The Ability for Sustainability?

Cradle to Cradle was an interesting read. I liked the approach they took with building things with what was available. I feel like that the solution to all social, economic, and political problems – start off small. I do feel like the authors were on track but I felt like they were addressing to a Utopian society. Not all companies can afford a green makeover. Not many countries even care. Not all citizens are concerned with the food=waste equation. So as much is it all makes sense and it sounds TERRIFIC, I’m not sure it would work in poorer countries after the two authors left. I found it interesting that on page 124 they mentioned their visit to Jordan and how they helped peopled near the “almost dried up” Jordan River build mud houses that were ideal in the weather conditions they were living in. Being from that area I’m sure the people were grateful for the authors’ help in building a house, but I’m not sure how effective that design would be in the future. We need to have a lot more people like Mcdonough and Braungart for things to change.

I know as a reader of this post you probably think I'm a very skeptical person, I try not to be, but I do agree with my classmate before- the four Rs aren't enough. On a brighter notes, Mcdonough and Braungart should work with companies (as they did with Nike and Ford) that have the capital to change. Starting for the top big companies would have a trickle down effect to smaller companies and eventually leading to the consumers. The Biologic and technical cycles have to be followed by the producers for the consumers to care about.



As the book mentions, the cost to make all these changes is high at first, but the money saved basically Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

ys the bill! I feel Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

ke big companies need to be lured in with that concept- then be given the good to be green concept. These companies play a complicated game, to be the winner you need to play it with them!

Redesigning Design: Completely Recyclable Books, Biodegradable Shoes, and the like.

When I received Cradle to Cradle in the mail along with my other textbooks this semester, I quickly realized that it was not the typical book. The pages were plastic, and it was heavier than all of the other books I bought. The design of the book aligns with the ideas inside. We need to make things differently, and input a closed loop system. The book has been designed to be completely recyclable into a new book; it is not like another book which when recycled is converted into a lower quality product.

A major issue that McDonough tackled was ditching the 'cradle to grave' model for the 'cradle to cradle' model. The book follows this model because it is easily recyclable into a new book of the same quality. He argues that the industrial revolutions methods of production that are still in place are leading to massive environmental degradation, and that all human products must be made in this way or at least be completely biodegradable. Instead of producing by this method, we must operate with zero emissions. The authors envision a future of complete sustainability.

I extremely enjoyed his viewpoints of addressing sustainability through not just innovation, but complete reinvention and redesign. They state that we don't need to reduce our measures of consumption, but come up with new ways of consuming that benefit the planet. He does not advise that we need to change our ways, but that corporations and businesses need to change their ways to take action to invent new materials and products that do not harm the environment.

4 R's Aren't Enough

Cradle to Cradle deals with many of the issues we have talked about this semester. They cover the industrial revolution, our flawed production system (cradle to grave), over use of resources and sustainability. Of all the things the book brought up I thought that their understanding of "eco-effectiveness" was the most profound.

Instead of arguing for eco-efficacy Cradle to Cradle argues for a complete change in our production system. Macdonough shows that simply making products more efficient is kind of like a band-aid. Just like recycling is an aspirin. The book clarifies these ideas in the term eco-effectiveness. The authors right on pg 76, "Our concept of eco-effectiveness means working on the right things - on the right products and services and systems - instead of making the wrong things less bad. Once you are doing the right things, then doing them 'right,' with the help of efficiency among other tools, makes perfect sense." I had never thought about something like this before.

I mean I knew that as a society we would have to change our lives to stop the environmental degradation. But while I knew this, I imagined a world where we had the majority of the same products and services we do now. I imagined that we would have efficient and systemic mass transit systems. I imagined closed loop production. But during all of this I never thought that we might have to strop producing certain products and services to save the environment. Eco-effectiveness brought my mind one more step further.

The Goal is Zero

I feel that the book Cradle to Cradle is a good summary of the course, International Environmental Politics because it covers relevant points that we discussed in class. In summary, it mainly talks about Neo-Malthusians vs. Cornucopians, environmental sustainability, eco-efficiency, the history, such as the Industrial Revolution and International conventions and protocols, food issues, including GMOs and metabolism, and use of resources, such as raw materials and energy. It also brigs a new important topic that we have not fully discussed yet, which is the four R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Regulate. At the end of the book, specific and practical solutions are recommended; therefore, this book provides one of the significant approachable solutions to global environmental issues.

The author’s main argument is eco-efficiency and environmental sustainability, which include a question of universal designs, and four Rs. My impression of the book is that the author’s ideas are based on Neo-Malthusians. He questions everything and claims analytical thoughts. In particular, I like a quote, which is “Recycling is an aspirin, alleviating a rather large collective hangover… overconsumption” (50). I argued that Japan was successful in recycling resources in the previous blog post, but after I read this book, I feel recycling is just slowing down severe effects of environmental issues. In other words, it is not stopping or preventing issues completely. For example, I always use recycle boxes at America University. They can be found at everywhere, such as in the library, MGC, dorms, and classrooms. It is easy to recycle because they are next to garbage boxes and all I need to do is read the sign and classifies which one goes which boxes. I believe that recycling bins, cans, and paper help reducing environmental issues, but in fact, it becomes true　only if everyone participates in recycling. I often see people throw away recyclable stuffs to the garbage box even though they see cycle boxes next to the garbage. This is sad and not helping to solve the environmental issues. The quote exactly explains the situation today. The author suggests that we need to take actions of four Rs seriously in order to change the world.

In addition, I agree with, “The goal is zero: zero waste, zero emissions, zero ‘ecological footprint’” (67). We are currently doing negative things to the planet. Thus, we first need to bring back the situation to zero by contributing energy to solve and prevent further environmental issues. Accordingly, the author’s arguments make sense and on the right track.

A Closed Loop System

The authors of Cradle to Cradle seem to have taken the idea of “green technology” a step further, by advocating an economic system that is green from start to finish. Hence the name “Cradle to cradle”: from beginning of a product’s life to the end of a products life and from the start of a production system to its end, zero or positive environmental impact should be the result.

First, they argue that the Industrial revolution system is a “cradle-to-grave” design and all along the production system we are harming the environment. When we throw the product “away” there really an “away” doesn’t really exist.

Second they argue that eco-efficiency is not an effective way of saving the planet. “Reduction does not halt depletion and destruction—it only slows them down,” and over time the harmful effects will still be noticeable. To reuse wastes means to simply transfer them to another place. Recycling is ineffective for a number of reasons, not least of which is that when materials are recycled they become of lower quality and are less useful. Regulation is also ineffective because it hinders economic growth of industries, and cannot compete with unregulated industries.

Instead of eco- efficiency, the authors advocate “eco-effectiveness.” Eco-effective systems and products would function like a Cherry Tree, in that it gives back to the environment. It is a closed loop system that uses the earths resources and then gives back to the soil that will help it continue to grow. The authors say that humans have the potential to create systems and products that give back to the environment and also help its own production or use.

I believe that they are on the right track, because their solution directly confront the problems the environment is facing. They are right that reduction, reuse, recycling, and regulation will not solve the problems on their own. What we need is a closed system that gives back to the earth at least if not more of what we take from it. I look at it as simple math. Lets simplify the earth’s complex system into a number that represents everything the earth has to offer us (resources, sinks, fertile land, natural services…). Lets say the earth has 100 units to give us. In a “cradle-to-grave” system every year we may extract 1 unit and replace .5 unit. This means the earth will be unable to support us in 200 years. However, if we have a “cradle-to-cradle” system we would be extracting .5 unit and replacing .5 unit or more, allowing the earth to support us indefinitely.

Neither Website! Skeptics need something more serious...

To be completely honest, I was never an “environmental person”. I travelled, consumed and spent like there was no tomorrow. As an economics major- I believed that there were sacrifices that had to be made for the human race to excel. After taking this class my entire belief shifted. But then there are websites like these that make me skeptical again. I didn’t feel the facts were something that made me think I wanted to change the way I lived to reverse the effects of climate change.
The first website: Friends of Science had this on its homepage, “While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change” Well who chooses what scientific research is qualified? I felt them having this on the website made me not even want to click on anything else. I feel like the creators of this website “stupified” the arguments to make them more simple. The problem with that is when a viewer reads the arguments presented- we feel like they aren’t important and too simplified. The Grist website addressed what skeptics would say. A potentially great idea – I liked how they had it broken down. But what I noticed is that a skeptic would want hard facts- something that would sway them. The Grist website could have done a better job in convincing skeptics.It was just very hard for me to actually want to stay on either website for more than a minute. I felt like they did not provide any source of information!

The Debate on the Big CC

The fierce competition around the science of climate change can be attributed to a few things. First, it is extremely complex by nature. There are clearly a number of factors that contribute to climate change that should not be looked at individually but instead they should be seen as interconnected. People try to look at the factors individually without looking at the big picture and try to discredit scientific data. Second, the effects of climate change are varied and are not the same around the world. Again, people who doubt the existence of climate change will attack a statement like the average global temperature is rising by pointing to the fact that the eastern seaboard had record snowfalls last winter. Finally, something that was mentioned in a previous post, it is just to difficult to believe for some people. The idea that the earth is changing so radically and its humanity's fault is a lot to take in for some people. Especially when the cause and effect is not so clear cut.

For both sites I believe there are some legitimate arguments. However, neither site is very convincing for its own reasons. The Friends of Science site is unconvincing to me because it does such a poor job of explaining the graphs. When I look at the graphs , I see the exact opposite of what the site is trying to prove. The site admits not doing any research itself and just taking scientific literature and putting it on their page. The problem is they don't site their sources. It could just be taking everything out of context to try and prove what it is saying (which it doesn't do very well). For the other site, the format is extremely informal, and gives the impression the the ideas and evidence presented are not legitimate and are not from legitimate sources. The blog/facebook style gives doubt that actual research is being presented and is not research taken out of context and re-construed to prove the point they want to make. However, many of the claims made by the sites are probably based on facts and research, but are not properly explained or backed up by evidence.

Neither May Be Better?

These two websites make conflicting an incomparable statements about global warming. They both claim to have scientific arguments on their side. They both consider the other site to be completely wrong. What is the reason for this contradiction? I would say that there are three main reasons. One, the truth is hard to deal with. Think of how depressing climate change literature is... Two, there are many people/corporations with vested interests that the world continue to use its current fuel sources. Think of all the oil companies, power companies, car/plane companies and how much they would be hurt by government action against climate change. Three, true action to reduce the effect of climate change requires significant cooperation and sacrifice by everyone. Many people reject the idea of global warming because it would mean that they have to change too much.

I don't really think that either of these sites is particularly good to get your information from. Scientific information should be devoid of any information that is not scientific or opinionated. Yes this is rather hard to find but it is the necessary evidence that we all should believe - if it is legitimate. Friends of Science makes a relatively persuasive argument through a decent bit of scientific measurement. However this measurement has a clear agenda. It is very easy to design a scientific study to say anything you want it to say. But of course when you say that it is supported by science many people will believe you.

It is because of this scientific evidence that I find Friends of Science to be more convincing. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic has more of a blog or facebook format. There are some articles, but most of the content is posted by a variety of ordinary site to watch their kids. This discredits the website a bit and makes the faulty science of Friends of Science look even better. I think it would be much better to read something like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment...

Two articles, “Friends of Science” and “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” are interesting enough to consider and I had a good time reading them with analytical thoughts. My answer for first two questions, “why is there such fierce competition around the science of the climate change?” and “How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific clams these two competing websites make?” is that people want to have debates with counter arguments. When I was comparing these two websites, I recognized that these arguments are somehow similar to arguments between Neo-Malthusians and Cornucopians. The one side argues that we should relax and sit back because the climate change and global warming are not caused by human activities; they are happening simply because of natural climate disasters. This is similar to Cornucopians. The other side claims that the climate change is happening seriously according to data and evidence; therefore, we should act to prevent further damages on the Earth immediately. This idea is based on Neo-Malthusians. Both sides are arguing exactly opposite statements by making sense to only themselves. There is a fierce competition going on because they do not seriously listen to the other side of argument. In other words, both are just arguing whatever they just want to say. With this reason, I do not think that there is a way we should make sense of arguments from both websites.

Personally, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing than “Friends of Science” to me because I am a big believer in the fact that human activities are causing the climate change and global warming. Also, I agree many points that Cody Beck makes. He claims convincing counter arguments. In particular, I am most convinced by arguments made in Stages of Denial. I am surprised to read all the denial arguments that people make and two arguments, which are Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing and Why should the U.S. join Kyoto while India and China haven't? I am for Kyoto Protocol because it makes good points of establishing “international political and economic mechanisms for dealing with global warming, by taking the first tentative steps toward a difficult goal,” and perhaps I am Japanese! Obviously, the United States should join the Kyoto Protocol because it “puts out more CO2 than any other nation on earth.” I believe that the United States is causing the most damages on the climate change and global warming because all the materials that we discussed in class, such as footprint and consumption, point out that the United States is the biggest country that has an influence on the Earth. I strongly disagree with the argument, Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing, because it is making huge efforts. As Cody mentioned, the Kyoto Protocol is a step-by-step process; therefore, no one really can say it is a waste of effort YET. I believe that the Kyoto Protocol will come up with a successful result in near future if it continues to make practical resolutions dealing with global warming and if the United States, India, and China join it. These two arguments strike me the most but there are several other interesting arguments to discuss. Which argument strikes the most?

In conclusion, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is interesting to read and analyze the climate change and global warming with several counter arguments. We should discuss this in class. It will be an interesting debate!

Nature: a work of art

My most magical experience with the non-human world has to be my trip down to Patagonia in the southern tip of Chile. I had never seen nor do I think I will ever see a more beautiful place in the world. The landscape, so untouched by human society was picturesque. Everywhere I turned, every scene I took in was a work of art. No one on earth can create something as asthetically breathtaking as the landscape of Patagonia. Dotting this landscape, of rolling hills, calm streams, massive glaciers and towering mountains, was a plethora of wild animals, rarely seen elsewhere in the world, such as a variety of llamas.

Of course we should save nature. First, as evidenced above, nature provides man a work of art upon which to observe. In all corners of the world nature provides us with beautiful images and creations that cannot be reproduced by any human. Second, many plants and animals provide humans with services both directly by food, clothing or medicine or indirectly by maintaining the delicate balance in nature (which was mentioned in previous posts). What we do can destroy that balance if we are not careful. Once it is gone it will never be back. The earth belongs to all living things not just humans. We need to make sure we live and let live.

Nature is the Greatest Therapist

I had a similar experience to what Zaina had in Africa. I went to Zambia for a volunteer work when I was a high school student and I felt that wild nature, which is “the non-human world,” was something that cannot be replaced and explained with technology and economy. Green trees, animals, and landscapes in Zambia reminded me scenes from Lion King. They are exactly the same images in the movie. In particular, I had an interesting and thrilling engagement with baboon, an African and Asian World Old monkey, on the way to the Victoria Fall. A lot of baboons, zebras, and prairie dogs were around me and they were hiding in the trees and shrubs. A tour guide told me in advance that it was dangerous to show food and drinks to animals because they know they were tasty. However, my friend was holding a bottle of juice and a bag of potato chips in her hands. A big baboon (I think it is a boss) approached us from behind and shockingly, it scratched my friend’s bag pack. She freaked out and threw juice and potato chips into the air. The baboon took them and opened the bottle of juice using its hands like human beings do and drank all of it in front of us. I was surprised that it knew how to open the bottle. It was a thrilling and scary moment because the baboon could attack us as a group to take our food. Luckily, he was satisfied with juice and chips and left without harming us. The picture that I attached is the baboon I am talking about. It was the most thrilling engagement with a wild animal that stays in my mind forever.

I argue that we should definitely concern “saving nature” because we cannot live without beautiful and powerful nature. As stated before, nature is irreplaceable in our lives. I was so sentimental and emotional when I had engagements with the wild nature in Zambia. My eyes were full of tears when I saw a beautiful sunset at the horizon. Also, I had an interesting experience watching wild animals eating food and walking in front of us. The nature gives me power. I was full of energy after a trip to Zambia. In fact, I was having an exhausting life in high school because of a lot of assignments and exams. However, after I saw the sunset and had interactions with wild animals and nature, I felt like school work was nothing compared to greatness of nature. I would say that it is the greatest therapist in the world. I do not think this phenomenon can be explained with technology and economic activities. This simply comes from the bottom of the heart. It is true that technology and economic activities are beneficial and helpful for our lives in many ways; however, nature is more important than them. In fact, many wild animals are disappearing because they lose their habitats and food because of selfish human activities. We are destroying nature because of egoism. This is sad. We need to realize how much power we get from nature and appreciate the fact that we are fortunate to have beautiful nature. In other words, we cannot live without nature, so we have to save it. I will do my best to save nature with various effective ways. I will start researching facts of extinct animals and methods to save them. This blogpost is a significant one to reconsider how great nature is.

Biodiversity Please

This past September I was on vacation in Fiji. I was staying on a tiny island resort in the Pacific. The "resort" was a collection of miniature huts build on the sand. In the mornings the staff would scan the water around the island for manta rays. When they saw them, they would ring a large bell. On the second morning I was staying on the island, the manta rays were spotted and I went rushing down to the water. We climbed into small boats and went out to where the manta rays were swimming. I put on my scuba gear and jumped into the water. Beneath me there was an entire school of manta rays. Each animal was the size of a small car. They were the most amazing color blue and made little clicking noises as they swam along. They were communicating using echolocation like a dolphin. I could not believe that I was able to interact with these animals in such an intimate manner. They were easily the most beautiful creatures that I have seen in person.

There is no question that we should save nature. Firstly, there is such an amazing variety animals on our planet. From polar bears to manta rays to centipedes every animal on our planet has some value and should be cherished. We have lost many animals during the last couple decades and we are on the path to loose many more. We should protect these animals simply because they are miracles of nature and part of our environment. Secondly, we need many of the animals in our world. Besides the animals that we eat, animals like bees are an intrinsic part of our ecosystem. Without bees and animals like them our ecosystem would cease to function as we know it. We must work to save our ecosystem and saving our animals is an intrinsic part of it.

Monkeys, Zebras, Elephants! What more could you ever want?

The monkey stole my banana! I was packing my bag for our hike to the peak of Mount Meru, the second highest mountain in Africa reaching 15,000 feet in height, located in the Arusha region of Tanzania. I left a couple of bananas on the top of my bag to remind me to have one before the start of our hike and then pack them. I went to ask our leader a question about the hike, when I heard some of my classmates (who were on the trip with me) laughing. I went to see what was so funny, and there was a monkey eating my bananas! From that point, I knew this hike was going to be an interesting and adventurous one. So the question “What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world? “ can be answered by saying: reaching the top of Mount Meru was the most exhilarating thing I’ve done. You know that accomplished feeling you get when your done with a 25 page paper and you have it printed out, perfected and ready to hand in? Multiply that feeling by 1000 and add a beautiful view. I felt like I was alone- and honestly I felt like I appreciated nature. My trip to Tanzania made me realize that there is a certain feeling nature gives us that cannot be replaced with any technology in the world. Being on a safari and seeing elephants and giraffes in the wild, made me realize that nature is all we have- and we’re ruining it.


I went back to Jordan, I shared my pictures and memories, but then totally forgot about that feeling of serenity and calmness that nature provided me with. Is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not? The answer is YES, we should concern ourselves with nature. Truthfully, before this class- I prioritized the economy. I never took the environmental concerns THAT seriously. I knew we were depleting the earth’s resources, but I never knew what we were really doing was destroying the nature to build tall skyscrapers. I know that we have discussed technologies that can help us with the damage we’ve already done. But we need to stop damaging because those technologies won’t give us the same satisfaction that nature would. Imagine walking down the street and not seeing a single tree- but instead seeing those big artificial trees that are just machines? If we don’t concern ourselves with nature- we will lose it. And when we do lose it , we will realize that we miss it and want it back; but then it would probably be too late.

In conclusion – I never really thought of the environment- but when I saw the beauty of nature, I never wanted to let that moment go. I was walking down the street this morning and picked up a leaf because its colors were so beautiful. If continue giving priority to the economy and technology over the environment- each one of may never see the site they shared with us over these blogs again.

Recycling Minerals From Used Electronics in Japan

"Japan Recycles Minerals From Used Electronics"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/global/05recycle.html?ref=earth




Kosaka, a small city in Akita, Japan, has a brilliant recycling system of minerals. Many technological devices come from China to Japan nowadays but China decided to block exports of all rare earths to Japan two weeks ago. This gives a huge impact for Japanese industries because Japan is poor in natural resources. Japanese companies need to find new ways to find natural resources because natural resources are necessary for technological development and creation.
It is a superb idea to recycle minerals from used electronics. In fact, Tetsuzo Fuyushiba, a former land minister and now opposition party member said “We’ve literally discovered gold in cellphones.” Many Japanese companies, such as Dowa holdings and Hitachi Ltd, support environmentally friendly activities by committing their CSR obligations. As we discussed in class, we need to use natural resources wisely and recycle them since we have a certain limited amount left. I hope this recycling system will be used in the rest of the world and help saving resources.

Foundation For Wind Power

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?ref=technology

The article announces a plan to construct an underwater electrical transmission line. The proposed line would run from northern New Jersey to southern Virginia. This is one of the most congested electrical grid areas in the country which means that a new transmission line would greatly reduce the energy lost in the current inefficient system. While the new line will be used to transmit dirty energy for the moment, the new transmission line would easily allow for the construction of offshore wind farms. These wind farms offer continuous green energy that when coupled with an efficient transmission system could greatly reduce pollution from energy production. It is with new transmission lines like these that our grid makes the first steps toward green electricity!

Environmental legislation that works!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/04/news/economy/DC_bag_tax/index.htm

As many of you know, when you go to the store in DC you have to pay $0.05 to get a plastic bags. The amount of revenue that the tax is generating is way lower than what legislators expected to receive from the tax. That's a good thing! The tax is dissuading people from using plastic bags. Eventually when the US is out of these economic times, DC can serve as a model for other cities for adopting a bag tax policy, which will decrease plastic bag usage across America.

Baby Steps- We're getting there!

It’s pretty hard trying to find something uplifting after this class taught me all of the things we’ve managed to do to our environment. Looking through my blog posts I feel like a point I’ve tried to make is that small steps are required in making a drastic difference. People need to realize what I have realized in this class to start making a difference. Publicitiy is a huge deal – people need to see the actions that others are making in order for them alter their way of living. People never want to be the “odd one out” so if everyone’s doing it why shouldn’t they. So I came across some ideas that people are doing to become green.

In class we were discussing how sports stadiums consume ridiculous amounts of energy, well fellow classmates- they are doing something about it!

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2010/100908.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/sports-stadiums-turn-to-s_n_755462.html

Football, hockey and baseball stadiums all want to incorporate solar panels to reduce their energy consumption. They have realized that without the environment the sports they play wouldn’t work (iced ponds to skate on, fields of grass to play on, etc..) . I feel like sports influence a lot of people in the American culture, and if publicized properly, many people would want to replicate what the sport stadiums are doing. California has already implemented solar panels but now so are the Seattle Seahawks! Hopefully all the teams will, that way their fans would probably do it to because they want to be devoted fans!

There were two other articles which I really enjoyed. What I really like about the environmental revolution, is that people are becoming really creative. They realize that people don’t want to find green solution inconvenient, so they are making these new technologies which wont effect people’s ways of lives. In Europe they are using body heat from public transportation to heat up nearby apartment buildings. An example of this is in Paris in this article: http://www.enn.com/energy/article/41765

Lastly, we discussed windmills in class, and how a lot of people in Nantucket were against them because they don’t look nice and ruin the natural aesthetic. People are now creating new, modern ways of making environmental methods look cool and trendy.
Check out this site to see some pictures of new and improved buildings that your jaw would probably drop at the site of! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/green-technology-the-most_n_758552.html#s154112

Grab and go: Convenience VS Environmental Impact

I have never had to make a food choice until I attended American University. When I lived in Jordan, I used to go the vegetable market with my mother, I remember I used to marvel at how the fruit and vegetable were placed and I remember asking her, how do you choose which ones you get? She would give me a break down of which fruits/vegetables would come from neighboring countries then she would go on to explaining pesticides used and how she doesn’t want our vegetables to be sprayed with chemicals or genetically modified. At this point I was off in la-la-land, thinking of what I was going to do later on that evening or what movie I wanted to watch. It wasn’t until I came to college, and I went grocery shopping for the first time, I remembered what my mother was trying to teach me. I was SHOCKED at the size of a cucumber here. It was nearly a foot long! In Jordan cucumbers were tiny and full of taste. So that alone makes me think of genetically modified food, I personally do not enjoy the taste AT ALL. So basically when I’m choosing my groceries, truthfully I don’t really have the environment in mind (after this course I assure you I will). As a college student I have convenience in mind. I buy things I like to cook when I’m craving a homemade meal, along with the easy to make/grab and go snacks.

When I grocery shop, I feel the items with the greatest environmental impact are the meats and poultry, along with the water bottles. Growing up with Jordan, there was a huge water problem. If you would drink tap water you were bound to get sick. Restaurants wouldn’t give you the choice of tap or bottled, you had to buy the bottle. So when I came to DC I bought the Brita filter, but for some reason out of habit always bought bottled water, which I found more convenient and enjoyable.

Another big environmental impact is DELIVERY! My friends and I would joke around saying that people sleep to dream and in college we dream to sleep. If that’s the case- when do we have time to make our own meals! So we use our computers to order the food, then they get the message and fire up their ovens, they then put the food in disposable plastic containers, throw in 5 or 6 sets of plastic utensils (even though you just ordered one meal), and put the meal in its own plastic bag and the drink in the other bag and then put it all in one large plastic bag, then they drive it over to your apartment, and keep the car running while they run up to your floor and wait for your payment. You then eat what you can and throw everything else away.

If there’s one thing I noticed in this class is everything that has a huge environmental impact is convenient. We’ve based our lives around convenience and now the green dream is trying to make us change our methods. Saving the environment is key once people notice it (it took me a SIS course with depressing books to realize we’re punishing future generations by our actions) but until then they are just going to continue doing what easiest for them: People will eat imported foods and wines, buy huge amounts of meats and poultry and stash it their freezer just to buy some more the next time they go grocery shopping, and lastly like me- buy more and more plastic bottles because it taste better and is easier to just grab and continue with your life.

We Consume Far More Than We Eat :-(

Like Aya and Chris I do not consider the environment when I make food choices. I usually go grocery shopping about once every two weeks. An average shopping trip would probably include: 1 loaf of bread, 2 onions, 2 tomatoes, 2 cans of corn, 2 batches of asparagus, 3 boxes of pasta or a bag of rice, a gallon of milk, a box of relatively healthy cereal, 1 wedge of cheese, 12 eggs, 2 packets of chicken (under 6 pounds total), 1 jar of peanut butter, a pound of deli turkey, 1 jar of grape jelly, 2 jars/bottles of tomato/teriyaki sauce, 1 to 5 bottles of foreign wine, and/or 1 two liter bottle of juice/tonic water. In addition to this, I usually buy about three meals a week from some sort of takeout/restaurant (be it the ward cafe or cafe deluxe). Normally, when I purchase food I am thinking about taste, health, ease, price. I believe that I eat relatively healthy minimally processed food. This is better for the environment than highly processed prepackaged food. The distance that my food has to travel does not factor at all into my decision in the food that I purchase. The fact that I choose chicken or turkey over beef is much more a matter of personal preference than any environmental concerns. Often when I purchase some form of food from a restaurant or takeout.

I would imagine that either the chicken or the wine that I have consumed over the past week has had the largest environmental impact. While the chicken is most likely a domestic product, the animal requires and consumes a lot of food to grow and develop before it can be slaughtered. Normally the wine that I drink is from France, Spain, Chile, or Argentina. All of these locations require that the wine be shipped over vast distances before I bring it home. Before this, however, the vineyards have to burn mountains of fossil fuels growing, harvesting, and processing the grapes.

I am ashamed

When I am making food choices, I have to admit that environmental concerns is the last thing on my mind. There are basically three things I consider. I, quite sensibly I think, buy things that taste good. That's number 1. Number 2 I buy things that I can cook. I consider myself a beginner in that field so the majority of the things I buy is boxed, canned or frozen. Finally, I buy reasonably priced food for a college student. In other words, cheap food. I do one stop shopping at Giant, try to buy tasty non-brand food that's quick and easy to make. The environment sadly doesn't cross my mind.

Most of the food I've eaten in the past few days is pre-prepared and not locally grown. That means there is a lot of preparation that goes into my food after it is grown or killed and put in the store for me to buy. For example the environmental impact of me buying corn at a local market is very low because it is just pulled from the stalk, washed and sold. The canned corn that I usually eat needs to be transported from the farm to another place to add additives and packed away in a can and then transported to the supermarket.

My Food Choice...relatively good for the enviornment?

When I make food choices, I do not have particular environmental considerations. However, I believe I make environmentally friendly food choices unconsciously because I seldom eat junk food, such as hamburger and pizza, and have soft drinks, such as coke. To be honest, I sometimes eat McDonald’s but it happens only approximately three times a year! I believe that food which is bad for health is bad for the environment as well. My view is that eating locally grown organic food is healthy and helps saving the environment. Thus, I try to eat organic food as much as possible.

I ate pasta with Japanese (kind of teriyaki) sauce last night and I had Japanese rice with miso soup for today’s lunch. I rarely eat meat because I was a vegetarian when I lived in Switzerland. Later, I quit being a vegetarian because it was hard to live as a vegetarian in Japan. However, I still hesitate to eat meat because I feel so sad when I think about how animals are slaughtered. Thus, I basically eat carbohydrate and vegetables. I chose cheese and milk for consuming protein. I drink at least two litters of water using Brita and a tumbler, which helps saving the environment rather than using plastic bottles and paper cups.

I do not think my choice of food and beverage has had the greatest environmental impact because I do not eat meat frequently. Eating beef is bad for the environment and I just found out an interesting fact about it. The article “How Our Food Choices can Help Save the Environment” by Steve Boyan, PhD (http://www.earthsave.org/environment/foodchoices.htm) says that people can save 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of water for every pound of beef they avoid to eat. This article talks about how much fossil fuel is used and carbon dioxide and wastes are exhausted when people consume beef. According to the article, it seems my food choice is not bad for the environment.

However, one bad thing for the environment regarding my food choices is consumption of coffee. I drink coffee at least four times a week. It is bad for the environment because coffee is shipped thousands of miles and contains huge amounts of embodied energy and pollution. I should find another source of caffeine to keep me awake then.

In sum, it is interesting to analyze my food choices because now I am conscious about what kind of food I eat everyday. Eating is a daily activity that people can never stop; therefore, it is important to make wise food choices for the environment.

A Combined Initiative

Zaina and Aya have made a clear case that technology is an obvious part of the environmental harm we have caused the planet but it can also be part of the solution. In order for us to form a sustainable society, or probably be able to continue as a society, we must make use of technology. I see technology as inseparable in our drive to create a sustainable manner of human life. Obviously the discovery of the uses of fossil fuels over the decades has significantly harmed our planet. We all know that the petrochemicals in many electronics and household goods are toxic not just for humans but for our waterways and animal life as well. So yes technology has been the catalyst for human destruction of our environment. But, I also see it as an intrinsic part of a sustainable society.

I believe that the environmental problems facing our society are so large that they need a multifaceted approach to be solved. Just as using low energy light bulbs and carpooling once a week will not end our addiction to environmental destruction, simply creating new technologies will not create a magical world of never ending resources. I see a combination of actions as being our only possible way to create an environmentally sustainable society. First, we must collectively use less of everything. This is going to need to be not just changing light bulbs. We need to build viable public transit systems that will allow people to easily give up their cars. We must farm in environmentally friendly ways. We must as a collective society commit to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Coupled with this, I believe we must fund research for technologies that will not only help us develop in a manner that will not ravage the planet but also remove some of the harm that we have already done to the planet.

This combination I see as being intrinsic to our success. I believe that technology increases very rapidly but it will not save us without two things: direction, and purpose. It is up to the international community to sponsor technological development in manners that support these things. Also, at the same time we must reduce our consumption because technology cannot possibly move fast enough to save our society. If we do not at least begin to slow the sea level rise and the exploitation of mineral resources there may not be anything left for technology to save.

Technology: destroyer or rebuilder?

Technology is scary. Moore's law tells us that the speed of a processor will double every 18 months. I am a firm believer in technology, and mimic the beliefs of Ester Boserup that population increases will lead to innovation. I do believe that technology will save us, but it is also what has ruined us. Technology is the catalyst for global warming. The agitation from fossil fuels has caused the climate change, and has fueled our idealism of consumption. In environmental terms, technology saving us means returning the carbon parts per million in the atmosphere from 390 back to 350. It is not safe to assume that technology is going to save us, and we must change as a culture. Technology is a human asset, but newer technologies must be combined with drastic changes in human and economic focuses. Newer technologies in collaboration with newer lifestyles could lead to a healthier planet, but not the planet Adam and Eve lived on.

Will Technology Save Us? ...Yes and No

It is true that many people believe that technology will save us with positive effects. Technology has made people's lives more convenient and affluent. However, will it save us from environmental issues in the future? I totally agree with Zaina that an answer to the question, “will technology save us?” is yes and no. I believe technology will save us if human beings use it wisely, but if we use it incorrectly, we will destroy our planet buy making huge mistakes. It is always difficult to take a moderate point between two extremes. If we use too much technological power to improve a society, there will be more environmental pollution and destruction. On the other hand, if we use little technological power, we will suffer from current environmental issues and lose the planet. Therefore, people need to make a wise decision in terms of how to use technology. So, technology means the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes in general, but in environmental terms, it gives people choices of how to use scientific knowledge and tools to save us from global environmental issues. Use of technology is a challenge for human beings. People need to be responsible for what they do with technology; otherwise, they will demolish the earth. I hope people use technology with virtuousness to have comfortable lives.

Is technology our new superhero?

chris mentioned that technology is the only way out of this mess – but isn’t the reason we’re in this mess in the first place technology? The industrial revolution sparked this uncontrollable need for technology and ever since human lives depend on technology- even if it’s slowly eating away the environment. I’m not saying I disagree with Chris at all- I actually do believe that technology is the only way out but I’m very skeptical at the idea (who wouldn’t be after the attempts we’ve seen to change the reduction of pollution).

Last class our professor was telling us about ideas of developing huge hoses filled with certain elements that would bond with the greenhouse gases and decrease their effect… how do people not see that is a disaster waiting to happen? People assume an advancement of technology will solve the problem-that the more complex the technology gets the more likely it would work. I do not believe that technology is the only thing that will save us- if we continue believing in technology’s power in solving all our problems and acting the same we do to our environment we are destined to an uninhabitable earth. Ideas like a hose full of gases seems to be a horrible idea to me and in that case technology will fail us, but when it comes to ideas like mechanical trees – I believe technology is a great solution to what we have done to the environment. Of course there is a “but” to that statement. If we continue to uproot trees thinking that mechanical trees are the alternative; that would an even bigger problem. Will technology save us? Yes and no. It depends on how we use it. It not a solution but it is a TOOL we can use to help the environment.

I found a video on youtube that shocked me and if you have a couple minute you should watch it to see how technology has evolved is a extremely fast speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSzqm5Whwc&feature=related

There Is No Way to Technology. Technology Is The Way

I say that technology will have to save us because nothing else really can. Like I said in my last post, how else are we going to figure out or solve our environmental problems? If technology is knowledge and the production of means to apply said knowledge, then technology has to be the answer to how we are going to save the planet. We need technological progress to gain knowledge on how to fix the environment, and then we need to produce methods and means to execute the solution. What this means in environmental terms is that different technologies need to be applied to limit and/or reverse human’s impact. For example, alternative energies to fossil fuels which overtime can decrease carbon emissions.

The story of stratospheric ozone depletion is further evidence that technology can save us. It points out another helpful aspect of technology: recognition. Without technological progress, we would not have even realized that we were destroying the ozone in the first place. We then learned the causes of ozone depletion, and came up with new technology that did not harm the ozone layer. (Such as building household appliances without CFCs) Of course one could say that with out technology the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place, but do you expect us to just live in the Stone Age forever? Humans are progressive peoples, and with conscious technological development, we can progress in an environmentally friendly way.

Technology, progress and solutions all point in the same direction: Forwards

***This is the title to my post made this morning.

Wake Up Call

The article by Friedman should without a doubt be a wake-up call for the American government. As long as the government continues to ignore the drastic negative effects that climate change will have on the world, so will the population. What the US also fails to realize is the investment possibilities and the sustainable economic growth and development potential that investing in green energy has. Friedman takes a peculiar angle when making climate change sort of a competition. However, because he compares China and the US, two major economic players in today’s ever-globalizing world, the article makes complete sense. Unfortunately, China only realized its specific need for investment in green energy after many of its cities became the most polluted in the world. Still Friedman’s points on climate change as a race makes sense because of the ongoing economic rivalry between the US and China, especially with China’s need for new jobs with its extremely high population.


I personally believe that technological innovation and refocusing the economy on green manufacturing is the best method of addressing climate change, but it is conditional on the efforts of American society as a whole to make sacrifices that include lifestyle changes. Technological innovation as a whole will not only mean newer methods of maintaining the environment, but also, as seen with the example of China, has the potential to create jobs in various sectors and pour money into the US, which is exactly the driving force needed to push the US economy forward and perhaps a first step to counter the fiscal crisis.

Green Jobs, Green Economy, and the Green Planet

Thomas L. Friendman introduces an interesting and new idea about a relationship between climate change and green jobs in the article, “Aren’t We Clever?” He argues that the United States is behind compared to China and European countries in terms of creating more green jobs and developing technology and production because the United States explains climate change as J-O-K-E while China explains it as J-O-B-S. In the end, he gives a question, which is “does a race matter when talking about climate change?” to readers. To answer this question, I do not think that differences in a race do not affect actions toward climate change. In other words, how people think and behave toward climate change is more important than racial differences.

In the article, “D.C. Invests in Green Collar Jobs,” Bracke Hendricks claims that creating more “green collar jobs” and improving “green economy” is a solution for climate change. “Green collar jobs” is defined as jobs involved in environmentally-friendly goods and/or services. For example, using solar panels and hybrid cars is helpful for preventing further climate change. These jobs promote sustainable living economy and healthier societies. “Green economy ” is defined as a creation of a big billion-dollar industry, which will be established by more “green collar jobs” production. I agree with Bracke Hendricks and believe that this solution will bring the positive future because people are motivated to make the planet green by creating more green jobs, goods, services, technology, and economy.

As Kevin made a point, human beings are one big race that causing the global environmental issues; therefore, it is unnecessary to argue for and against some kinds of races. All people in the world should engage in improving the production of clean energy technologies and green jobs. Thus, an idea of creating “green collar jobs” and encouraging “green economy” is a good starting point to solve climate change not only in the United States, but also in the rest of the world.

I believe that the idea of a race does make sense to a certain extent. Of course, it is not a race in the sense that there is a start, a finish, a winner and a loser but the analogy still holds when comparing one nations progress over another. In this case China is doing a better job of using clean technology and green initiatives to expand the economy and create jobs. This is also done over a period of time (albeit long and indefinite) another characteristic of a race. Therefore China is winning the race over the US
I know people say that this isn't a state issue and states shouldn't be "competing" or trying to do better than other states when it comes to the environment, no matter how liberal or constructivist the world looks, the number one actor in international affairs is the state actor. International solutions to environmental issues will rely on sovereign nations to do "their part." The world will always be judged in how individual states fare in terms of progress and the environment and states will always be compared to other states on their performance. State governments are the one's actually enacting policies, even if it does happen to come from an international institution. So I believe it makes sense to make these comparisons between nations
I do buy the argument that technology and "green" manufacturing is the answer. How else are we going to figure out/solve these problems? It is not going to be using the present means. And we are a race of progress that is constantly moving forward. We are not going to find the answer by living simpler or in other words moving backwards. No, we move forward and the answer is also forward with "good" "green" and efficient technological innovations.

Institutional Green Technology

Friedman in his article "Aren't We Clever?" makes an argument that the United States is loosing its opportunity to create green jobs or move toward green manufacturing because many politicians have been treating "'climate change' as a four letter word." Here Friedman means that our politicians still cannot get beyond the initial scientific debate and enact legislation that properly stimulates or implements green research and development. Thus Friedman argues the United States is falling behind Europe and China, in particular, in green core jobs. The problem that I see here is that we are not in a race with other nations for the most green jobs or manufacturing centers. We are in a race to keep the planet from changing so dramatically that it can no longer support human life. While an outcome of a race toward green manufacturing may be positive, this focus is clearly misguided.

Green jobs, manufacturing, and infrastructure are certainly a noble goals. However, sustainability cannot and will not be reached by a green war. Building stockpiles of recycling centers instead of nuclear weapons is helpful but will not go nearly far enough to create a sustainable environment and culture on our planet. Yes, our last many congresses have failed the people of the United States by enacting little or no helpful legislation to reduce our consumption and stimulate green industry. But, we must not loose site that every country on the planet has the same (or should have the same) goal - to end the destruction of our planet. The legislation enacted by China and European nations should not be something to compete against but something to work toward. A problem as large as our destruction of our planet needs all the help it can get. We must not have a race for green jobs or wage a green war. Instead we must strengthen our international regulatory organizations to impose harsh restrictions. And, they must also have the power to back up these restrictions. At the same time, we must have policies that stimulate the development of green technologies. It is this combination that I see as the only way to make any real progress toward sustainability.

GUILTY

Personally, I can’t say that I haven’t fallen into the “I recycle, that’s my personal input in saving the earth” mentality. This article shows that people believe one tiny step is the solution to a sustaining planet. Maniates says, “To stop at "easy" is to say that the best we can do is accept an uninspired politics of guilt around a parade of uncoordinated individual action”. Doing one small thing and priding yourself for doing it doesn’t quite make as big as a difference as you’d like it to. Sure recycling is better than not recycling- but what next? My classmate below says that the leaders are just as responsible as individuals for the damage to the environment, but maybe a better mentality is for people to stop pointing fingers of blame at each other and take action. Even though he might not be the correct person to quote in this area, but Bob Marley once said, “Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your hands are clean.” So leaders can’t blame pollution of individual’s lives and vice verse. Instead they can work hand in hand- TOGETHER overcome the materials and actions degrading the environment and sustain the earth and resources for further generations,
Leaders should be responsible for showing their citizens the “green way of life”. This doesn’t mean hiding their pollution and dumping it in third world countries. It actually means the government has to take initiative and change the way they manufacture things and research methods of creating less pollution. In return, individuals should change the way they live (even if the old ways are easier). Small things do make a difference when EVERYONE does it. I don’t think the leaders are at fault, I think everyone should be held accountable.

Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It

I completely agree with Michael Maniates argument that the consumer’s efforts alone cannot stop global warming. As Bill McKibben says in Eaarth, the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed. He combats the books “Its easy being Green” and “The Lazy Environmentalist” which advise that we should look for things to do in our private lives that can together have a cumulative effect and create a safer planet. He says even The Environmental Protection Agency has simple lists of things we can do that will just erase the damage we have done and set the planet on the right track again.
He is very much in agreement with McKibben who argues that there needs to be transience and coordination between government organizations, non-profits, and communities to get the planet on course once again. There needs to be sustainable renovations in areas which include more green spaces, parks, narrower roads, greener transportation, and a fundamental change in our energy usage We must exercise restraint over our carbon emissions rather than focus on recycling and installing halogen lightbulbs.

Who's to blame...Leaders or the Individual

Maniates is right when he says that the small efforts by the individual will not be all it takes. I kind of realized this myself after I started working for Dunkin Donuts during High School. The amount of waste that DD accumulated in one day probably outstripped the waste that I accumulate in one month. So you have to think, what difference does the individual consumer make when producers, offices, and other projects are producing waste at a much greater rate that individuals and their homes. Maniates is right in saying that large-scale projects targeted at eco-footprint reduction will have a greater and more lasting impact than the small things.

I disagree with Maniates when he says it’s the leaders fault and that they sell us short. They ask us as individuals to do our part which is limited and easy. I feel that both are at fault. The leaders for not convincing people that more needs to be done, and individuals for not pressuring the government to partake in more large-scale changes that can make more of a difference. The individual alone cannot create, organize and implement large-scale projects. The majority of our days we are living our normal lives and the “easy” things are all we have time/the ability to do. Also, these “easy things,” Maniates admits, do make a difference by slowing down the growth of environmental damage and therefore we should continue to chip in ourselves and ask others to do their part. It is the government, NGO’s, IGO’s and businesses that can make the real difference when it comes to saving the environment. We are the ones who need to put more pressure on them to do something. And part of the reason we don't put enough pressure on them is that the leaders don't inform us on what really needs to be done. It's really a two way street.

More roads? Easy Action!

The article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" essentially argues that simple or easy changes to our lives (for the purpose of reducing environmental impact) is not enough to stop the exploitation of our resources and sinks. Maniates argues that we need collective serious action. He wants our environmental agencies, governments, and lobbing organizations to ask more of our society than replacing light bulbs. Greater action is clearly required. Individuals should make greater sacrifices to reduce their environmental impact. The problem that I see here though is a lack of 1, motivation, but also 2, ability to make these types of changes.

How many cities are there in the United States where individuals do not need a car for transportation? Certainly you need a car in LA, Las Vegas, Denver, Cleveland, Huston, ect... I see there being three to six cities where you do not need a car for your major form of transportation: Washington DC, New York, Boston, and possibly, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Chicago. In my mind this country can make no significant impact to reduce our path of environmental destruction until we give up our love affair with the automobile. This is clearly impossible if there are no other viable transit options.

President Obama on September 6th announced a $50 Billion plan to modernize and expand our transportation systems. According to an article in BuisnessWeek, "Obama wants Congress to approve spending to rebuild 150,000 miles of road, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of railroad, and refurbish 150 miles of runways." Does it seem like there is something wrong with this ratio to you? This is clearly not a path that will lead us to a reduced environmental impact as a nation. Yes a decent portion of the 4,000 miles of railroad is high speed rail which will reduce some of the commuter flights. However, this is not nearly good enough. This proposal from a man I would consider to be politically left and environmentally minded still is clearly focusing on road systems. With almost 4 times the miles of roadways as railways we will not be reducing our carbon footprint. In fact this seems like the easy way out that Maniates warned against. Perhaps then if we need collective serious action, as Maniates argues, then we should all fight for the creation of viable, efficient, and green public transit systems in all of our major metropolitan areas.

Criticism for Easy Actions

Wow, the article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” changes my mind completely. It critically views that taking easy actions to slow the global environmental issues is not enough. I am impressed that Michael Maniates makes a good connection between Thanksgiving and the global environmental issues. I like his point because it presents a strong message about how we think about the environment.

Before reading the article, I agree with an idea that everyone should take easy actions, such as reusing scrap paper and taking shorter shower as mentioned in the article, because it is good for the environment and people can prevent serious issues, such as global warming. I totally agree with an opinion, “if we all do our little bit to recycle and conserve -- the simple things, mind you, because that's all we'll need (translation: that's all they think we'll go for) -- we can together rescue the world for our children and grandchildren,” especially the translation. It is true that more people will act environmentally friendly when actions are easy and cost-effective because we are lazy enough to save the planet.

However, this article suggests that “the time for easy is over,” and criticizes that easy actions are not helpful to encourage people to be true environmentalists. The main argument is that people should consider the global environmental issues critically and take more difficult and serious actions to prevent further issues. I am convinced because it may be possible to slow down the environmental damages through easy actions but it does not mean it will stop them. To put it another way, the environmental issues will continue slowly and steadily despite of easy efforts. I am sure that a goal of the environmentalists is to completely stop further environmental problems. In sum, it is time to change lifestyles and put more serious efforts to save our habitat.

The Most Pressing Challenge: Consumption

I felt like it was difficult to pinpoint ONE main challenge facing the global environment. I tried singling out one factor within the IPAT equation that I thought was the biggest challenge, but noticed that all factors were equally significant. An increase in technology can either be good or lead to higher rates of finite resources depletion. An advantage of an increase in technology may, however, be favorable if they reduce the amount of resources we use altogether. Significant population increases are most likely to occur within developing nations where consumption levels aren't particularly high. An individual in the United States has a much larger carbon footprint than another in Darfur, Sudan. Therefore even if the population increases in Sudan, the consumption of resources of one person in the United States would completely overshadow any changes per capita consumption in Sudan, which will probably be negligible. In my opinion, if I were to choose the most essential letter in the equation, it would most likely be "A". Affluence is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment. Even though my classmates think population is the most pressing issue at hand, I think that regardless of population, HOW MUCH we consume is far more relevant.



I felt I connect to the “I am, Therefore I Pollute” article. It is difficult to believe that one person's actions could potentially be saving the world. Many consider recycling to require leaving one's comfort zone. However, even the smallest of changes, like my buying a recycled toothbrush and using energy saving light bulbs at home, on a larger scale, have the potential to influence environmental outcomes and positively restructure and alter lifestyles in the future.

The Most Pressing Challenge: Excessive Human Activities

My point is similar to Chris’s point. It is true that the rapid increase in population is one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment because the world has a certain limit on resources that human beings can use. As Chris made a point, reproduction is not a crime, and we just cannot help it. In addition to Chris’s argument, I would like to point out that excessive human activities cause the most pressing challenge. Since the industrial revolution, human beings have innovated and developed technology. Because of high technology, the living conditions became much better than before, but at the same time, human beings ruin the global environment. To improve technology, more exhaustion of carbon dioxide is a must. Excessive use of fossil fuel, gas, and light are some examples. Also, a huge car production causes more exhaustion of carbon dioxide. As the population increases, people drive more cars and it damages the global environment. In addition to the technology development, human beings hurt the environment by cutting trees and polluting because people need more houses due to the increase in population, and we waste unnecessary things a lot. These are just a few examples of excessive human activities that damage the global environment. In short, human beings act selfishly so we should think about how many resources we could use to stop doing excessive human activities. As Bill McKibben argues, we only have a certain resources, so we need to act smartly to live this planet.

No More Either Or!

The problems Chris described are some of the most pressing issues facing our society. Since the late 18th century scholars have been predicting that the earth cannot sustain an increasing population. There have been countless maximum population figures predicted since this time. Today there are largely two sides to the population debate: 1 the Neo-Malthusians and 2 the Cornucopians. The Neo-Malthusians believe that the earth has a limited amount of resources and thus can only sustain a limited population (the food supply increases arithmetically but population increases exponentially). The Cornacopians believe, however, that technology is consistently improving and thus will overcome the earth's scarcity. It Cornacopian scholars that argue the validity of the Kuznets curve. The curve or theory that predicts as societies gain wealth the they will cause more harm to their environment until they reach a tipping point, where serious technology and legislation kick in, when the society decides to improve their environment. Therefore these individuals basically believe at above a certain income a society will begin to actively improve their environment instead of continuing to harm it. Of course neither of these theories helps our environment now.

The problem with the Neo-Malthusians is that they do not really provide a viable solution to the population problem. Yes- its great to know that there is a problem. Yes- we all need to recognize that there are limited resources. But how are we going to tell the millions of people in Africa to have only one or two children? How are we going to stop people in the western world from having more than one child?

The problems facing the Cornacopians are obvious. We clearly do have a limited number of resources that are being destroyed every day. From the air we breathe to the water we drink to the food we eat human activity is poisoning our environment. This decay is or will soon will be to the point where we harm our ability to succeed and grow economically. Clearly something needs to be done because we may never reach the tipping point.

What then should we do? I believe we need a combination of these two beliefs. First we must recognize that our resources are scarce and take significant governmental and international action to protect them. Second, we must develop the technologies that will allow human life to continue and improve on earth. This means more governmental intervention and stimulation of research.

Most pressing challenge facing the global environment = population

World population growth has been increasing at a ridiculously fast pace since the industrial revolution, which has put a strain on the earth. Some environmentalists such as Bill McKibben believe that the planet has a limit on the number of humans it can handle (by handle I mean provide adequate food, resources, livable conditions etc). population size directly effects the severity of other global environmental issues. The more people there are, more resources are needed to meet their daily needs, more food needs to be grown to feed hungry mouths, more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere and more trees and other carbon sinks are destroyed which increases global warming...and the list goes on and on. Controlling population growth would go a long way to start to solve the many other challenges that are destroying this earth. However, a solution is not easy.

How do we control population? There is no one to blame. Having children is not a crime. No one is doing anything wrong by using resources to provide for their children and others. Can we force people to stop having children? Do we let people starve around the world to slow growth? These solutions are immoral at best and against human nature. Unlike other global challenges, reproduction isn't a man-made catastrophe, its a natural process. Limits and controls don't seem to be moral or humane. So what is the right way to go about doing this? The world isn't going to volunteer to have less children. Some people like them.