Cradle to Cradle

The theme of Cradle to Cradle is the rethinking of the way our entire industrial economy functions. The authors imagine a future in which every product, from packaging to cities full of buildings, operate in a way that is in harmony with natural processes and significantly reduces degrading anthropogenic effects on the environment. While this revolution would require many changes in the way our economy is organized, they authors do present a world that allows for sustainable industrialization and overall maintenance of modern living standards. Along these lines, the authors take great care to highlight the side effects of every step in an industrial product's lifespan, from manufacturing to use and eventually waste. These are consequences that engineers rarely consider though they are imperative when considering human and ecological health.

I greatly respect the authors' point of view laid out in Cradle to Cradle. I feel that critiques of the contemporary state of human civilization with respect to the economy and the environment are excessively antagonistic and fail to advance realistic alternatives. Instead, the authors carefully criticize the modern economy and proceed to show how the system could be reformed to adequately provide for humans while simultaneously protecting and even enhancing natural environments. While drastic action is certainly needed, the new modes of design put forth in the book are viable suggestions that could have a positive impact on the human condition.

The manner in which the authors propose their changes is also admirable. Instead of seeking to shutout entrenched corporations and go about wrecking the industrialized economy we all have come to know, the authors propose working with a diversity of actors. Such an inclusive approach is more likely to succeed and though it may not stir the passion of activists, it is the only way anything actually gets accomplished. The experiences detailed in the book offer ample support for this assertion.

On a more personal level, I feel the authors provided a very rational point of view based on sound research and thought. Too often, I have heard critiques of modern society and its environmental degradation by people who need to have the latest Apple product or other industrial product. The authors avoid this hypocrisy successfully. Finally,their approach is based on robust scientific inquiry and expertise, something I feel is often missing on both sides in political and environmental debates.

Once Upon a Time...

McDonough focuses on changing the way we live. While it is no surprise that we have been living cradle to grave for so long that change needs to occur. It is difficult to have hope that it will. McDonough makes claims and proposes ways to change, but I cannot help but think that it is to idealistic. I want to believe that people, companies, governments all want to change, and protect the future of the planet, but it seems a little too far-fetched.

McDonough's ideas are on the right track, I just do not believe they are on the realistic track. Asking people to change their consumer preferences is a feasible goal if you have years to wait. Introducing a new Industrial Revolution makes sense if you are a developed country and have the resources to implement a change. But even then, getting already successful companies to change their business model to be more planet friendly may be asking too much. I want to believe that people will read Cradle to Cradle and take the appropriate steps to begin living differently, but there is a big sliver of skepticism.

The five steps McDonough offers to put eco-effectiveness into action provide a plan, but no realistic way to it implemented by everyone. Step 2 which focuses on following informed personal preferences is a good stepping stone, but assumes everyone will have the same smart personal preferences. You can't forget the fact that some people just won't care. Some people will not think twice about informed personal preferences and will not change their ways. According to some, their personal preferences are doing no harm and they will continue to make the same choices. While I understand the importance of individual choice, some individual's can't be given that choice.

Moreover, McDonough's step of reinventing works on paper. Time has been wasted for so long, that there is not much left to reinvent. While reinventing the system would be the best solution, alternates must be established to slowly curb the effect until a full reinvention is possible. McDonough constantly references that "less bad is no good" but maybe for now its good enough. It is not the best case, but being over idealistic maybe worse. It is a false hope that everyone will change. Being less bad is not perfect but neither is being idealistic. Being 100% perfect is the dream, but reality is "less bad" is better than really bad.

The Cradle to Cradle Challenge

The main premises of the book, Cradle to Cradle are similar to the themes in the video "The Story of Stuff" that we watched in class. The authors argue that the current system of production is inefficient, unsustainable, altogether unhealthy for humans and the environment. They make the point that it does not make sense to have products complete the production cycle, from resource extraction to a landfill, in less than 6 months for most products. Their "lifespan" then is only a few months long because the products go from "cradle to grave" so quickly. Therefore, the authors suggest that the production system needs to be completely overhauled. In order to make the system efficient and sustainable, they offer the idea that products should be 100% reusable hence going from "cradle to cradle." This idea expands on the current recycling system. The authors say that while recycling is a worthy cause, it will not help prevent resource depletion in the long run. It will only delay the inevitable. This is because products are usually only made from a small percentage of recycled material while most of the product is new and straight from the resource extraction step. Therefore, while recycling slows down the depletion of resources, it does not prevent it.

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with the message of the book. I do try to recycle everything that DC allows people to recycle but the fact that not everything is reusable makes me understand that new resources are always being used. For example, at the Davenport in SIS, the options for cups are either the "eco-friendly" paper cups, or one of the mugs that are there to use and be returned and washed for reuse. The eco-friendly cups are made from something like 21 percent post consumer waste and they proudly advertise this on the outside paper of the cups. Everytime I get one of them I read the cup and my first thought is to be happy that 21 percent of the cup used to be something else. But then I always come back to the thought that the other 79 percent of the cup came from a freshly cut tree. So while the cups are helping a little bit, they are still causing resource depletion. Since hundreds of those cups are used by students and faculty each day, and each cup is likely in a trash can less than an hour after it was taken out of the packaging, it is clear that something needs to change in the system. The option of using the mugs available is the only 100 percent reusable option that the Dav offers. However, oftentimes there aren't any mugs left. Additionally, I regularly hear people saying they would use the mugs if they could trust that they were washed properly because they don't want to get sick from drinking out of a cup that was used and not washed. This is understandable during the winter months I suppose but it still seems a bit odd as you can clearly see that the mugs are clean. Ideally, the Dav should allow, and actually require, that people bring their own reusable mugs if they want their morning coffee. I've heard that this option is currently being debated so hopefully in the future, it can be implemented.

One other example of an item actually going from cradle to cradle is the reusable grocery bags sold at most stores. I recently bought another bag from Super Fresh that claims (and I do hope it's true) to be made from 100% post consumer waste. While grocery bags won't solve the environmental problem altogether, they are a good example of how things can be completely reusable. I have no idea what kind of post consumer waste the bad used to be but at least it shows that it is possible to make something that came entirely from another product without any new resources being used. If that same concept could be applied to more products, and eventually all products, we may be able to prevent total resource depletetion and provide a sustainable world for future generations.

Living Cradle to Cradle

The basic premise of the book Cradle to Cradle is that the modern production system is poorly designed. Industrial production is environmentally damaging, planned out of sync with the landscape around it, and extraordinarily expensive and resource intensive. The products that we create are made to be used up and discarded, leaving their value in a landfill rather than passing it on. While attempts to make the system less harmful (such as recycling) are admirable, McDonough claims that they will never be effective in the long term, because the system will still be driven towards the Earth’s limits, albeit more slowly. Instead, he calls for a system that uses all resources and creates things that can be reused infinitely. According to McDonough, the extra effort is the only way to create a system that is “100% good.”

I agree with McDonough completely. His claim that “less bad is not the same as good” struck me particularly. One of my biggest complaints is products that claim to be environmentally friendly because they use less resources, such as the 15% recycled paper coffee cup that celebrates its ecological benefits, or the water bottle with a smaller cap to “save plastic.” Such claims are absolutely ridiculous. While it is better to recycle what we can, we should not be producing things like plastic water bottles in the first place, and should be looking for products that will last and be re-used rather than melted down into a self-righteous grocery bag from Whole Foods. I know I’m not perfect, either, though; my metal water bottle will probably wear out one day, as well, and I will get rid of it and be required to buy a new one.

I also love his comments about production spreading unnaturally across the planet. When I consider civilization as a whole, I cannot help but think of us as a cancer, spreading our asphalt and pipes under and above natural processes. The idea of a society that works within natural processes and even tries to model itself after them is one of my personal fantasies, and seeing it articulated in a popular book is incredibly encouraging. His thoughts about the potential of waste are particularly beautiful, because he sees value in even things that most people consider to be valueless. My family composts, and I have a newfound appreciation for fruit peels, rotten vegetables, and earth worms. Using things we no longer need to create things we do need is not only natural, it’s also beautiful.

The Climate Debate

Firstly, it is clear that this debate is so fraught with tension in this country because anthropogenic climate change is a serious condemnation of the American way of life. Our suburbs, SUVs, processed foods, cheap oil, et cetera are the reason that the United States is such a huge emitter of greenhouse gases. Accordingly, many individuals and corporations have a vested interest in maintaining the system as much as they possibly can. Artfully, these opponents of efforts to mitigate climate change have preyed on American sensitivity to criticism from abroad and on the anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism that have always had strong presences in our politics. In addition, the myopia that has continually marked American politics again makes it easy for climate skeptics to exploit the short-term costs that mitigation efforts would likely entail to garner opposition to climate change.

As an aside, I think not enough attention has been given to the idea that efforts to "green" the American economy should be undertaken regardless of whether carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. In the end, the United States is going to have to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable, domestic sources of energy. Green technology represents a way for the United States to revitalize its long-suffering manufacturing industries. And cutting consumption, in a country with millions living beyond their means through credit cards, is not really such a bad move for the economy overall.

Coming with a science background that is only tangentially related to the debate these two websites take part in, I tried to evaluate these sites by taking a look at the sources cited. While these articles often soon exceeded my understanding of climatology, in general the Grist site seemed to present a greater range of scientific evidence, from peer-reviewed articles, to support its claims about climate change. Through Friends of Science, the sites I reached generally did not provide further citations to support their criticisms of "mainstream" climate science. Additionally, Grist actually discussed competing claims about climate change and even went so far to concede that in earlier periods of warming, carbon dioxide was not the initial cause but instead an amplifying feedback mechanism. Such a treatment of the science was not demonstrated by Friends of Science. I must admit that I am likely biased towards the Grist message, but overall I do believe it was the more robust source for climate change science.

Grasping at Straws

The competition is so fierce around climate change science because of the massive sacrifices that will be necessary if the science is true, and also because the thought of what is at stake. I really believe that many people would rather live in denial of what will happen than accept that the Earth is changing. Although I do not necessarily agree with this, many people fear the economic losses we will experience if we lower our carbon emissions. While I do not know the origins of the Friends of Science website, I know that many arguments that are skeptical of climate change have been developed by fossil fuel interests, who also work with the media to twist evidence and make the scientific community appear less certain than it actually is. The combination of social and economic factors with the simple fear of the truth is my explanation for the “scientific” competition surrounding climate change.

To really evaluate these two websites, I would have to read each article on the site, analyze who wrote it, and why they did so. On the “Friends of Science” website, many of the papers seem to come from the same source, the “Science and Public Policy Institute,” which is biased towards finding arguments against climate change. To me, even the arguments the Friends of Science present do not answer all the questions I have. I do not come from a scientific background, but climate skeptic arguments have always seemed like they were grasping at straws to explain away a phenomenon, rather than a comprehensive explanation.

The Grist website does not give clear evidence of its sources, either, but it does have a more comprehensive approach. From what I remember of the Scientific Method, we are told to look for theories that are elegant and beautiful, meaning that they offer a simple explanation for the phenomenon. Applying this standard to the two websites, arguments in support of climate change science are much more straightforward than arguments against, which tend to piece together many smaller theories which often seem unrelated or are based on unclear evidence.

Obviously my reading of the science is biased, since I am already pretty invested in fighting climate change. However, given the sacrifices that are associated with accepting climate change science, I feel that the response of the international community, as well as a growing voice of individuals, is evidence enough of which scientific data is the most convincing. Even though UN climate negotiations inevitably result in conflict, every country that attends is there because they believe that climate change is a serious problem. I do not think that countries would be so willing to engage in negotiation or reductions if they felt there was any significant doubts that the problem was real. The same can be said for grassroots level climate activists, U.S. domestic climate policy at the state level, and similar domestic policies around the world. To me, climate change skeptics seem to be trying to push against an overwhelming tide of opinion.

Who's Biased?

First of all, I'd like to make a disclaimer that I was definitely biased when exploring the websites. Since I have always thought it's foolish to discount the claims of human impact on climate change, I went into the Friends of Science website with a somewhat closed mind and a predisposition to roll my eyes at everything it said. Then again, the organizations behind both websites are just as, if not more biased than me. Even still, despite my irritation at the arguments made in the Friends of Science website, I had to admit that they did make a few good points. For example, by showing several charts and graphs about the cyclical nature of the climate over time, they prove that the current global warming is not completely unknown territory for the planet. However, I felt that their claims that it's not caused by human activity whatsoever were pretty ridiculous. I was even more disgusted at the section that said "The Earth is Cooling." I didn't think the graph it showed even remotely proved that the Earth is cooling and I was under the impression that most people now agree that the climate is warming, they just dispute the causes. So the website had a few halfway decent arguments but for the most part, I thought it was just an excuse to blame climate change on something else so that we don't have to change our lifestyles.

As for the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" site, I thought it was far more convincing but not very user friendly. It was more convincing in that, if you took the time to go through all the links, it had much more hard evidence and unrefutable fact. It also provided adequate responses for many of the claims made by the Friends of Science site. However, it was tedious to look through all the articles and the layout of the site wasn't pleasing to the eye and didn't make me want to read more. That's more of a design flaw than anything else, but even still, design can make a difference in a technology communication world. I think I was also more biased towards that site because since I agreed with everything that was said, it wa sless interesting to read so I didn't feel like continuing. It's much easier to read things I disagree with because there is something to keep me interested. Overall, both sites made good points but I naturally felt that the latter was more convincing. Whether this is because of my own bias or because it is actually more truthful is disputable.

In general, I think a lot of the debate over the causes of climate change exists because the information we have is fairly new. The study of environmental science is recent and the focus on global climate change has only gained significant international salience in the last 10-15 years. In addition, differing political and economic motivations have caused corporations and governments to look for evidence that supports the claims that fit their interests. Since the science behind climate change is so ambiguous at this point anyway, it is not difficult to find evidence that supports opposing claims. Furthermore, some of the claims are not even opposing. The sun may be a cause of climate change and human activity may be as well. These causes are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, the climate is changing, so does it really matter what is changing it if the effects will be negative?

Lastly, I thought it was kind of a cop out that the Friends of Science site kept claiming that, since CO2 may not be a main source of climate change, we should continue polluting the atmosphere and destroying natural sinks. Even if human activity has nothing to do with climate change, we are still pouring pollutants into the air every minute of every day and we are still using up non-renewable resources. Whether or not human activity is the cause of climate change, it is definitely a cause of resource depletion. Therefore, shouldn't we change our energy source just so that we can provide energy for future generations? It seems ridiculous to say that we can continue on our path to destruction just because the sun may be affecting the climate patterns. As an innovative species, shouldn't we want to be more efficient and clean just because we can?

Glen Beck, can you help me?

It is hard to ignore that the planet’s temperature has gone up. However, the difficult part is convincing people that the rise in temperature is a problem. Despite scientific evidence, there are still those people who refuse to believe it. Instead they come up with other arguments that fight against climate change as an issue. Arguments that include climate change is natural, or in some cases a hoax all together.
Friends of Science provide education to the public and attempt to put pressure on the government for something to be done. They provide evidence that challenges the Kyoto protocol and cite alternative sources such as the Sun. Their main attempt is to educate the public and show scientific evidence that climate change is happening. They are not disputing it is happening but refuting that CO2 admissions are the main cause.
Alternatively, Grist’s How to talk to a Climate Skeptic addresses the most common arguments given by skeptics. Climate skeptics are becoming more prevalent in the debate, whether they are television personalities or politicians. They speak of the climates unpredictability or the lack of scientific evidence. Skeptics bring forth these arguments to the public to minimize the problem, or deny that any problem exists.
The competing views confuse the public. Climate change is such a technical and scientific subject that not creating one solid stance on it effects the way the public sees it. In the climate change debate, sometimes it becomes who can talk louder. Those who can talk louder can gain more supporters and in some cases research funding. The competition around climate change is an attempt to gain support not necessarily purely education.
The claims made by both sites must be taken with a grain of salt. Both sites have an ulterior motive to gain support for their argument. While it may seem they have the best interests, they are there to become the more popular argument. Both sides need to be heard and acknowledged but cannot be taken as the only option.
Grist outlines skeptics’ arguments and provides a competing argument. It presents a question and explains it in simple terms. However, Grist does not provide alternative causes, like Friends of Science. The two sites together create a well-rounded view incorporating science, politics and economics.

Glaciers

By far the most memorable experience I have had with the non-human world was seeing the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska. Initially, we were told that we could not sail into the inlet that the glacier terminated in as it was too foggy and the ice could not be clearly seen. As the boat I was on began to sail out to sea, however, the fog suddenly lifted and the captain made the decision to once again attempt to sail to the glacier. I'll never forget how amazing it was to see huge slabs of ice floating in the bluest water I have seen outside of Florida. The mountains rising sharply from the shore and topped with snow-covered peaks were unlike anything I had ever seen before, especially in August.

When we finally got to the glacier, the boat parked for a half hour. I remember sitting there in awe of this river of ice over a mile wide and scores of feet high. In that time, I was able to watch the glacier calve on several instances, sending out huge chunks of ice into the bay. It was amazing to see the glacier there despite the rather mild temperature and slowly flow to the sea as it has done for centuries. In fact, I filled up the memory on my old camera solely from pictures of the glacier and have nothing else from the rest of my trip to Alaska. Two decades ago, this glacier created an ice dam and blocked an adjacent fjord from the rest of the bay. When the dam broke, it unleashed a 25-meter high mass of water and had a greater flow than Niagara Falls. And while I of course did not witness this, see where this event happened again reminded me of the great power of nature and inability of humans to ever conquer it in its entirety.

Saving nature is an important pursuit for humans. At the most basic level, the natural processes our species depends on, from weather to agriculture, requires very specific arrangements of plants, animals, and geological features to function in the way we expect. When humans degrade these natural arrangements, drastic changes can occur that may threaten huge swaths of human civilization. Thus, man must learn to reap the benefits of the natural world but manage our impact to allow it to continue to nourish us in the way it has for millennia.

On a more abstract level, preserving natural environments deserves consideration for its own sake. It is important for humans to be humble with respect to nature, something that features such as glaciers and the Amazon help us achieve. In addition, the aesthetics of even pedestrian environments overall contributes to a better quality of life for humans and has long provided an important inspiration and opportunities for man.

Caving and Saving

The most magical engagement I can think of that I have had with the natural world was during my time at summer camp when I was 10 or 11. During my week there, I spent one day going caving with the other girls in my cabin. We had a guide go through the cave with us, telling us facts about the stalactites, animals, and creeks that were in the cave. We stopped at one point to put mud all over our faces.

The magic came later. We all stopped in a slightly bigger room where we could all sit, and the guide had us all turn out our flashlights. I had never been in complete darkness before, and the sensation was incredible. I remember putting my hand up to my face and not being able to see it, and realizing that I was inside the Earth somewhere, and it had hidden the sun from me. At that moment, I realized how incredible the world outside the cave was, with its sunlight, colors, and wind, but I also realized how mysterious nature was that it could survive without these things.

After a few minutes of sitting there in complete darkness, the guide lit a match. The difference was stunning. I suddenly wanted to investigate each crevice in the cave wall, all the light flooding on to my cabin-mates’ faces, and my own hands that I had not been sure still existed. I was shocked at how a little match could bring such a huge change to the underground world, and the spell of the complete darkness that had kept us all in silence was lifted, and we continued laughing and chatting like muddy ten-year-olds. I left the cave thinking about how much I didn’t know about the world, and also how lucky I was to live in the light.

Saving nature is critically important to our dignity as human beings. We came from nature, and it is undeniable that we feel a connection to it. Though we have developed beyond the capabilities of the rest of the animals on the planet, this does not mean that we are exempt from living in nature. We love our planet, a fact that is supported by success of documentaries such as Planet Earth, or even the movie Wall-e, where the space-weary pilot is filled with a desire to learn more about the planet he wants to rediscover. We love nature for its beauty, its mystery, and its dualism between quietness and energy. If we let nature go, we are letting go one of the fundamental truths about ourselves and depriving the rest of human history of something that we know deep down that we love.

Another reason I believe we should save nature comes from my faith. As a Christian, I believe that God calls us to be stewards of the Earth, and this involves caring for the life around us. I know that not everyone shares my faith, but it still calls me to protect the environment and save the wonderful things God has placed here.

However, saving nature requires more than protection programs. It will require education, slowed development, and an increased appreciation for the world around us. We cannot save nature without halting our own development, and this is going to be hard to accept for many people, if not impossible. Just because something is impossible, though, does not mean that we should not try to do it.

Hills and Holes

It's really difficult for me to decide on the most enchanting or thrilling experience I've had with the non-human world because my family have always been really into camping and hiking and other outdoorsy things. We used to go on one big trip every other year so that my brothers and I would eventually make it to all 50 US states and every national park in the country. After debating for a while, I have narrowed it down to two experiences which are completely opposite but equally thrilling.

The first experience was hiking the Grand Canyon in Utah when I was in middle school. I'd hiked lots of mountains but the Bright Angel Trail was my first experience where the downhill came before the uphill. The wildlife was so different from anything in the northeast because it has adapted to over 100 degree weather during the day and below 40 degree weather at night. Mostly there were lizards and small rodents and other creatures of that sort though we did see the occasional mule carring loads of supplies to campers at the Colorado River. The more impressive part of the Canyon to me was the geology. I was never that into rocks and dirt until that hike but seeing the wide range of colorful stone and the effect that the erosion had on it was absolutely stunning. The Canyon isn't just a big hole; there are plateaus and crevaces and alien-looking rock formations that span beyond how far the naked eye can see. The landscape was like nothing I could have ever imagined and the pictures I'd seen before the trip certainly did not do it justice. The color palette alone was wonderous. The desert was not just beige and neutral colored. Within the rocks, there were yellows, oranges, deep reds, magnificent pinks, royal purples, silver quartz, all shades of brown, pale greens, and even streaks of dark blue. Overall, the experience of hiking into the Canyon was overwhelming and despite the intense heat, nature provided a cool place to swim (the Colorado River) at the bottom of the hike. Hiking back up was just as magnificent in scenery but I remember being too tired to take much notice towards the end. I would definitely recomment a Grand Canyon trip to anyone who loves geology and anyone who's looking for a mountain hike in reverse.

The second experience was biking down the volcano Haleakala in Hawaii when I was 14. We woke up at 2 am to get to the top of the dormant volcano so that we could see the sunrise. It was rumored to be one of the best sunrises in the world and from what I saw the rumors are true. It was above the clouds and we had to have mini oxygen tanks when we got high enough up along with tons of extra clothes because the temperature dropped to about 10 degrees at the top. The real beauty came on the ride back down though because we could just coast on our bikes and enjoy the scenery. The mountain was bursting with life from the elusive silver sword cactus to large mountain deer and goats. It wasn't what someone would expect to see in Hawaii because it was about as different from laying on a beach with a maitai as you can imagine. But there are beaches everywhere. Hawaii shouldn't be relegated to a beach vacation because the camping and hiking experiences cannot be found elsewhere in the world. On the way down the volcano, we watched the life change from small cold weather plants, cacti, and animals to large, green, leafy Taro and thinly fur-coated creatures. When we reached the little town at the base of the volcano it was almost surreal to see cars and people and buildings so close to the secluded natural world of upper Haleakala. The sunrise and biking experience was nothing short of glorious.

So with that said, I think it's pretty obvious that I feel like "saving nature" is something we should be concerned with. In fact, I don't think it's even a matter of debate. As humans, we have no right to destroy the natural beauty that surrounds us because we are not the only living things on this planet. We should appreciate the God given glory around us work to preserve it. Not only will it be better for the planet and the environment in the long run but it is good for humans to experience nature for our own peace of mind. We are blessed to have such a lively and vibrant natural world that contains such a huge variety of plants and animals. In my experience, spending time in nature is relaxing, rejuvinating, and essential to living a complete life. If one has not experienced some of the marvels of nature, he is missing out on one of the most rewarding opportunities that life on Earth provides. Rather than saving nature, we should be thinking of it as saving ourselves because no life is full without the discovery of at least one new place. We don't need to discover some place no one has ever been before, but we should all go places that we have never been before and discover them for ourselves. Overall, nature is a blessing to humanity and we have a duty and a responsibility to make sure that future generations have that same blessing. So yes, saving nature should be a main concern of ours or we risk our health, happiness, and sanity.

Major Sustainabilty

There is always talk about the children of today being the future of tomorrow. They are the ones that will change the world we live in. There is an equal amount of talk about the degradation in the environment leaving nothing behind for the children. They children will leave in a whole new world and Earth will be not be able to sustain them. This talk, however is not going unheard, recently colleges throughout the nation have developed a new major to address growing concerns. The sustainability major will focus on architecture, engineering and urban planning. The goal of the major is to bring light to the area and provide useful and tangible experience to prevent and combat future environmental impact.

The new major is a new look at the problem. The problems facing the environment have been studied, but the solutions have gone to the wayside in some aspect. With the creation of the sustainability major, solutions are finally being considered. While viable solutions may not be immediate, the major is a stepping stone in the right direction. Educating youth solely for the purpose of helping the environment is addressing the problem and providing resources to help it.

Sustainability as a major also brings forward the notion that the point finally got across. The emphasis on the dying planet has finally been given the attention it needs. It is no longer a concept that people hear about and it has become greater than recycling a few plastic bottles. It is looked at as something more serious. It is now an issue that takes time to understand, and must be studied in order to create long-term solutions.

While the sustainability major is spreading throughout the nation, only time will reveal its potential impact. Sustainability as a major may be a passing trend. Hopefully, it is more than just a trend and the effects and impact of the major will be taken seriously. However, if the environmental situation becomes better or if other more pressing factors arise, it is uncertain about the lifespan of the major. Sustainability has the potential to help the environmental situation, but cannot be viewed as the saving grace to the planet.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23782981#23782981

Build a better turbine

The article I've chosen to post is about a windmill design created by a professor I had for class a couple of semesters ago: http://www.popcitymedia.com/innovationnews/windmills0620.aspx7

The windmill described in the article is more efficient, easier to build, safer, cheaper, and all kinds of ways better than traditional horizontal axis wind turbines. Because it is built on a vertical axis, this means that wind coming from any direction can spin the turbine. The design of the turbine seeks to imitate nature to find the best channel for propelling the turbine.

This article is optimistic because it shows the potential for wind power in a nation that has often been opposed to the technology for aesthetic, safety, or even environmental reasons. If this wind technology becomes widespread, it could be a good example of a technological solution to climate change. The article also shows the growing interest in new technologies, given Sankar's grant to create and market his turbines.

The only reason I do not like this article is that it mentions Target, McDonald's and Whole Foods becoming self-sufficient. While I do support green technology, I do not think it should become a crutch to support our fast food, big box store mentality. Despite this one issue I have with this article, though, I think it is a very encouraging step towards energy independence and sustainability.

Bamboo Laptop?

So I came across this article in the Washington Post today about an eco-friendly laptop. I'm not sure if everyone can view it unless you are signed up to receive the online Washington Post but I'll give the link anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/12/AR2010101204990.html

Basically, the article describes this new laptop series, made by Asus, that apparently calls the series "U Series Bamboo Collection." The laptop is wood-paneled and made of 15% bamboo and it comes packaged in 100% recyclable and natural bamboo pulp cloth. I don't exactly know what this means for the safety of the laptop while in transit but there don't seem to be reports of broken computers...yet.

Anyway, most of the article describes the characteristics of the laptop and gives pretty in depth details about the memory capacity and safety features of the product. However, it does give quite a few references to how environmentally friendly the new laptop is, despite its $999 price tag. While the insides of the laptop are basically the same, the eco-conscious bamboo exterior is like "icing on the cake" according to the author of the article. From the description in the article, I have the impression that carrying this laptop around would look like you were carrying a wooden cutting board or something of similar size, shape, and material. It's hard for me to imagine a bamboo covered laptop but I guess companies will do just about anything to jump on the "green product" bandwagon.

So while this may not be entirely "uplifting" in an environmental sense, I found the article to be kind of funny and a little cheerful. Although a laptop is still using a whole bunch of energy, at least Asus is trying to make it more green...with a bamboo cover and all. I'm not sure how I would feel walking around with a wooden laptop but maybe they'll become trendy just like reusable shopping bags and spiral light bulbs. Overall, the author gave the laptop a great review so before we know it, everyone could be walking around typing on bits of bamboo. The whole thing was pretty humorous to me but since we've been talking about green technology, I thought this article was an ironic piece about actual bamboo laptops...that's about as green as you can get. Hope you all enjoy!

Chevrolet Volt

This past week, General Motors (GM herein) officially introduced the production 2011 Chevrolet Volt. As the press release linked above mentions, this model is the first mass-produced range-extended electric-vehicle (EV) brought to the market (by the worst offender of the SUV craze). While there is some discussion over how revolutionary the car's drive system truly is, it cannot be said that this model represents a new, green future for transit, especially in this country.

In their press release, GM discusses the technical details of their product. As a range-extended EV, the primary propulsion system of the car is an electric motor. With a full charge, the battery can provide between 25 and 50 miles of driving. When the battery is depleted, an on-board gasoline motor is used to turn a generator and provide power to the electric motor. It is this system that earns the Volt the range-extended designation. The gasoline-powered system gives the vehicle of range of approximately 300 miles and can also provide supplemental power to the wheels in cases of battery depletion and hard acceleration.

It is from these technical details that the potential for the Volt to seriously affect the environmental impact of our driving comes from. Electrically-powered vehicles have been hampered by battery technology as they require large, heavy battery packs, limiting range, and upon depletion require extensive charging cycles. This creates what is known as "range-anxiety," fears of being stranded. Thus, EV have been generally considered to be useful as a commuter car or a second car but not as the primary automobile for American families.

The addition of the gasoline motor, however, makes range-anxiety inconsequential. Hence, the Volt can be used as a primary car, suitable for both short and long trips. For the short commutes and errand-running that typifies American habits, the Volt can be operated in EV mode and provide emissions-free driving. And for the long trips unique to American driving and that drivers romantically hold in too-high esteem, the Volt is just as useful as any other small cars. Throughout all of this, the Volt is expected to require as little fuel as the best parallel hybrid systems do (EPA ratings have not yet been released).

The Volt also appears to shatter other conceptions about EV held by the American public. In the Automobile Magazine review of the production model, it was noted that the car provides acceleration on par with other similarly-sized cars. If one takes a look at engine options offered by European manufacturers in this country and compare them to those in other markets, it is obvious that Americans love power in their automobiles. The car has also been praised for providing upmarket driving dynamics and featuring good ride characteristics. Finally, the review notes that the car's interior is on par in the entry-level luxury market and offers upmarket features. While no one will mistake this car for a BMW 335is, the Volt does not conform to the general idea of EV being spartan economy cars with a poor ride and lousy dynamic qualities. Instead, the Volt is simply like a conventional automobile.

Overall, it is clear that the Volt has the potential to be widely accepted by the American automobile market. It offers an excellent way to bridge the gap between conventional gasoline cars and the EV future that likely awaits us. Though it should be noted that American consumer preferences in the automobile market must change in the near future and favor smaller cars over SUVs, the Volt is an EV that is able to conform to widely-held notions of the automobile.

Looking at the Volt, however, there are improvements that must and I believe will be made for EV and range-extended vehicles to significantly curtail our impact on the environment. Firstly, is the issue of price. The Volt is rather expensive, with an MSRP of $37,000, though with tax credits that price drops to about $32,000. To have a true impact on the market, this will have to be reduced into the $25,000 range. A reduction of this scale can possibly be attained through economies-of-scale and advances in batter and electric motor technology. At least initially, GM will produce the Volt in relatively modest quantities. With a smaller price tag and improved technology, though, it can be expected that the Volt will be met with greater demand. Finally, the nation's utility infrastructure must be upgraded to handle the additional stress of charging EV and produce energy in a cleaner manner using alternatives to fossil fuels.

Selfish

Thinking about food choices seems to be a far-fetched idea. I open the pantry, the refrigerator, and the menu and pick whatever seems to be most appealing at the time. Sometimes I chose to make a salad, or times I go straight for the potato chips, and then there are those times I just stare into oblivion hoping that the food will jump at me.

When making food choices I look to my stomach. As selfish as that may sound, I do not take much else into consideration. When it comes to my eating habits, it’s all about me. Whatever I want I eat. Often times I regret those decisions when I am forced to run for an extra thirty minutes or when the stomach wrenching pain kicks in, but in that moment I am selfish.

There are times that I do stop and think about my eating choices. Sometimes I will consider the effects of a piece of cake despite how much am I craving it or the fat-free versus low fat dressing on the salad, but once again it goes back to my own selfishness. I do not stop myself from eating one thing because of its environmental impact, but rather I stop myself from eating a food because of the direct consequences it will have in my life.

Despite my selfishness, I realize that change needs to occur. While eating can be an enjoyable pastime and of course a necessity, it does not need to be a selfish act. The food we consume comes from around the country, and sometimes even the world. The fruits often times have travelled the world and experienced more foreign countries than I have. While this phenomenon allows me to eat kiwis in January, it has effects on the environment and changes the industrial food system of this country. The pollution emitted into the environment to preserve the kiwi long enough to transport it to the United States to satisfy my craving in January is tremendous. The chemicals used to keep the kiwi green must have some kind effect on my body, but it does not stop me from eating the kiwi.

World-travelling fruit has greatly affected the domestic food industry. The farms in the United States focus on mainly one crop: corn. The ability to bring in produce from other countries changes the grand scheme of farm production. Farms focus on what can be grown efficiently and at the least expense. Corn has infiltrated our country’s food system and can be found in almost every product. We are longer dependent on growing our own produce and can now focus our time on corn.

When I open the pantry next will I stop and actively think about my food choice? Probably. I will consider it, but I can’t be sure that my selfishness will not get the best of me. I understand the environmental impacts of my selfishness, but sometimes the kiwi in January or the corn-infested potato chip is the perfect fix to a long day. I understand that my choices will not change completely. I am realistic enough to admit that I do no always make the best food choices, both for the environment, and myself but I do not know how much that will change. I say now that I will only buy locally, or eat organic but much like other people in this country I have trained to want whatever I want, and get it any time.

Eating Green(s)

1. At one level, I do certainly try to buy food locally grown in a sensitive manner for the environment. From the spring to the fall, I buy my produce from a local farm stand and throughout the year I consume a minimum amount of prepared foods (especially by American standards). And in Safeway, I tear through the store looking for apples actually grown in this hemisphere (harder than you think). Also, I consciously limited my consumption of meat products in recent years because of the carbon-intensive nature of the industry.

But environmental concerns are secondary to nutritional value and quality in my buying choices at the supermarket. While for much of the year they go hand-in-hand (fresh produce generally has more nutrients the closer it is consumed to harvest), that also means in the winter I will purchase imported produce. And while this concern works in well with organically grown produce, my finances unfortunately preclude the purchase of often more expensive products. Instead, I try to strategically buy organic produce based on health concerns. When it comes down to, however, I will always end up with the produce from some far-flung place if need be. I also will not completely eliminate meat from my diet, as animal protein is nutritionally superior to other protein sources.

It has been shown, however, that buying local does not necessarily mean the choice is significantly better than buying produce grown elsewhere. The energy that goes into the actual transportation of some foodstuffs, especially those part of an necessarily efficient supply chain, may pale in comparison to the actual energy it takes to grow the produce. Though it is certainly irrational to import foods that can be grown locally in an efficient manner, buying local does not necessarily make for a substantially smaller impact. Of course there are many reasons to buy local, but individuals should not always condemn others or themselves for buying some foods grown far

2. Of the most recent items I have consumed, the burger I had probably required the greatest use of resources and the most waste produced. At a half-pound, it's double the amount of meat I usually ingest on a normal day. Cattle farming, especially in this country, is notorious for releasing a huge amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and requiring much in the way of resources to grow the cows and get the meat to our plates. I was tempted to respond by saying the imported beer I had this weekend was worse in the way of environmental impact, but I think that beer prepared in a traditional manner in a region where oats and hops grow very well (Belgium) would not have the same impact despite the transit requirements.

Eating like I mean it

My food choices actually are very environmentally focused. One of the reasons I choose to be a vegetarian is environmental, since the meat industry is such a big contributor to carbon emissions. This year, I’ve started trying to buy as much food as I can from local sources to cut down on shipping and production emissions, as well as buying things with as little packaging and chemicals involved as possible. For example, I bought a big tub of oatmeal that I flavor myself rather than a box of individually wrapped oatmeal packets with un-pronounceable ingredients. The same goes for my yogurt, and next on my list to simplify is my bread. I try to get my produce from farmers’ markets, or if I do buy it at a grocery store, to buy things that were not shipped long distances. This means that I have cut out fruits like bananas and pineapple entirely. I’m still working on the heartbreak that will come with no more lettuce during the winter, but I hope to someday get there.

I do have other reasons for eating this way; meat makes me feel squeamish, I think farmers’ market produce tastes better, and I like to know what exactly goes in to what I’m eating. I have been heavily influenced by Barbara Kingsolver’s book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle in how I choose to eat, as well as Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy. Both of these books support a locally-oriented economy, for many reasons other than environmental ones. However, the main reason that I eat the way I do is environmentalism.

Of the things I have eaten in the past two days, the item with the biggest environmental impact was probably the pizza I ordered. Not only did it have a lot of ingredients, which means more items that were shipped from long distances, I had no way of knowing what exactly was in it. Add to that the fact that it came in a box that I threw away and that the delivery person took a trip in a car to get the pizza to me, and the pizza has a pretty huge carbon footprint.

When I think about the impacts of my food, I think about how many ingredients were involved, where they came from (if I know), the process for making them, and how far I traveled to get it (in the case of my pizza, it traveled to me). Other factors in this decision could be what type of growing methods was used (for example, synthetic fertilizers impact the health of aquatic ecosystems).

I choose to value simplicity and distance higher than organic vs. conventional farming methods, but I recognize that food grown in a natural way is more sustainable in the long run, as well. That being said, I refuse to shop at places like Whole Foods that claim to be environmentally friendly to make people feel better, while still importing their produce from across the globe and selling food in tiny plastic packages.

Eating Green

It's interesting that this question came up for this week because on our weekly grocery shopping trip to Super Fresh last Tuesday, my roommate and I had a discussion about what factors go into what we buy. Since I've already mentioned that we usually shop at Super Fresh, rather than the far superior Whole Foods, it should be clear that price is a dominating factor for us, as it is for most college students. While I would love to do all my shopping at the weekly farmer's market and at Whole Foods, that kind of lifestyle would break the bank for me. Unfortunately, in buying cheaper foods with generic or "America's Choice" brands, we usually sacrifice environmentally friendly foods. I assume that a lot of the food I purchase has to be shipped quite a distance though I do go to the farmer's market if I have some extra cash lying around. It's a shame that eating healthy and green is so expensive.

However, I have found that there are ways to buy more environmentally friendly foods at Super Fresh for the same cheap prices. My roommate and I were coming up to the dairy section to buy a dozen eggs and there were so many choices of eggs that we stood there for about five minutes discussing which to get. The Grade A eggs in styrofoam containers probably come from the chickens you see in photographs of industrial farms where thousands of baby chickens grow up in one tiny pen without enough room to stand or anything. I'm not sure how much better "free-range" chickens are treated but the eggs are a bit smaller and in a cardboard container. The price difference was only about 10 cents so my roommate and I decided we'd pay the extra to get the cardboard encased free-range eggs. We also usually get the pricier Kosher meat because it just tastes better and we always get fruits and vegetables that are in season because they're cheaper and more environmentally friendly. So even though I can't be a perfectly "green" eater, I do my best to think of the environment when I'm shopping in addition to being financially conscious.

When I think about everything I've eaten in the last two days a few things come to mind. First of all, I need to go shopping soon because I realized I've been on a Kraft mac and cheese diet lately. But in regards to the question, I think that the food that has had the biggest environmental impact is probably the lasagna I made for last night's dinner. The lasagna noodles were America's Choice brand so they were probably processed and shipped from Montvale, New Jersey from where most of their noodle products are distributed. Next, the ground hamburger meat came from a cow probably somewhere in the midwest and that cow was almost certainly eating lots of meal and producing lots of methane. Then of course the cow had to be slaughtered, the meat processed, packaged, and shipped to DC, which all takes a bunch of energy. The sauce I made from diced tomatoes (again America's Choice brand) and some locally grown onions. The spices (basil, oregano, and thyme) I had already but they were probably shipped from far away as well seeing as thyme and oregano don't grow well around here. And last the ricotta cheese came from another cow somewhere in the midwest again and that cheese took a lot of processing and packaging and shipping as well. So just in the ingredients, the lasagna took quite a bit of energy. Too add to it, there's the pan I cooked it in, made from glass which used silicon and sand and whatever else goes into glass and which probably took some energy to produce. There's also the aluminum foil I covered the pan in and I'm not quite sure where aluminum is mined from but I suppose that too is using up a natural resource. And finally, there's the energy I used to cook the lasagna in a 350 degree oven for an hour and 10 minutes. When you add in the gas used to drive to the store, the paper used to make the cookbook and the water used to wash the dishes afterwards, I probably made a larger environmental impact by cooking that one meal than many people in developing nations make in months (or more). Good thing I have leftovers so I can split that environmental impact into a few meals rather than just one.

When writing it all out like this I do realize that everything I do here in the United States, from driving, to cooking, to sleeping in an air conditioned room, has an unimaginable impact on the environment. And what's more, I'm not the only person doing it and I'm certainly not the person making the biggest impact in the US. Over 300 million people live in the United States and drive cars, use computers, buy groceries, and cook meals every day. If all 6.8 billion people on Earth tried to cook the same dish that I made last night, the planet would certainly feel the consequences. It brings up an interesting question about equality. Lasagna was considered the poor man's meal back in Italy when my grandmother was a child. Only the wealthiest 20% of the world could afford to make it now.

Technology: a question of prepositions

I do not think that the environmental crisis can be solved through technology alone. The problem is more deep-rooted than simply stopping our emission of greenhouse gasses; while we do need to do that, we also need to examine our attitudes and practices. The environment is in decay because we view ourselves as more important than the natural balance. We cannot use technology as our crutch to solve the problem we created with a flaw in how we view the world.

There are many examples of “green” technology: hybrid cars, solar panels, and wind turbines, for instance. However, a Prius still emits greenhouse gasses and is built with rare and dangerous materials. While it is environmentally conscious to drive one, it would be more conscious to walk more places, create smaller communities that didn’t require a car, and support public transit.

When we create technologies, we are mostly interested in finding new and exciting things to do, with environmental concerns coming second, if they occur at all. For technology to be a viable environmental solution, this process should be reversed. We should look to nature as our inspiration, and learn to create technologies that imitate natural processes and work within the ecosystem rather than above it. Technology created in this way would help us without causing damage.

While I do not believe that technology is a golden bullet to solve the environmental crisis, I do think that it can be sustainable if we think about it in the right way. Before we can use technology in this way, though, we need to change the way we think. Our issue stems from which preposition we use to describe are selves: are we above the world, or are we in it?

Savior?

Will technology save us? The correct question is can it save us? The first question is assuming we can be saved or that we want to be saved. Technology has potential to save us, if that is what we are looking for. It has the ability to open new doors and create new pathways to help our lifestyles, but also the environment. Technology can create alternatives to fossil fuels, more efficient cars, and make everyday life more sustainable,; but are we willing to let technology save us?

Technology is “the total knowledge and skills available to any human society for industry, art, science etc.” according to Webster’s dictionary. If technology is the total knowledge in an industry we are lagging behind. We do not have the total knowledge of the state of the environment nor is enough being done to get the total knowledge. In environmental terms, technology is research into the problem and potential solutions. That is not being done enough. While research is being conducted to learn more about the problem, and the implications it will have on the future, solutions are lagging behind. Scientists and environmentalists have recognized a problem and have made the public aware, but the people that can help development have taken a step back. Some developers do not see immediate danger and therefore are not making the appropriate effort to find solutions.

Will technology save us? Not now and not soon. Technology has the potential to save us, but before that can happen something major needs to go wrong. Environmental degradation has a passing effect on some people. The increase in temperature is coincidental, Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster that couldn’t be avoided, and CO_z emissions are necessary for economic growth. For technology that can save us to be found and implemented, the problem needs to come full circle, something life changing needs to happen. As of now, we could live our normal life and continue to ruin the environment because the effects are not widely seen. Something needs to open everyone’s eyes, and then technology can help us.

Technology as our savior cannot happen and should not happen. If we understand that technology can help solve our problems, we will not anything on our own to prevent the problem. If technology is always there to dig us out of a hole, nothing will change. While technology can help us fix a problem and be part of a solution, it cannot be the solution because than nothing will change.

Techno Earth

I think that the question of technology with reference to the environmental problem today is both essential and impossible to answer. It is essential in that knowing what the future of technology brings could help us to save the Earth from further damage by knowing what green technologies to create or by realizing that we must regress in technology in order to prevent catastrophy. However, because technology is so progressive and autonomous, it is impossible to know what future technological advancements might be made. Some people have suggested that technology can be the savior of the Earth if it is used properly. Others feel that technology, if it continues to advance, may end up creating more problems than it solves. Each new technology uses more enegry to create it but if this energy is used efficiently, the technology can end up conserving energy or being sustainable. In general, I feel that technology can go either way from this point on. It can certainly be beneficial to the Earth if human innovation is put to good use and if the enviromental problem is considered a threat to humanity. On the other hand, if the problem is disregarded and technology continues to advance in ways that don't make it more energy efficient, the environment could suffer the consequences.

It is difficult, also, to know exactly what technology means for the environment. The question is just as ambiguous as the answer. My first response is that further technological advancement will only increase the human impact on the planet and therefore, will be harmful. However, upon thinking about the meaning of technology a little bit more, it becomes clear that by definition, technology is any kind of tool that can extend one's abilities to be efficient in a task. So, if the task of humans now is to control the climate, and technology extends our abilities to complete that task, then technology could be what allows us to control the climate. I thought this could be a great idea until I took the idea even further and asked the question of whether or not it is a good thing for humans to try to control the climate in the first place. After all, there have been many instances where, in trying to solve a problem, humanity created another, more serious problem. It is impossible to predict the kinds of futuristic problems that could arise from humans attempting to fiddle with the global thermostat. Since industrialization is what got us all into this problem in the first place, it seems that a reversal of that would be the way to solve the problem, not an increase in it. For example, if people want to lose weight, they reverse the eating habits that caused the problem by reducing their diet; they don't continue to eat exponentially more hoping that it will eventually help them lose weight. This seemed like aa very logical argument to me for a while but then I reminded myself that technology has much more ambiguous effects than food. Either way, as I went back and forth between the two theories, I kept convincing myself that one made more sense than the other until I finally came to accept that there is no way to tell how technology will affect the Earth in the future. The arguments become cyclical until I find myself thinking in circles without coming to any definite conclusion. Overall, it comes down to trying to predict the future, which is an unsteady art, even in the magical world of Harry Potter. In the real world, it is even more unlikely.

To take a more science fiction approach, it can be concluded that even if technology continues to destroy the planet, we will be so far advanced by the time the planet is uninhabitable that we will be able to move off the Earth and leave our home to rot. As shown in the movie Wall-E, this could have devastating effects on humanity but it does pose a possible solution for the preservation of the human species. Although this could be feasible in the very far future, I like to hope that would never happen and that humanity will have wised up before it becomes necessary. The movie does raise some interesting questions about how we are treating our world. The planet was covered in trash and completely destroyed but technology had advanced so far that it was possible for humans to move onto a space-based ship. Despite the fact that the ship the humans moved to was pretty sweet, I hope my great great great grandchildren will not be 600 pounds.

When people talk about technology as the saving grace for humanity, they likely are referencing one of two scenarios: either that innovation will allow us (the developed world) to continue to generally live and (and more importantly) consume as we do while making little to no impact on the environment or that technological advances will allow humans to navigate, mitigate, and even completely negate any negative effects of environmental damage and climate change.

Technology as a way to perpetuate our way of life is relatively straightforward. Americans have proven resistant to making substantial changes in their lives for the sake of consuming less and reducing environmental impact. And as we have discussed in class, it is political suicide to suggest that as a nation we reduce our consumption, the lifeblood of our ailing service economy. Technological advances that could allow us to, say, live in sprawling suburbs or to continually buy disposable electronics with little to no impact then seem ideal. If such innovation occurred, no longer would those in the developed world be living beyond their means. No real changes would have to be made. And consumers would be forced to buy new stuff. As a bonus, new technologies could even be made in the United States once again and offer a lifeline to American manufacturing.

It is obvious that the sheer level of innovation that is required to achieve this goal, in the time frame climatologists have given us, is simply not possible. Real changes do have to be made in the amount of resources consumed and wastes produced immediately, which requires a reevaluation of American consumer culture. Alas, it is all too easy to get seduced by the lack of sacrifice such a scenario requires.

It is important to note, however, that there are technologies such as fusion power, though years off, could very well bring humanity close to the point described above. Infrastructure improvements and the even the greater adoption of existing technologies, very doable actions, are able to significantly reduce our impact on the globe in a shorter span of time. While this does not obviate the need for behavioral changes, some combination of the two may be enough to stave off the worst of global climate change. Green technology certainly offers an economic opportunity for this country as well. So overall, an approach that encourages conservation and innovation is the most prudent. In the long-term, technology may hold the answers. In the short to medium term, it does not.

The second viewpoint is more along the lines of science fiction. I believe it to include humans colonizing other planets after trashing our birthplace and undertaking massive geo-engineering projects to achieve such aims as reversing the effects of climate change. Again, these solutions allow humanity to continue to burn fossil fuels and use the earth to a greater extent than it can withstand while not making actual sacrifice. It goes without saying that there is little hope here, especially within the important century before us.

Myopia

I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Friedman's article that this country is falling behind in the "green" sector of the global economy. While there certainly has been some enthusiasm in the private sector, especially with regard to hybrid and electric vehicles, overall public investment in research has been lagging behind nations such as China for some time. And when considering the very present threat of climate change and falling resource stocks, green technologies need to be developed and adopted on a huge scale in this country. Failure to do so is simply shortsighted and puts the entire globe on the path to destruction,

The issue of the green sector of the economy is something Thomas Friedman has discussed for quite some time. I agree with his assertion that it represents a great opportunity for the United States to once again manufacture products domestically and offer a wealth of well-paying jobs to a diversity of workers. In a country with unemployment nearing double digits and one with a manufacturing sector that has been battered by foreign competition and outsourcing, such benefits should be embraced. In addition, a less resource-intensive economy that does not utilize fossil-fuels on a large scale frees the United States from scouring the globe for vanishing resources and sending money to unfriendly and undemocratic nations. In this vein, an earlier Op-ed by Mr. Friedman goes as far to say that even if climate change is completely a natural phenomenon, the steps, especially in green manufacturing, taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions would make the country better off in the long run. So even though present politicians shy away from coercing the American economy into researching, adopting, and using new and perhaps expensive technologies because of short term costs, the economics in the long term favor such moves.

While new technology is certainly an integral piece of the puzzle, it is not a panacea for the problems we face today. So while Mr. Friedman is right that the United States needs to do more to research green technologies and implement them in the short to intermediate term, much greater action must be taken to simply consume less and conserve resources. Though I concede that conservation can be helped by more advanced products and practices, behavior in this country still must change in order to make significant reductions in environmental impact and hopefully stave off the worst of global climate change.

Finally, I would like to agree one of Janelle's points in her response to this Op-ed. It is extremely embarrassing that China's leaders are willing to talk about human-induced climate change while to American politicians it is among the "dirtiest" of issues. For a country that prides itself on having been at the forefront of science and innovation for the past century, this issue should not be taboo. Just because we fear short term costs and profit loss and are uncomfortable with the destruction our lifestyles cause does not give America the right to ignore climate change and dismiss sound research in an anti-intellectual fervor.

Four Letter Words

In his article in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman argues that China is far ahead of the United States in the climate change race, turning the faltering climate into thousands of J-O-B-S while many American politicians just turn it into one big J-O-K-E. I think that this article brings to mind a couple other four letter words that need to be addressed:

R-A-C-E

Throughout the article, Friedman discusses climate innovation as a race. China is in the lead, with more innovation, better legislation, and more jobs. The US is falling behind, as politicians continue to fail to make a climate change bill and most of our green innovations are being used more in China than here.

But I'm not so sure a race is the best way to think about action on climate change. First of all, the competition involved in a race typically drives people to do better in order to win. It pushes people to achieve their best. Clearly, that's not working in this case. Although Americans are not missing out entirely on the green jobs frontier, we are certainly not reaching the standard we could (and should) be, especially when it comes to legislation. It appears that in the case of this "race" we are more inclined to free ride on the backs of those already ahead of us, letting them do the leg work while we sit back and enjoy the benefits.

Therein lies the other issue with calling this a race: the nature of the benefits. In a race, there is one winner who gets all of the prize. That mindset doesn't work so well when it comes to climate change. Whatever country becomes the most green first will not get to live on in perfect harmony while the rest of the world falls to ruin around them. This is one world, and we are all connected. So no matter how far ahead any one country may get when it comes to green innovation, they will continue to feel the negative effects of environmental harm unless the other countries catch up. Unless everyone is winning, we're all losing.

M-A-K-E

So is the answer for every country to throw all their energies into green energy, technology, and jobs? Maybe, but only if it's done thoughtfully. Green technology is still technology and therefore has the potential to have unintended negative side effects. Also growth, green or not, is still growth, and according to Bill McKibben in his book Eaarth is something we need to stop striving for if we are ever going to save ourselves in this environmental crisis.

P-A-C-E

I have to wonder if the pace of China's growth in environmental technologies is too fast. Are they creating green technologies and spreading them virally across the country before they fully research the effects of these technologies? With the size of their population, if just one technology turns out to be more environmentally harmful than they thought, it could be devastating. While I certainly think the United States should be looking more into green technologies, perhaps aiming for the same pace as China is not the best option.

K-N-O-W

So we may want to think twice before sprinting to catch up with China on the green technology front. There is still, however, plenty to be learned from China's policies. One thing that stuck out to me most in Friedman's article is how no-nonsense China is about climate change. As generally more scientifically minded people than Americans, they don't question climate change or think of it as a global problem. They know it is happening, and it is happening now. Before we worry about upping our investments in green technologies, before we increase our green jobs, we need to get more Americans to adopt this mindset. Before we start working towards combating climate change, we need to stop questioning it.

Race to the End of the Earth

When reading this article I couldn't help but be a little surprised. Granted, I don't spend every day watching the news for new clean-energy legislation in the United States but I did not realize that we, as a nation, were so far behind in the "race" to save the planet. However, I did a little further research because I was confused about the Friedman article and whilst doing so, I came across some conflicting views. It's difficult to know who is "right" in this situation or if anyone is right at all. It seems that while the United States is behind when it comes to "above-ground mining" capabilities, we are not behind when it comes to creating green jobs or promoting green architecture and the use of green energy. In addition, although there hasn't been a clean-energy bill recently, the US does appear to have more public support for "living green" than other countries around the world, including China. On the other hand, the Friedman article did point out many ways in which the US is lagging behind in the global attempt to prevent climate change. I agree with Janelle in that much of the developing world's progress may have come from the Clean Development Mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol that allow developed nations to earn "carbon credits" for financing green technology projects in developing nations such as China and India. This suggests that nations like China may only be doing these green programs because they are being sudsidized by developed countries. Although I suppose it doesn't matter why it's getting done as long as it is getting done in the first place.

When talking about climate change, I believe that refering to it as a race between the US and other countries can be both positive and negative. It can be good because as the leading world power, the United States may feel the need to "win" a race for an environmental cause. Unfortunately, our policy makers have clearly not felt that need yet, and instead, they have felt it more important to try to discredit the whole issue. Since everyone loves to win races, it may be that talking about green energy as a race may be an incentive for nations around the world to try to "win" and prevent the appearence of not caring about climate change. As Friedman's article said, China is not pretending that climate change doesn't exist and neither should the United States. With further public pressure, policy makers will hopefully feel the need to have the US take it's place as a leader in the global fight against climate change. Contrastingly, the idea of a "race" could take the emphasis off of clean energy and put it on increased technology instead, whether that technology is good for the environment or not.

I agree that climate change should be addressed through technological innovation and a refocusing of the economy's priorities on "green" manufacturing. I believe that technological advances could be a saving grace for the future of the planet. However, it is not enough to just be changing the focus of manufacturing. It is the entire economic system that needs to change, not just the product of the current system. Overall, it will take a lot more than just reusable plastic bags to save the Earth but for now, a focus on green manufacturing could be a sizable step in the right direction. If it is necessary for the US to be in a race, it would be better for us to lose the race to save the Earth than to win the race to the end of the Earth.

Losing the climate game

While I agree with Freidman that the United States’ lack of effort to combat climate change is frankly embarrassing, I think he also ignores a key point about China’s development. This is the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol, in which developed countries can earn carbon credit by paying for green development projects in the developing world. The majority of CDM projects take place in China, which could be another explanation for their apparent motivation to switch to green technologies.

Even if China’s development is fueled by CDM, however, the fact remains that if fighting climate change were a game, the US would be losing. We seem to operate under the assumption that it is not real, or that if it is, there is nothing we should be doing to fix it. When the rest of the world is taking climate change seriously, this makes us look delusional and shortsighted. While it is not necessary to view climate change as a competition (“whoever lowers carbon emissions the most wins!”), being the odd one out should give us pause to reconsider our values.

Much of the way the international community regulates the environment is inherently competitive, however. For example, the Kyoto Protocol ties environmental impact to the economic market, which is by definition competitive. Under this system, lowering your impact gets you more than bragging rights; it carries an economic benefit as well. While the principles behind the Protocol seem solid, it has not lowered global emissions but rather seen an increase.

This suggests that market-based approaches toward green technology cannot be our only method for reducing our environmental impact. The change will have to come in the minds of citizens, policymakers, and businesses for any action to gain momentum. To effectively address the problem, we will not only need to switch to green technology, but also consider our consumption, lifestyle, and trading patterns.

The most embarrassing part of Freidman’s piece is not that China is surpassing us technologically, but that they are willing to talk about climate change while our politicians avoid the issue. The fact that China, the commonly cited example of climate indifference, can address the issue politically while the US seems unwilling to do so is a mark of shame for our country, its values, and our political system.

On Your Mark....

The United States has always been a step ahead. It is out of this country that the iPhone the hybrid car and the paper bag materialized. However, in the recent scope of climate change the US is taking a back seat. The US has yet to pass an energy-climate bill while other countries such as China have already begun implementing new energy saving policies for manufacturers. Despite the United States’ capabilities and resources, they have taken a step back and have begun to let others win. The country that had prided itself so much on innovation has now turned its back on that value and is waiting for others to make a change.

While climate change is affecting the whole world, some countries, like the United States do not seem to grasp the severity of its effect. The United States has the brain power and the financial ability to help combat the problem with new technologies and legislation but has not been using their full potential. Meanwhile, countries like China, have taken on a new role-the innovator. Friedman turns the issue into a race between nations, with China having a considerable lead on the US. The race should be incentive for the US to get more involved in the issue. A race is a contest, or competition to achieve superiority, and based on the US’ past it would seem that the country likes to win races. However, in this particular one it is lagging far behind. The race should be motivation to push harder, move ahead, to prove one’s self over its competitors. The same is true in this race. The US should be striving to win. The race should propel it forward to develop technology and legislation that can push it forward in the environmental reform realm.

However, it seems as though this race is having the opposite effect. This race on climate change is promoting the US back seat approach. Although, climate change is a global problem affecting every human on this planet the US is putting the responsibility of change on other countries. As long as other countries have taken the concern under their wing and are making changes, the US has little desire to do so. The climate change race has allowed the US to sit back and watch as other countries speed pass. Friedman points out that China and the EU countries have been making changes and the US has yet to make any of those same changes even with the technology available to them. This race has had the opposite effect for the US, instead of propelling research and implementation forward, it has stalled the country into false security that other nations are taking care of the issue.

Friedman addresses the need for change playing on the economic value of “green” manufacturing and technological innovation. Unlike other authors, Friedman outlines the importance of climate change innovation for the economy to attract an audience in a different way. Rather than just informing readers that climate change needs to occur for the sake of the environment, he relates to the status of the US in the global fight for the environment. Friedman constantly reiterates the fact that the US is at a disadvantage and is being left behind, while China is creating jobs and taking the “lead role in the next great global industry.” The economic approach through adoption of programs such as Mike Biddle’s illustrates the value in “green” manufacturing and innovation further than just saving the environment. This approach allows the public to understand and see the other long term advantages from responsibly responding to climate change.

The argument also puts today’s economic crisis in perspective. Taxpayers wonder where there money is going and in what ways their taxes come back to them, it is important to show them hope. Technological innovation and “green” manufacturing gives taxpayers a peace of mind that their money is helping create jobs presently and promote long term change. While it is concerning that they do not see the immediate effects of the money they work hard for, it is hope that this technology and research will combat this from happening again in the future. Friedman’s approach also gives taxpayers hope that the US is still a key global player and a winner in the race. They do not feel let down and as if they are missing out on technologies available in other countries. It is a sense of security that the US still has and will continue to have a prominent role in the world.

Further Action

In his piece, Michael Maniates hits the proverbial nail on the head. I believe that he is absolutely correct in his criticism of the mainstream belief that modest changes in consumer choices is sufficient to reduce the environmental impact of our way of life in the country to a level that is sustainable. Clearly, just picking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to consumption habits in this country is not enough, as evidenced by our recent class exercise of calculating our environmental footprint. Instead, Americans certainly do have to change our lives, be it through widespread implementation of the advanced green technologies, a drastic cutback in consumption habits, or more likely, a combination of both of these schools of thought.

Overall, the article sums up the inability of our society to make the steps that are necessary, which include the widely discussed simple changes, but also sufficient. The general public has shown to be resistant to these actions that must be undertaken, from conservation to consumer choices. As such, the problem must be addressed from both sides. Widespread education programs are a must to ensure that Americans who may likely be insulated from the damage global climate change may very well wreak on this planet in the near future are made to understand the nature of the problem and the role they need to play in mitigating the worst of these effects. On the other side, policymakers must put into place regulations that make the move towards more efficient technologies, processes, and consumer habits (such as in transportation) the economically viable and thus the only rational choice for the entire country. While this would undoubtedly require politically unpopular decisions to be undertaken, with greater awareness such policy may become instead those of the majority.

Finally, I do believe it is important not to completely dismiss the small steps many have taken towards reducing their impact on this planet. While they may be small, such decisions may in fact be the first in a line that result in support for the revolution that needs to take place in the developed world. Such individual action can be used as a way to build momentum for the environmental movement as a whole. Of course, further action must be encouraged.

Saving the World Outside the Box

Michael Maniates’ article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” points out one of the critical flaws of the typical approach to environmental challenges. In looking at the problem, we assume that it will be impossible to make large changes to our economic and social systems, and so rather than trying, we try to work within the very systems that caused the problem in the first place.

It is our economy that drove us toward environmental degradation, since profits are valued above all else and the Earth’s resources are seen as free for the taking. Our society chose to value this higher than living in communities, sustainability, and the beauty of the planet on which we live, and did nothing to stop the spread of degradation.

To tell people that they can lessen their environmental impact through simple, everyday choices at the store is ludicrous. Environmental advocates who operate under this assumption seem to think that “less bad” is the same as good. A light bulb that is energy efficient is less bad than a traditional bulb, but it is still using energy. A new building that is LEED-certified is less bad than a typical building, but it still consumes resources, requires energy to light and heat, and disrupts ecosystems. Environmental consciousness requires that we think critically about whether we can light our homes with one fewer light bulb, get by with one fewer building, and other, similar choices. These choices do not go on our grocery lists; they drive at the heart of our mindset about what we should and should not do and what does and does not matter.

Ironically, the push for “green” products can even have a negative environmental impact. Examples of this include people who decide to throw away their Windex to buy Simple Green, buy a recycled fiber t shirt that they don’t actually need, or install a new, efficient dishwasher when their old one worked just fine. Producing these things requires resources, and updates should come from necessity, not to supplement life with unnecessary “eco friendly” products.

The focus on environmental steps that do not require much effort downplays how serious the environmental challenges really are. If the problem can be solved by taking shorter showers, it must not be such a big problem. However, the environmental challenge is enormous and complex, and requires an overhaul of our culture, economy, and thought process if it is going to be sufficiently addressed.

Confronting the environmental challenge is not going to be easy, but it is important to remember that the results will be worth it. Environmental consciousness can help us build a society with values that actually make us happy, unlike the current system that values profits and consumption, which do not increase our happiness and degrade the world around us. Perhaps, if we are willing to face the actual threats to our survival, we will emerge happier, more complete, and ready to take our civilization into the future.

Teaching America to Walk

Ask any American on the street what they can do to help reduce environmental harm, they will probably ramble on to you about recycling more, shortening their showers, or actually remembering to bring to the store the hoards of reusable bags they have collected. It's unlikely anyone will talk to you about switching to alternative energy or reducing their consumerism. Most Americans will point to the simple solutions, the everyday little changes that anyone can make. And these are the same types of answers that even some top environmental leaders are selling to us. The argument that little things are all we need to do to make a difference is certainly compelling. We like the idea of all the small individual things adding up to a meaningful whole. We also like the idea of not having to do too much individually. Words like "simple," "easy," and even--god help us--"lazy" are permeating the environmental movement from all sides.

But this isn't a simple issue. And the solution will by no means be easy. So, as Michael Maniates argues in his article in the Washington Post, Americans need to stop being so lazy and take some real steps towards reducing our environmental harm. Furthermore, environmental leaders should expect us to be capable and willing to do what is necessary to reduce our environmental harm enough to stop climate change, not just slow it down. On this point, I certainly agree. Baby steps are not going to get us where we need to be on time. We need leaps and bounds.

I do not, however, think it's as simple as environmental leaders changing their message and asking more of the public. Maniates brings up several historical examples of when Americans were able to band together behind a strong leader to really change an issue: the Revolution, World War II, and the Civil Rights movement. Although these moments definitely show that Americans have the power to rally behind a cause, I'm not sure they can be applied to environmental issues.

The first reason for this is the nature of the environmental problem. In all of the examples above the issues were very tangible. Revolutionaries were feeling the oppression (and taxation) of England. Events like Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust were obviously harmful. African Americans had to deal with discrimination every day of their lives. Moreover, the results of taking action against these things was relatively immediate and obvious. In other words Americans are great at banding together towards resolving a problem when it is something that that is obviously hurting them and when they will be able to see results from taking action.

At this point in environmental degradation, neither of these facts hold true. Most people aren't feeling obvious negative effects in their everyday lives. Except for maybe a little change in weather (or a freak snowstorm), life goes on as normal. And the effects of making a big change in our lives wouldn't be evident to us--they would first occur up in some mysterious, far off atmosphere and then eventually trickle down to causing changes on earth.

The second reason I'm not sure that the comparisons work is that we live in a different age now. A high speed, multi-tasking, constant stimulation kind of age. Arguably, we have less focus in this digital age than we used to. We like the solution to environmental problems in 140 characters or less. We want to do our part quickly, and then move on to the next thing.

So although I agree that everybody needs to put more effort towards stopping environmental change, the tricky part is going to be convincing the American public of how much this really matters to their lives (and getting them to listen long enough to do so).