Greener Future

Ultimately, this course has been a great learning experience for me. If anything, I am disappointed that I have waited until my senior year to take an environmental course. I am an International Development major with minors in Spanish and economics, and I feel that environmental policy is very related to what I have been studying. In all of my international development courses, whether they pertain to human rights or simply the basics of development, it is impossible to deny that the environment plays an important role within it. Especially the idea of sustainable development. I have heard the term tossed around before, but it was not until after this course that I really felt like I understood it. The quote that sustainable development is development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” has struck a cord within me and I think of it often. Anyone can talk about how important it is to help the impoverished and aid the developing world, but if we ignore the environment, our actions and the actions of developing nations with have dire consequences. Following that same train of thought, I will take away a lot of concepts discussed in the course and apply them to my study of economics. I saw the connection between the environment and the economy most clearly when I wrote the first paper for this class on Rio+20. After reading all about the Rio+20 themes and agenda I paid close attention to the concept of a green economy. There are ways that we can influence how developing nations grow and methods of encouraging them to take a greener route than nations like China and the US. Two of the methods that stood out most to me were green subsidies and facilitating green practices such as organic farming. There is so much more we can do to help developing nations than throwing food and money at them. For example, if we give them the tools to farm organically and efficiently we will we aiding their sustainable development as well as helping the environment as a whole. Another important concept I will take with me is the idea of practice what you preach. How is the US in a position to tell other nations how to be green when we ourselves are one of the largest, if not the largest, contributor to pollution and environmental harm. I also need to start taking actions to become greener instead of talking about them as well. This course has been invaluable for me and has opened my eyes to just how interrelated all of the SIS disciplines are and I hope to remember that as I continue my studies and enter the “real world” in May.

Finals Thoughts

I am not even sure I can count the number of things that I will take away from this class. First of I learn more than I had anticipated and second of all I learned that this was a subject that I deeply care about and want to make a career from. I also got a unique perspective about West Coast environmental views and East Coast views. I think the one thing that has really changed since I began the class is my eating habits. Right before school began I decided to become a pescatarian. I was a very nutritious person before but ever since learning more about our food system I've become more and more obsessed with what I eat. I read all food labels and if anything with corn is in the first five ingredients I don't eat it. I have also given up fish since watching The Cove and discovering that by 2040 humans might not be eating fish. I think the other topic I connected with was discussing biodiversity. I never knew much about species but the book End of the Wild I found frightening and fascinating. So overall, I will take many things away form this class. Most important I will go on to be self-aware of the environment.

Final Thoughts

There are many things I will take away from this class. The first is the idea that recycling and buying reusable bags is not enough to save the environment. This idea has really impacted the way I look at environmental intitiatives and basically every aspect of our lives. I have started to think about many of my daily activities such a eating in a new light. Also, I have learned that the environmental crisis is very serious but there are positive ideas like the ones from McDonough's Cradle to Cradle systems for design. Finally, I have realized that climate change and other environmental factors will negatively impact the lives of the impoverished the most. These changes will make the lives of the citizens of the under developed nations harder than they already are. These problems are definitely issues for concern and must be considered when making policies.

New Perspectives and Solutions

This was my first time taking an environmental course, and I have learned a lot from it. Before taking the course, I thought I had some base knowledge like the environment issues that are still currently controversial (climate change), but through out the semester, I’ve learned it was just partial of what environmental politics covers; rather today the issues about environmental is all surrounding us.

The fact, I’ve learned it’s not one individual who can change and save the world, but it was more complex where without any cooperation from everyone, the success level cannot be never reach. If we want to really change the environment and take care of it, it needed every part of the government, community, individual, etc. to be one.

I believe that the most important thing I have taken from this course is the possibility and more bright future views of it is not yet to say our environment is unsolvable and reach the end. Also the fact that climate change is really impacting every aspect of our life and it will be in our future and this changes would be make no one to be happy. Today, we live in a globalized world, we tend to observe new things very quick, which may lead us to think adapting new policy and new output for future would not harm us too much. The earth would not go back to where it was as green, blue and white, but if we can at least sustain our earth as what it is today; I think it’s better than nothing. In the end, I did really enjoyed our class and it was good experience that I can now use this new knowledge to spread the word about the environment issues and become more active on environmental issues in our community.

Not as simple as 1, 2, 3

Damian Carrington identifies three factors that stand in the way: Politics and Economics, Low-Carbon Energy, and Fossil Fuels. Before diving in and noting everything that he left out, I decided to do a little background investigation of him. Carrington is the head of the environment at The Guardian and has a blog about various environmental issues, this article being one of them. I will cut him a little slack because this was a blog post and not exactly meant to be an in-depth investigation of the challengers faced by those wanting to stop climate change. However, he should have at least noted that these factors are not all encompassing. Other factors include skepticism and those that refuse to believe the science of climate change. Another one of the most important factors that he neglects to discuss under the heading of “Politics and Economics” (which I think should be separate factors to begin with) is the role of developing nations. He does say “Renewables, especially solar power, are also the best and cheapest way to bring electricity to the 1.3 billion people who are without power,“ but he doesn’t discuss how developing nations play into the mix. For example, China is growing at an unprecedented rate of and average of 10% per year. As the West tells the world that they need to develop green and factor in the environment to their decisions, countries such as china are not convinced because to get where we are today the environment suffered greatly at the hands of the west. Combating climate change today will have a lot to do with promoting and facilitating green technologies in the developing world through incentives such as green subsidies. Also, he does not mention cultural norms as a factor. It would be unwise to not acknowledge our consumer culture and the challenge changing it would be. Ultimately, this article aims to simplify a much too complex issue. The debate over climate change cannot be summed up into 3 factors and except to be comprehensive and address all obstacles.

It all comes back to culture

I thought The Guardian did a good outline of the basics behind climate change. But it really only touched on a few issues and most of them are already well known by the mass public. He isn't addressing major concerns like our food or our consumer habits. As we saw in class last week agriculture is a huge contributor to global warming. I also thought the article could talk about transportation costs. How many times does a bushel or corn or a pair of jeans travels around the world before they arrive at their final destination? What is the carbon footprint there? And how do we go about changing that process? I woke up this morning feeling incredibly environmentally pessimistic. I just thought about Americans and thought to myself "they are never going to change. No one cares enough to change." I think the biggest reason why it is so hard to stop climate change is because of culture. Politics, industry, economic- those things are all controlled by culture and we live in a world where the environment has never going to be a priority and people can never seem to think in the long term. But if we don't think about the future now and start preventing natural destruction it will be too late. 

It is hard to stop climate change

The article seems to concentrate deeply on energy issues rather he could also point out other factors that could help to stop climate change, because it’s not only energy that do impact the climate change. And his brief example of energy uses by humans are too broad, instead I think he must pick specific reasons of which energy do impact the climate change, and how this could really impact like daily life and our future, instead of just putting information that using fuel, coal or oil is bad. Moreover, his explanation was written such a short paragraph; it is hard to persuade other people who could have different point of view. Climate issues gives such a broad controversial, I think the author must pay attention on how to attract others to believe this point is right. Also when the author pointed out on how U.S and China must put into action, but in my belief, U.S words has so much of “let’s change the world” but they never put this into action. What change have U.S made to impact other country? I think it’s not U.S and China must act first, rather every nation must make a way to work cooperatively on this climate change issue. Plus, action plays louder than words, U.S should not just wait other to work cooperatively, if U.S may act first this could lead other nations to follow this actions.

What about interest groups?

The main piece of the argument that is lacking in Carrington's article is the focus on anything but energy. Although the direct use of fossil fuels is that main cause of climate change, it can not be the only focus for the solution. We must look at restructuring the agriculture and transportation systems, which in turn will reduce the use of fossil fuels but also improve the environment in other ways. If the agriculture system is changed in a progressive way then other greenhouse gases like methane will be reduced as well. Along with the agricultural system comes another thing that stands in the way of stopping climate change, subsidies and interest groups. The U.S. is currently the nation that must take the lead in combating climate change but it has yet to do so. The reasons for this include interests groups that persuade government officials to create subsidies and other beneficial policies in exchange for political support or donations. These are not just agricultural interest groups but ones that also are funded by energy companies or other industries that harm the environment. The interest groups hold much higher priority than climate change because climate change will not help them win elections. The world can't move forward on stopping climate change until the U.S. does.

Friends of Science and How to talk to a climate skeptic

The purpose of both these sites is to argue one side of the climate change debate. Friends of Science is a site that aims to blame the Sun for any climate change occurring while How to talk to a climate skeptic supports the more mainstream, environmentalist argument for a human cause for climate change. The Friends of Science have used more links to outside sources and focus on scientific evidence more then other's opinions of the evidence. The other site uses more inside sources and supplies articles for arguments of the scientific facts provided. It also provides more defensive information for every possible argument that the opposition raises. If I did not have any knowledge of the climate change issue, I would find the Friends of Science site more persuasive. It appears to have more science related information. Although I understand their information serves to support the view that its contributors hold, the site also appears to have less of an agenda when a viewer takes their first glance. I think the only way to evaluate the scientific evidence of the information on both sites is to consider their source. If the source is known to provide skewed information or the website choose only select information from the source then I would be more skeptical of their claims. The only way to really make sense of the claims is to use your experiences with the environmental changes and knowledge of climate information to evaluate the site.

What's your agenda?

At first glance the two sites seemed like your run of the mill raise awareness about global warming sites. However, after a closer look at their purposes and a little background research on the organizations behind them, it became very clear that that was not the case. “Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” both support the idea that the sun is behind climate change, but their overall purposes are different. The site “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” does exactly that. It post responses to the major arguments against global warming. However, looking at the sources and commentary on the site, it is obvious that this site is not very reputable and I will not be citing it in a paper anytime soon. It even cites Fox News. Unbiased and professional? I don’t think so. The “Friends of Science” site is not quite so bad as it actually contains research and figures from reputable sources. However, they contain a ton of bias and even take research out of context to support their claim that “the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.” I did a little research on the organization and found out that their funding sources have come into question in the past. Including that some of their major funding has been given by oil companies. It is hard to believe that no agenda is being pushed with that kind of funding. I think that it is important to take the information provided by these sites with a grain of salt and not to accept it at face value. Ultimately though, if I had to pick which one is more convincing it would be the “Friends of Science” site because even though some of the info is taken out of context, at least they have real research.

Friends of Science vs. How to talk to a climate skeptic

After viewing both website, I found out clear difference from each web site.“Friends of Science” was more science focused website, where all the statements were supported by long link from Scientific Advisory Board of Climate, however this website is running by non-profit which is supported and running by donors from their interest, this shows there must be some parts that these group is ignoring some facts but only publishing their own interest subject. Also the purpose is to promote the idea that the earth is truly not undergoing any sort of climate changes, especially non that is man made. (Gives an idea that what is actual donors trying to approach) On the other website. “How to talk to a climate skeptic” approach and information is less proven from scientist nor professionally proven, where most of them are new website of articles that were linked to each other, so lists practically every argument made by the other side and picks it apart piece by piece, but this website was concentrate on climate change toward how human will get impact and how we should organize and work. Also it was more graphic and easy to follow and catch the eyes. Both website were interesting to view, but I think both sites are made only for those who already have their interest and strong side. Each website’s information seemed overly forceful and do not seriously take other’s side thoughts or taking it serious to think. So as a result, I did not like both of website. In my view, starting from design and the way of approaching their point was not yet strong enough to persuade someone who do not have interest on climate change.

Discussion questions 5 & 6

Question 5- I always shy away from discussing my eating habits because I usually find that people see them as pretentious. I grew up in a household where food was our god and we were it's most adoring worshipers. My mother had a nutrition degree and owned her own delicatessen. We rarely never ate out and processed foods were banned. So yes, every food choice I make is a conscious one. I try to cook about 90% of my own meals, I don't eat processed foods, and I choose many items based on their environmental impact. I don't eat meat or dairy for that reason. If I raised my own animals and slaughtered them I would have no problem consuming it but the idea that these animals are being fed corn products, antibiotics and in some cases bi-products from their own species I can't justify eating it. In the last two days the meal I presume had the highest environmental impact was probably the lunch I purchased from an Ethiopian food truck. It was a vegan meal, beats carrots and green beans however I have no idea where any of the food came from and it was served in a cardboard container with a plastic spoon and paper napkin. Green beans are also not in season anymore and may have come from a can or been shipped to the East coast. But because I have no idea where that meal came from I presume it had a high environmental footprint.

Question 6- As I addressed in the previous response I was never allowed to eat processed foods and still shy away from them. I read every label of every food I buy and attempt to avoid corn products. That being said it is still hidden in so much of our food that it is near impossible to completely cut out. I found myself baking vegan corn muffins and thinking "well shit, so much for avoiding corn." Then someone mentioned that corn is in our toothpaste, so it's not only in our food but in many of our cosmetics, our packaging. I cook but even basic ingredients that you assume to be free of corn, such as flour or baking powder, still contain the grain. We've found a use for this product which is lacking severely in nutritional value. Even plain corn straight from the cob is one of the worst vegetables you can consume. It is high in starch and low in amino acids. But we have it in our heads that if it comes from the ground it must be good for us. Straight from the ground it's not great but processed into all these different chemicals and it has to be near toxic. But screw it's nutritional value, it's efficient and cheap, which seem to be the two values Americans care most about.

Corn-acopia

First of all, just thinking about this assignment was hard. Then after looking at the list of foods to avoid it seemed impossible. I would never make it if I had a corn allergy. As my group mates said before, corn is every where. In my economics and sis courses I have extensively read and talked about corn subsidies is the US and how there is far more corn than there is a market for it. So now we feed it to our livestock, use it as fuel, give it away as food aid and put it into just about everything the average american eats. The impact of these subsidies didn't really click with me until I had to give up all food containing corn and I couldn't believe how much of my normal diet it was. Also, like one of my group mates I am addicted to Diet Coke and don't drink coffee. While abstaining from corn I missed getting my caffeine fix dearly. Also, I saw one of those ads that is pro high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen those before? They basically say that it isn't as bad for you as people want you to think. All I can think is how much our society and government is pushing corn products on America. Ultimately, I barely made it a day without eating any corn products and it made me realize just how deeply rooted they are in our diets and daily lives.

corn is everywhere!!

First when I read the question for this week’s blog, I thought the experiment is going to be easy. But not until I clicked the list of things I should avoid, I was little surprise that many ingredients or food I consume contain corn. During the experiment my eating habit did changed and it was actually hard to keep it up, because so many desert or snack I usually eat has corn in it. Basically for the two days, I became total vegetarian. Starting from only drinking water, eat more fruit and vegetable with no dressing but lemon. And I did really felt healthy but I was for sure I couldn’t keep this experiment longer than two days. One of interesting fact I found out is that for the two days I could not eat my multi-mineral supplement, because it had corn in it. And I did not know the corn was in the capsule at all. Who would know the vitamin supplement has corn in it, rather than all the minerals. We now live in the world, without even noticing a lot of food we consume include corns. It almost seems like we are addicted to it too. I remember looking at my food closet and refrigerator to find out which food does not have corn, 2 out of 30 items was without corn, especially fast food items had corn ingredients in it for sure. Personally, I was very shock. Americans today do consume too much corn, and too much is never good for health and ourselves. However, I know for sure government is behind all these corn company within lobby system. Although I don’t it’s too late to discuss this corn ingredient in food chain and companies for the future. People are getting bigger and unhealthy ways. the public and the media do need to educate student and adults how consuming too much corn can harm their health.

Corn Everywhere

When trying to avoid all corn for one day, I discovered how difficult it can be. I don't have any allergies, so I never have had to read food labels. I usually glance at the label for nutrition information but never diligently read every ingredient. Also, I realized that most quick and easy foods contain corn. I accidentally ate one or two pieces of food without even considering their ingredients, I just wanted something to eat right then. Corn seemed to literally be every where. There were so many products that I would never imagine would contain any corn product but did due to a preservative or high fructose corn syrup. Trying my best to avoid all corn for only one day was more difficult then I was expecting. I now think that I should spend a little more time considering what goes into the food idea. Processed foods may provide a quick meal but it could be containing some products that I do not want to be consuming a lot of, like corn.

Corn... my best friend.

With my lifestyle, it is quite nearly impossible not to ingest any form of corn over the span of a day or two. As a student with limited funds and an unpredictable schedule, a majority of the meals I eat are either frozen, microwaveable meals or fast food picked up on the go. Buying meals without preservatives or with real sugar as opposed to high fructose corn syrup is expensive! Not to mention, those meals aren't readily available on campus or anywhere but the grocery store, really. Luckily, I work at a restaurant where most of our food is made fresh and I get a 50% discount, so it does become a little more easy for me to have a whole meal without corn. At least it would be, if it wasn't for my arch enemy... Coke. Coca-cola is my drug. I'm not a coffee drinker so I get most of my caffine from Coke, and if I try to go most of a day without it, I get a wicked caffine headache. So even though I went almost a whole day without eating corn in my food, I caved and couldn't spend a whole day without my high-fructose corn syrup infused coke! I have gone through periods before where I have been able to lay off the coke and drink primarily water, but I always find myself going back to that sweet, sweet corn. I know it's bad for me, but honestly, I'm 21... it's not going to catch up with me for a while, so why face the ugly truth yet?

To buy organic, or not to buy organic...That is the question

1. I would love to say that the environment is my number one priority when I walk into the grocery store and decide what to buy, but honestly, price is probably what I think about most. Being a poor college student and all that. However, I won’t just buy something because it is cheap. I, like Rachel, cook most of my meals, so my main purchases are fresh produce and I like to buy goods that are in season. I do splurge on occasion and shop at whole foods (which I love) and make the environmentally conscious grocery decisions. Living on my own, the environment has moved to the back burner when I buy food, but living at home, my mom tries to put the environment first and she buys organic whenever possible. I prefer the taste of organic foods, and hope to someday soon be able to factor them into my food choices much more.

2.Over the last day or two I cooked for myself, but I had a moment of weakness and had Chinese food delivered to my apartment. This delivery definitely had the greatest environmental impact because not only did the restaurant cook and package the food in plastic containers, but then a delivery-man had to get into a car and drive to my apartment. After reading the post of my group member, I am feeling pretty guilty about my choices… I will try to do better in the future and consider the environment more in my decision-making.

Food choices

When I make food choices, I take the freshness, price and nutritional value as most important factors, because I do cook everyday rather than eating outside. First of all, I like to buy something its fresh to eat due to the fact that I do cook everyday I don’t actually buy something that would stay in the house long period. Also most of fruits and vegetables I buy are seasonal item where it taste better and did not come from the frozen storage. Second is the price, I’m college student and do not currently living with my parent. This means I do have to use my money properly and wisely. Third, I consider a lot on nutritional value when I buy the food, eating health food really keep my mentally and physically in good shape. I do have environmental considerations in my minds, as my parents always told me and showed me how it is important to keep up with small thing that will later help the environment. For example, only cook the amount that I can eat which will help me not to throw away the rest.

Of the food and beverages that I have consumed in the last day or so, I don’t think it really impact the environment impact. I drank only water, and I cook in home and ate with my roommates. To be more specific, I walked to the grocery so no transportation that would pollute the air, bought fresh fruits and vegetables which some may say in order to grow these items it need water, energy, chemical things to keep it as good standard product and how it was transported to market would be the factor that impact the environment, and walked back to home. And cooking food, I used the stove so this could be another view of impacting the environment. However, I think this is the basic need to live and basic use and impact on the environment.

Food Choice: Environment only an after thought

When I make my food choices I primarily think about the nutrition of the food I am buying compared to the cost. I also consider what is easy to make and food I like. A significant amount of food that I eat is frozen because I cannot finish large portions of food quickly. Honestly, I rarely consider the environment when purchasing food. I do believe that my eating habits may be slightly more environmentally friendly, I try to avoid buying all packaged foods and buy a small amount of meat. I do not take this into consideration when shopping though. When going out to eat, my decisions on what to get are only based on what looks good and maybe some health factors. I do enjoy going to restaurants that buy locally but do not frequent these kind of places. In the past few days I have consumed many different types of food but I would say the ground turkey and sliced turkey that I ate has the largest environmental impact. First, like chickens, turkeys are most likely fed corn and antibiotics that have a negative impact on the environment. Micheal Pollan discusses the amount of corn that is in an American's diet and how this is use of corn for everything damages the land and animals. Also, the chemicals used to treat the turkey for packaging are most likely toxic as well. Finally, the packaging and shipping of the turkey has used a large amount of oil in both the car and plastic of the package. The use of oil is horrible for every part of the environment. Other foods that I ate in the last few days are probably close to as harmful as the turkey but I believe the turkey is worst.

US: 2011

In 2111 the US will look extremely different. The US has been broken more down into regions of communities with a small central government, borders are not important. Most families have only one child and will live in small, communal houses. The world population has not decreased substantially but is not exponentially growing. Cities have become much smaller, only used for centers of the government and industry. Stores and all other similar buildings still exist but they share much smaller spaces and only supply necessities for living that people do not want to make at home. Food is grown sustainably, with only small sections for agriculture and the all other food is found in nature. Wind and solar power will provide energy for all technology. All wasteful machines, such as washer machines, will be eliminated. Water will be recycled within each house and will be used as minimally as possible. All consumer products are created to last a very long time and completely recyclable. Everyone will telecommute to work, unless they work is the service industry. Transportation is all public and powered by alternative fuel. Bicycles are used as well, most of Americans are not obese any more. I do not really believe this will all actually happen in 100 years. I do think many of these changes are possible and some can start now.

2111 in U.S.A

Nash stated “we have no compass to guide us through what will certainly be rough ecological seas ahead. Lacking long –term vision, we are like skier whose focus is fifty feet down the hill”, which means we do really need to plan our action toward future of Earth. Remembering this comment in my head and imagining the United States 100 years from now, it seems little far away from realistic situation but this could be another possibility in the future.

In the year of 2111, I believe there won’t be any borders between countries like today, but more likely having three countries interconnecting with bridges. First country will be summed up with North America and South America. Second country will be summed up with Europe, Africa and Asia. Third country will be New Zealand and Australia. However these three countries will have ecological bridge that will help people to move point A to point B. The population density will be decreased compare to today’s population rate, due to restriction law to people. Because people in this time will have equal opportunity and property right, that they do not need much family members to survive, any health issue of not guaranteeing to live for long term nor to fight against to have a land. Also the way people live and their daily life have changed. Young people are getting education to live in better green life. For example, they would go to their own little land to learn how to cultivate the land and within final product, how to exchange their goods with their neighbors and other countries. Middle age people will be concentrate on making Ocean water to drinking water, rebuilding the land and mountain with tress so the new species and animals can live, developing technology in a way the world would have less carbon emission to go out to air, etcs. Old age people will actually enjoy their life by receiving goods from society, because what they have done to their next generation is enough.

Energy will be used from natural resources from Sun and wind power, and people will develop better ways of using energy in more environmental like, rather than burning the coal and de toxic the land and air. People eat or consume their food will be sharing their agriculture base and trade between their neighbors around the world. Little community will manage the fresh water and the use of water will be depending on their action toward the environment. For example, if they did harmful action toward to lard environment, their next month to use of water will be decrease, due to restriction law. The nature of transportation will be divide to three ways. First, within water power ships that will help people to move themselves and large products. Second, bicycle and wind/light energy transportation from community to another community. Third, people will be moving with their two legs or horses for daily. There will be limitation of using the airline and big ships because the bridge between three countries will help interconnect each other close. This sounds more likely the idealist view of U.S in 2111, but I think this could be another view on how our future could look a like if we work together.

In the Year 2111

In one hundred years, the United States will have taken major strides to becoming sustainable. The US government will play an integral role in the incentivizing of green living. First, the population will be smaller, as most families will either have one or no children. This will be in part, a result of families with one child receiving a major tax credit from the government. Next, the US will harness energy using solar, wind or water power. Regions of the country will collectively decide on the alternative energy source that is best for them and accordingly all buildings (residential or commercial) will be self-sustaining using those methods. The government will once again provide a generous tax incentive for those that make the transition. Third, there will be a major change in the average American diet. Meat consumption will be reduced, as meat will no longer be the main source of protein. Instead, the norm will be to get protein from plant based sources (beans, lentils, etc.). This will in turn limit the size of animal farms, and decrease the size of that energy draining industry. As my blog group member noted before me, the issue of fresh water and access to it will be a pressing one over the next several decades. However, the US will address this problem by 2111 by taking measures such as diverting rain from simply going down storm drains and instead collecting it in giant underground cisterns so that the water can be used later. Also, homes and businesses will have gray-water filtration systems that reuse the water rather than send it through the septic system to contribute to water pollution. Also, the government will punish businesses through taxation if they fail to clean and purify water before disposing of it. Finally, improved transportation systems that run on clean energy will be the norm and easily accessible to the public. The car industry will be based on cars running on clean energy such as solar power and will follow the Cradle to Cradle concept that all materials can be repurposed and reused. You will never find a car in a junkyard in the US in 2111 for example. Ultimately, the US will (hopefully) undergo major transitions to be sustainable by the year 2111. There are many different ways to tackle these environmental problems, but one undeniable factor will be the role of the national government in incentivizing and encouraging a green lifestyle.

When I'm 121

If the United States was sustainable in 100 years I imagine a severe population decrease.  I know that many people in my generation aren't planning to have children for environmental reasons. And instead of a highly advanced technological society I imagine we go back to our roots of living off the land. I imagine most people to have their own sustainable communities where they grow their own food and raise their own livestock, where trading amongst neighbors is the norm and large superstores don't exist. I imagine that some people drive cars (hopefully fully electric) but bicycles and other forms of public transportation are used more regularly. Clean drinking water will become tricky seeing that fresh water is already a scarce resource. But the United States has a fairly large amount of fresh water and I see it being evening distributed across the country. The problem with this view is that it alters the United States into a seemingly utopian society. The odds of this country returning to an agricultural state of being is incredibly slim. But I don't think technology (even green technology) is really the answer.  I believe that in order to be completely sustainable individuals have to take charge of their own food and production and they have to learn to live off the land. Once again I don't see this happening in our country but I do hope that when I'm 121 (hopefully I won't be alive) that our economy and lifestyle depend on the land and we don't take it for granted.

Cultural Transformation

In his article "The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures" Erik Assodourian asserts that the consumer culture that has been developed is the primary factor to human degradation of the environment. He calls for a cultural transformation by which he means changing our current consumerist culture to one that does not maintain the ever expanding need for more and does not view this idea as "natural". Assodourian states that this transformation is a "shift to a cultural paradigm where the norms, symbols, and traditions encourage just enough consumption to satisfy human well being". He then continues to lay out a plan for cultural transformation with the themes of equity and ecological restoration. I believe is plan would be possible to implement and has many aspects that can already be seen today. The plan is highly ambitious and would take a long to start, let alone be successful, but it seems like the steps laid out in are concrete ideas. The step to switch private consumption to public consumption can already be seen in the example of public transporation, as Assodourian points out. I think that the step of necessary goods to be completely recyclable would be possible to implemented in America as well, as long as a market economy can still flourish from the production of these goods. Finally, the first step appears to be that hardest to implement. Discouraging consumption is completely contradictory to the way our culture is set up now. His examples of fast food would be a good that would be easier to discourage consumption, that already happens today. Other goods like using your car would be very hard to discourage, although people try to already. Assodourian raises some very interesting points in his article but there are some themes in in the appear to be leaning to close to socialism for many Americans. I believe if he plan was actually put into action it would help the environment but it could be very difficult to do some of the steps.

Consumer Culture

In his article "The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures" Erik Assodourian argues that consumerism is deeply embedded in our culture and therefore incredibly difficult to counteract. He discusses the history of consumer culture and explains that culture is not simply what we wear, eat or what we believe. He write that, "most of what seems natural to people is actually cultural." Therefore attempting to decrease consumerism is going to mean a drastic shift in cultural identity and beliefs. I think that his transformation plan is incredibly solid but I find it hard to believe that Americans will change. I'm afraid I've taken a pessimistic approach to the argument but Americans are spoiled and they like it that way. I am all for a serious shift in cultural practices but I'm not the rest of the world feels the same way. As I mentioned in class last Monday consumerism is a social construct. Attempting to shift a social construct that is as strong as consumerism seems near to impossible. One of the steps towards change that he recommended was a change in diet. I am an incredibly healthy eater and a vegetarian but I know from experience that most people don't eat the same way and most say they want to but don't make much of an effort to change their habits. Obesity and diabetes are on the rise and have been for years but very little has changed in this country. We are so obsessed with pleasure that we can't deny ourselves anything. The same can be said for AC/heat. They shut off the climate in my apartment for two months and all we've done is complain about it. I want to believe in Assodourian's transformation plan but it's hard to envision Americans transforming their selfish habits.

Cultural Transformation

In his article, he describes the meaning of cultural transformation as “cultural pioneers”, where this transformation does need long time of efforts to see the success view. In order to achieve cultural transformation, all the aspect from government, media, education, etc. has to work together and alter. For example, he mentioned that “policy alone will not be enough” that not only the policy but also a dramatic involvement in the very parts of human societies will be necessary. The food we eat, how we travel from one point to other, even how we treat the environment in daily life; these small action can added up from one person to other to make it as cultural transformation. His plan seems very accurate but in my point of view, education system looked very accurate to see some essential changes. As he mentioned in his article, by educating young generation about nutrition, and about the environment where we live in right now, and by showing critical of consumerist media, our young generation will be in better off to understand the condition of Earth and become future cultural pioneers. From my experience, since my elementary school, our community and school were very involved to educate how much it is important to recycle and we have to care our environment through out our lifetime. My home country is very strict about recycling process and still today, I take it very serious when it comes to recycle so I always divide paper, plastic, food, glass so it does not mix with other stuffs like food. However, when I moved to US, I was very shocked that not a lot of students know the importance of neither recycling nor how to distribute their products when they trash it. From that point, I thought not enough of education on environment for young people is dangerous for the future. I do know it will take a lot of effort to see a big changes but at least education do teaches and influence our young generation to become cultural pioneer, it will help our environment much better.

Call for a Cultural Transformation

In his article, Eric Assadourian provides a brief history of consumerism in the world and they ways in which it is instilled into our culture today. The methods of encouraging consumerism in our culture that he identifies include: marketing, product placement, the media, and education. Accordingly, Assadourian advocates a "cultural transformation" to address the current environmental situation. Our current rate of consumption is not sustainable and a quote from the MA Board that is included in the article (and that Professor Nicholson likes to quote in class) is that "human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be take for granted." Today's culture, especially in the US, is so deeply rooted in the ideas of consumption and consumerism, that we will only be able to ease the growing threat to the environment by changing and altering our culture to be less harmful. Overall I agree with his transformative plan, but at the same time I am pessimistic because I find it hard to imagine a time in the US where people don't buy into big extravagant celebrations and rituals and where it isn't the norm for someone to get a car on their 16th birthday. However, my pessimism aside, I think that the steps he advocates to take to have a "cultural transformation" are valid in that it will take a multifaceted approach to alter this culture of consumerism and the mentality that more money and things equals greater happiness. In the article he applauds the social movements that are taking place that include the Slow Food movement and ecovillages, which I heartily support as well. Ultimately, I agree that a cultural transformation needs to take place, but I worry that we won't have enough time to make it a reality before it is too late.

Marchers in SF- Maggie Kuk

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/25/BA221L92LL.DTL

In San Francisco hundreds of people took to the streets in a march to protest the use of fossil fuels. It was a part of a global Moving Planet day. Over 2,000 similar protests were scheduled to take place around the world. Some participants were dressed in polar bear and fish costumes, others held signs demanding changes such as improved public transportation, more solar and wind energy, and cleaner air.

What makes this a successful form of action is that it was organized and run by the civil society. This is a perfect example of democracy at it's best- hundreds of people protesting for their government to change something that they're unhappy and dissatisfied with. I wrote in a previous post that I believed in the power of the people. I believe that the push for environmental change doesn't have to come from the industry. This is a perfect example of grassroots organizing.

This action is definitely replicable. Just the fact that 2,000 similar marches were scheduled proves that fact. I think the more people protest the more pressure politicians will feel to push for higher environmental standards. 

This gives me hope for several reasons. This action shows that there are hundreds of people that want change. It also proves that the masses have a voice and that they are being listened to. So many people assume that they're voices can't be heard, but this action shows otherwise. I think with more protests from the public really changes might start to take place.

Eco-Friendly Chesapeake Bay Foundation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012404669.html

The article describes that measures taken by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to create the most eco-friendly building. The purpose of this building was to set an example for others to showcase alternative energy options and "green" living. The building was finished in 2000 but still is a gleaming example of how construction can be changed to better protect the environment.

a) This is an effective form of action because the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is not just helping the environment by building a eco-friendly building but it gives an example of what actions are possible to save the Chesapeake Bay. The bay is threatened by many different environmental factors, including human and animal waste. The building for the foundation eliminates waste flowing into the water by composting it.

b) This action comes from civil society. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is made up of individuals that want to donate their time and money to a cause they see as dire. The government tends to get involved with Chesapeake Bay conservation, but the construction of the foundation's building was strictly funded by civil society.

c) This action is replicable in some ways. It is not realistic to assume that all new buildings will be built like the foundation's building, especially for ones around the bay. The building was very expensive, although some prices have gone down since its construction in 2000. The components of the building that can be replicated in new construction are things such as composted waste and alternative ways of heating a building. It is also more plausible that these types of changes to construction are possible in a large building then in individual homes.

d) This article only provides some hope for me. I really enjoy reading about the advances in eco-friendly technology. It is also encouraging to read that this technology has reduced in price over the years. This may mean that the technology is accessible to more people. The primary issue that causes me to have some doubt in this action is that is was completed by individuals that were are concerned and aware of environmental issues. I believe that is was a great investment and a good example to others but I don't think that it will produce much change. It seems as if there are groups of people that care to make their lives as eco-friendly as possible and they participate in such actions as constructing green building. Then there is the rest of the population in America that does not take the actions necessary to change their behavior and positively impact the environment. I would have a lot more hope is this was a developer in a suburban area that was building environmentally friendly homes.

Solar India

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/04/11/bangladesh.solar.power.kalihati/index.html

This article from CNN details a program that has been active since 1996 that sells solar panels to homes and businesses in Bangladeshi villages. Although these panels are rather expensive on the average Bangladeshi salary, they are slowly introducing electricity to thousands of people who have never had it before, and they are doing so in an environmentally friendly manner.

a) This is a very effective action because Bangladesh is a part of the world that is developing at a fast rate and will be using increasing amounts of energy in the near future. Starting many of the homes and businesses in the area off on solar energy will form good habits in the village and cut down on a good bit of energy consumption in the future as well as the present.
b) This action originates from civil society. The company that started this program, Grameen Shakti, is a non-profit organization in Bangladesh that combines several causes into one solution. Not only does this organization provide green, solar energy, it also trains women in the community to install and maintain them, giving many of them jobs. 
c) With the proper funding, this program is definitely replicable and would be perfect to impliment in many of the other developing nations that are going to be using larger and larger amounts of electricity in the near future. This would even be a good program to replicate in already developed nations to decrease our dependence on oil and gas.
d) This program does give me hope because it suddenly makes the threat of the billions of people rising out of poverty and using similar amounts of energy as developed nations a little less scary. If more people outside of Bangladesh adopted similar programs I would be even more comfortable with the coming future.

Social Project uses pop bottles to provide indoor lighting for the poor

In summary, the article talks about how water-filled plastic pop bottles through holes in each household roof could vividly light up the inside of a one size house room. And this is Isang Litrong Liwanag (A liter of light) project that’s been going around homes of poor in the Philippines. This project is running by Philippines’ MyShelter Foundation and they promote social enterprise, appropriate technology and alternation construction in the region. The Solar Bottle Bulb was designed by MIT students where to make this bulb is very simple. Filling the bottle with water, chlorine then the bottle is squeezed part way through a hole in a piece of corrugated tin. Even though this solar bottle bulb only works when sun is out, it still helps many poor houses where the house does not have a window and electric.

a) What makes this an effective form of action?

- This is an effective form of action because the cost to produce solar bottle bulbs is very low probably people only have to buy the chlorine and that all they need. Water and thrown plastic bottles are easy to find and by reusing the bottle is another way of helping the environment better. In the articles, the author talks about how these bottle bulbs are built in the houses for the poor plus where the electrics are not provided. This little bottle bulb action all together help the environmental issue in Philippines by reducing the cost to help the poor and recycle and reuse the thrown bottles in the areas which cleans up the dumpster.

b) Does the action come from the government, from the economic realm, or from civil society?

- This action comes from civil society because the foundation is nongovernmental where their goal is to promote social enterprise, appropriate technology and alternative construction in the region. And there is no government or economic realm involve in this project.

c) Is the action replicable?

- Yes, This action is replicable because to produce solar bottle bulbs do not need professional specialties or high cost to create the bulb. This action could work in other developing countries to give them a light in the house.

d) Does it give you hope?

- Yes, because to make this bulb do not need much cost or specialties and it is easy to spread the word around the developing countries. Places where there are no electric can use this method at least if the country it self do not have yet advantage technology or development. I hope this project will impact to reduce the amount of bottles that are meaninglessly thrown out in the garbage and at least have chance to reuse to give a light to people who do live in dark.

Brazil Farming Revolution

I found an article from Scientific American magazine that caught my eye for this assignment. In summary, the article talks about a new method of farming and cattle raising in Brazil that is intended to greatly reduce the practice of slash and burn by using a method that requires less land. Brazilian farmers and cattle ranchers are trying to decrease the need for more land by diversifying production and feeding their cattle grain instead of grass. The plan would be to convert existing pasture to corn production. Historically, the Amazon has been destroyed by slash and burn methods to clear out land for cattle to graze. This new method of diversifying production however would decrease the environmental impact of the cattle industry by slowing the destruction of the Amazon.

a) This is an effective form of action because there is incentive for the farmers to use this technique and use less land more efficiently. In the article, a farmer talks about how with this new method, they can earn more money and raise more cattle on less land while simultaneously helping the environment.

b) This action comes from civil society because farmers must decide to reduce the size of their pastureland and begin growing grain to add to the diet of their cattle. As of now there are no official government mandates calling for all ranchers to use this new method.

c) Yes. This action is replicable because it has already been used in the United States and Europe where cattle are fed grain.

d) I know that this solution is not a perfect one to address the destruction of the Amazon, but I think that it is a step in the right direction. Finally people are beginning to think about how to reign in the cutting down of trees and thinking of ways to use land more efficiently. I hope that this step is the first of many to make an impact on the environment, and as time passes people will come up with even better and more efficient methods to make cattle ranching take less of a toll on the environment.

Unintended consequences

Maniates makes a decent argument that people need to do more than the simple things such as recycling and turning off the lights to make any progress in rolling back global warming rather than just delaying the inevitable downfall. I know he was not trying to discourage any of these individual activities, yet after reading the article, I couldn't avoid the thought, "well then why do I bother going out of my way to do the little things if they are not going to make a difference". I feel that Maniates article has the potential to backfire. For many people, like myself, conserving energy, resources, etc. is merely an afterthought I go through with because sometimes I remember to feel guilty about all the energy I go through in a day. However, if someone was to tell me that sacrificing a few minutes in the shower or running back in to turn the light off wasn't actually making a difference, I would simply stop inconveniencing myself and would cease to do such things. Maniates tone in the paper seems to belittle such actions and tempts me to stop bothering with them. His point that it will take bigger changes from cooporations and governments could not be more true and definitely needs to be said but I believe that he should do so without trivialiving the little things.

There is no Easy Way Out

I have to agree with Maniates that "easy" isn't going to work in this case. It seems that we've reaped all we can from our planet and recycling or priuses aren't going to cut it. I think all people enjoy a challenge and look forward to reaching a goal. So why not set the bar higher? Why not ask Americans to start drastically changing their lifestyles? In fact, why not demand it? At this point we really don't have much to lose. An earlier post pointed out that industry should be the first to change. I agree that this would be ideal, that industry could set the standard for the typical American to start altering his/her lifestyle. But I also want to point out that industries are run by the common American. If the progress starts in the home then soon enough Americans will be demanding that industries adopt "green" habits as well. If we ingrain the idea "that this isn't going to be easy but that the rewards will be worth it" I have hope that the public will respond and that big business will follow. After all, isn't that what Capitalism is all about, that the little man can make big changes in the economy? Why don't we all try to work towards an economic environmental revolution. I think Americans could use a new challenge.