when Western countries have been destroying their own environments for centuries.

To be completely honest, I wasn't familiar with the term "ecotourism" before this discussion question was assigned. I could figure out the general gist through context clues, but just to make sure I fully understood the idea, I checked out the always-reliable Wikipedia article. Within a few paragraphs, a glaring error become extremely apparent; ecotourism emphasizes the importance of staying at a pristine, untouched location, still in perfect environmental and ecological conditions. This may be preferable to staying in a suburban sprawl-like area, or an overbuilt tourist spot, but there will be, inherently, some environmental impact from the development of ecotourism facilities, no matter how much they claim to promote low-impact traveling. Would it not be better to never inhabit the untouched piece of nature in the first place? It seemed like a contradiction.

I have never been on an ecotourism trip, so perhaps someone with experience could convince me of its merits. However, any sort of travel appears to have environmental impact, despite one's good intentions. As mentioned in the prompt, air travel alone is a huge polluter; any good done through volunteer work or learning on the trip is surely undone in six hours on a plane. Also, as we have discussed in class, globalization, and the "flattening" of the world is partly to blame for today's environmental crisis. Is bringing Western tourists, and thus ideas, values, and cultures, to remote areas of the world really the best way to improve ecological crises? Admittedly a cynic, I'm having a hard time seeing the value in ecotourism, and how exactly ecotourism benefits local communities more than other travel ventures, which pump money into that country's economy, albeit at the expense of much local flavor. It seems inevitable, though, that ecotourism, despite its origins, will bring an amount of destruction to the destination's environment and culture.

Living like a Tourist

Coming from a big traveling family, I definitely support the effort to increase environmental responsibility in the tourism industry. Whenever I travel abroad, one of my favorite aspects is the ability to live differently for a while, and appreciate the lifestyle of another culture. It is impossible to do this if one stays in a resort and only eats food prepared for them in the fancy Western-style restaurants. Immersing yourself into a culture is usually much less environmentally harmful than contributing to the consumer-driven tourism industry that the resorts have to offer. One of my favorite travel experiences was when I visited a few different European countries a couple summers ago, and stayed in hostels the entire time. We traveled by train, ate in small local restaurants and markets, and slept in low energy rooms with communal bathrooms. I felt like my personal impact on the countries, as well as my view of their cultures, was greatly improved.
As for the air travel, I find this issue to be much more difficult. I fully appreciate the devastating toll that jet airplanes have on the environment, and it seems completely ludicrous that they remain so popular and prevalent. However, I fly 2-3 times per year, because of where my home is in relation to my school, and whenever I travel abroad I obviously have to fly as well. I would not be able to live the way I do without air travel, plain and simple. Therefore, it is much harder to compromise on this issue. In addition, our global economy relies on the ability of multinational businessmen to travel all over the world every week. I cant honestly think of a solution to this problem. I can only hope that (using a more market liberal approach) we come up with more efficient aviation technologies in the future. Perhaps we can begin to limit our use of planes to overseas trips, and rely more heavily on fixed rail transit within land masses. The incredible train network in Europe can be duplicated elsewhere, and perhaps decrease our collective carbon footprint when we travel.

I Love Food.... and Farmers Markets

Last summer while working at a church camp, I decided to become a vegetarian. It was something I had wanted to do for quite some time and had even tried once before, with not much success. This time, however, I was ready to work at it. The camp's theme for the summer was about being good stewards of creation, and although the curriculum didn't teach me about living meat free, some of the other members of the staff did. Throughout the summer and ever since, I have become even more passionate about living meat-free and learning about all of the environmental and health benefits of vegetarianism.

This summer, I stayed here in DC to work. I got in the habit of taking a weekly trip to a farmers market after seeing the wide variety of locally grown food that I could get right in my own neighborhood. Occasionally I would venture down to Eastern Market with their many various vendors, but most of the time I would stick around the Bethesda area where I was living. Although not all of my food came from farmers markets, I tried to at least stock up on all my fresh fruits and veggies for the week on each weekend. I knew that even though it may not have been a huge step, it was still cutting down on the environmental impact from all of the processed foods that most Americans eat, as well as cutting down on transportation pollution from foods that must be shipped from far away.

Now that school is back in session and fall is settling in, however, it is much more difficult to eat environmentally sustainable foods. I often only have a few minutes to grab food before running to another class or another meeting. It is much easier to grab a packaged, processed meal than it is to cook something from fresh ingredients. Finances also are brought back to the forefront of my considerations now that classes are back in session. Over the summer, I was working in a paid office position, so I was able to buy fresher food, which was also usually more expensive. Now, I am an unpaid intern in the non-profit work in addition to taking classes. Since I'm simply living off my savings from the summer, I need to make choices that are the best for my wallet before really considering the environmental impact.

The worst food that I have eaten in the past few days was probably my lunch at my internship yesterday. To avoid paying nearly $10 for lunch at one of the grab and go type of places near my office, I decided to walk the 5 blocks to Safeway to grab something cheaper. I left with a $4 lunch of a salad and a microwavable 3 Cheese Ziti Marinara meal. While the salad was probably environmentally better, there were still probably many pesticides used in the production of all of the toppings I added as well as the production costs to get it to Arlington, VA. The microwavable meal was by far the worst. In order to make the nice plastic wrapped package I popped in the microwave, the wheat had to be grown and processed into pasta, the tomatoes and other ingredients made into sauce, and the cows grown and milked for the cheese. All of these production factors come from various places across the country and then are sent to one factory to make the package I purchased. When counting in all of the processing and the transportation between each step of the production, the environmental impact significantly increases.

My Favorite Subject: Food

I went vegetarian when I was 15 for animal-humanitarian reasons but the reason I've probably stayed vegetarian for so long is because I've learned about all the other effects the meat industry has. It has a huge impact on the environment. I learned that the methane gas cows produce is more hazardous to climate change than the carbon emissions created by transportation. For that reason and many others I don't eat meat, poultry, fish or any other products in which an animal was killed for. Every once in a while I will try to cut down on dairy but it is just so hard! 

When I do make choices they are usually focused on three main things. Will it fill me up? Is it quick? And is it cheap? I usually go for foods packed with carbohydrates and dairy. I'm probably one of the only vegetable hating vegetarians you'll ever meet. I eat a lot of pasta. I don't have time to make things from scratch. Most of my foods from the store come in boxes or other packages. I do try and stay away from fast food restaurants for the most part and I don't usually buy very elaborate drinks. I usually just drink water from the tap and if I do buy drinks they're usually organic. 

I kind of use being a vegetarian as a free pass. My logic is since I'm already vegetarian I shouldn't kill myself over not eating enough locally grown organic foods. I do shop at Whole Foods and buy organic when I can. However my friend brought up to me that a lot of Whole Foods' foods are imported from other countries as well so I don't think I'm doing much good by shopping there. 

In the past few days I've eaten a lot of Annie's Organic Pasta. I also had Near East Couscous tonight. I don't think those two items are that bad for the environment. I don't usually eat breakfast either. The worse thing I've eaten in the past few days is probably the crescent roles I just made with my roommates. Considering I can't pronounce most of the ingredients, they probably weren't made anywhere near hear. The ingredients were probably shipped from all over and then the final product had to be shipped here. Also the packaging doesn't look to environmentally friendly. 

I'm looking forward to learning more about the effects of food on the environment. 

Food for Thought

When I choose to eat something, there are usually three requirements for possible food options:

1) Vegetarian

2) Meal swipes and/or Eaglebucks are acceptable forms of payment

3) Delicious

As you can see, environmental issues don't directly my food choices, but I feel that they make an indirect, subconscious impact on my decision. For instance, I've been a vegetarian since 5th grade due to moral and ethical qualms with using once-living creatures for my own enjoyment. I am now aware of the environmental benefits of a meat-free diet, but that is not the primary reason behind my gastronomical decisions; it doesn't matter my intentions though, it is still more sustainable than a non-vegetarian diet, no matter my reason for it.

Eating environmentally ethical foods is difficult, as Colin mentioned, with the funds of a college student. My budget breaks down into two categories: "fun" and "food," and the latter most definitely suffers because of the former. Bon Appetit does make efforts to create a more sustainable menu, but it still is not as ideal as buying all of one's foods from a farmer's market, or from all organic sources. While it physically pains me to go to TDR when the "dishwasher is broken" and they're only using plastic and styrofoam utensils and plates, there are few other viable options.

The best effort, besides committing to a vegetarian diet and avoiding foods that are packaged in styrofoam or plastic, I found I can make to a more environmentally friendly diet is to avoid the consumerist, capitalist structure by using TDR as a grocery store. For instance, this morning I had Reeses' Puffs with soy milk and a banana for breakfast in my room, all courtesy of AU's fine dining establishment. I'm not sure how much of a difference is may be making, but even if it doesn't affect any environmental or sustainability principle, but it saves me money, and it can't hurt. If anyone has any insight into how this means of sustenance contributes to environmental impact, I would love to hear it!

A National Eating Disorder

Americans have an eating disorder. I dont mean this in the sense of eating too much or too little in terms of nutrition, although many people do suffer from this affliction. I am referring to our national (and increasingly global) obsession with quick, easy, and processed foods. As a member of the affluent US middle class, I am well aware of my participation in this phenomenon. My life is always busy, and my budget is always tight enough to lead me to the cheaper, faster option. Rather than making lunch from organic bread and vegetables from the on campus farmers market, for example, I opt for the prepackeged ease of the Eagle's Nest, and even the consumer icon of McDonalds itself. My student's budget and lack of dispensable free time, however, are not the real source of my eating habits. I have been conditioned as an American citizen; I have been taught that our economic growth and the people that fought for our country have allowed me the luxury of having people prepare my food far away, and ship it to me in convenient packages. It is my god given right to eat processed food from the grocery store instead of reaping the benefits of local agriculture.
Because of this social phenomenon, I admit that my mind rarely takes environmental costs into account when purchasing food. True, I enjoy the satisfaction of a food labelled 'organic', and I take great pride in myself when I make the time to cook my own food, but all too often these are outweighed by my cost decisions. One thing I am conscious of is my consumption of beverages. I do my best to never purchase bottled water unless I have to, and rely instead on drinking fountains or bottles I bring from home. I have been conditioned well in the last few years to understand the mind boggling consumption and immediate disposal of plastic bottles, and it has definitely affected the way that I look at the refrigerator section of the cafe or grocery store.
In the past couple of days, I have purchased a variety of prepackaged goods. Potato chips, cans of soda, and a variety of other foods have been in my diet this week. I believe these types of goods to be the most harmful, because they involve a long line of production and transportation to reach my mouth, and have little to do with sustainable, local, or organic agriculture. If Americans want to dramatically decrease the strain they put on the environment, a good place to start would be prepackaged foods.

Washington DC 2209

Assuming we don't wind up in some Fallout-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland within the next 200 years, I imagine DC will look much like it does right now. This may seem counter-intuitive to some readers. Shouldn't the United States be a dried up husk of its former self, ravaged by climate change, flooding, and environmental degradation? Well, the truth is much of the environmental havoc that we've been wreaking on the planet is being done in places outside the United States. It's true that we still have pollution here, and there are environmental issues here such as mountain-top removal, nuclear waste, and coal slurries. But the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the harm being done to the environment is happening outside the United States, in places where most of the production for our goods is done, like China and India.

It's been said that breathing the air in some parts of China is the equivalent of smoking a pack (possibly more) of cigarettes a day. India has very serious problems with its water and the impact its having on agriculture in the subcontinent. Countries throughout the developing world are becoming the recipients of our waste products, toxic or otherwise, and their air and water quality is going down as a result of this and the shift of production to these countries. Whereas the most pressing issue that the developing world has to come to terms with is global warming (and a very serious concern it is), developing nations have a whole host of issues that bedevil them, such as soil degradation, water pollution, species extinction, and even ecological collapse. The environment in many of these developing nations is being visibly altered for the worse.

By contrast, the US environment has more or less stabilized. Yes there are still problems with deforestation and the side-effects of coal mining and oil drilling. But these problems are more localized than before, and many steps have been taken by the US government and citizenry to better protect their environment, such as reforestation, wetlands protection, etc. That's why environmental degradation has been slowed or even stopped in many areas of the United States. These steps are sadly lacking from many developing nations and they are the ones who will suffer as a result. While climate change could have a major effect on our lives and surroundings in the United States, the inland areas of the United States (including Washington) will not be nearly as affected in 200 years as those developing nations who shoulder much of the burden of production.

What Will 2209 bring?

I think that if we continue on the same path that we are currently on, DC will be in for some major problems. If we keep polluting the atmosphere as much as we do now, DC probably will be nonexistent in 2209, because climate change would’ve grown exponentially and most, if not all, of the polar ice caps would have melted. AU might be able to survive, since we are at one of the highest elevations in the entire district, but I don’t have much hope for the National Mall and the rest of downtown. If somehow we avoid being covered in water, I think that DC would still be a disaster area. With all of the restrictions on downtown growth, more of the areas that are currently residential will begin being transformed into commercial areas in which the American consumer can shop. This means that people will have to move further outside of DC to find places to live, which will keep creating this suburban sprawl that is already quite large. As people move further away, not only will we have to create more roads for the cars that they will be driving into the actual city, but we may also need to convert the farmland that lies right outside of most of the current suburbs. The areas that we could be using to grow local, more sustainable food would be turned into more housing developments and “dirty energy” power plants to make sure that the people live as comfortably as they would like. All of these predictions, however, come from the idea that people would keep trying to live here; in reality, if we continue this way, many people might leave the area since it will be too polluted to live healthy lives.

If people today really stopped to consider what the future might look like, they would be more open to thinking of new ways of creating a better future. In the DC of 2209, I would hope that there would be much more sustainability in all aspects of life. By this time, production nationally would be done in such a way as to reduce waste in all parts of the cycle. We could still be building new buildings and prospering, but these materials would be completely sustainable (either recyclable or from previously recycled materials) and the process in which they were made would have cut wastes. In order to power these new, green buildings, we would use alternative types of energy, such as wind and solar energy. The areas outside of the city would be kept for farming; they would also be reverted to family farms which produce a wide variety of foods instead of large, commercial farms that only grow one crop and sell their products across the country. There would also be greenhouse buildings, multilevel structures where fresh produce can be cultivated year round instead of just in the summertime. Not only is it better for the environment, but it is also healthier for the population to eat fresh grown foods. All buildings that are built would also have their own water purification systems, so that excess rain water could be turned into useable water for the building, so we would not need to rely as heavily on underground water sources. Overall, with drastic changes in our policies now, we can ensure that life in DC and the rest of the world will continue comfortably and sustainably.