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.