Food

I don’t really think about the environment when I make food choices. After reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma, it was hard to believe that anything but food that is grown locally is good for the environment. Buying food locally isn’t cost effective in my opinion. Instead, I look for value when shopping. I’ll buy food I can stockpile or freeze, such as meats, at Costco, while buying whatever else is convenient on the way home.

I agree with Hilary that, most likely, the food we eat out has the greatest environmental impact. We see the costs that when we make our own food, and accepting it is part of the cooking process. Does the environment even play a part in our decision making when going out? I’m a huge fan of Todai Sushi Buffet...but buffets can’t be good for the environment. That sad, the General Tso’s Chicken from Mr. Chen’s Organic Chinese food is amazingly tasty.

Hmmm....

Food...hmmm...great question because i know that i tend to be that person who always has something to say, always has an opinion no matter what the subject and even worse no matter if i know anything about it or not, and yet...i'm at a loss. I'm going to chose to blame this on circumstance, as lame as that might be, that circumstance being that i'm a student, and therefore always broke, do not drive, i live equidistant from a whole foods and a giant and thats about as far out as i have the time to travel between school and work. So no, i do think about health, my health to be exact, but not so much about the environmental impact i'm having. As much as i've argued for technology in class, i've learned from my father to stay away from genetially modified tomatoes because there not the same, so that means generally no tomatoes. I've learned from my mother to rant about individual packaging and what a waste it is and how it hurts the environment, so i suppose that thinking about the environment, but to be honest its more me thinking about my mother. I love going to markets around town in the summer, but more because the fruits and vegetables taste so much better and my mother also taught me to be far more afraid of pesticides than of bugs than because i'm trying to reduce my footprint. As far as what i eat, i'm horrible. I grew up in the restaurant business being taught that eating is an experience, i'd sooner cut off my own finger than stop eating meat (maybe a slight exaggeration), it would ruin the experience. I love to eat out and i love to try anything and everything, especially some crazy fish that should probably still be in the ocean and was probably flown hundreds of miles to get to my plate. I didn't realize what an effect drinking alchohal had on the environment til it added a whole lot to my footprint, (i'm still not sure why that is) but i love that too(in moderation of course) and aside from being drowned in wine from a young age i work in an irish bar, so if drinking hurts the environment, then i'm definitley a culprit. I'm fairly certain that this pathetic excuse for a blog post hasn't answered either question, but i hope it will suffice to show that i'm thinking, i just don't have any answers for this one....

The Food I Eat

Before taking the ecological footprint quiz, I really hadn’t thought about the environment when buying food. I just thought that the big changes I was making toward the environment were with transportation. Yet, after taking the quiz, I’ve definitely thought about it a lot more. Sadly, because its winter and because we live in Washington DC, I don’t really think that there is too much I can do when buying food (especially considering my budget). However, when the weather gets a little warmer, I am going to try to buy locally grown food first.

When I think about the environment I think about how far food has traveled so that it can be in my local grocery store. I probably think about this process more when buying produce than other food items. I don’t really eat much meat, but I do eat some fish, and after hearing about fisheries being over fished I have contemplated this issue as well. At the same time, being a vegetarian for so many years, I find that it is important for me to eat chicken or fish when I can because it is really important for me to get protein, so I find that this is somewhat of a dilemma with what positive choice I should make (to be healthy, or to help the environment in some small way). In the last few days the food I ate that probably has the greatest environmental impact is probably the food I ate from going out to eat.

No Other Option

Since I'm the last person to write in our blog this week, I'll write a little about the reaction I had reading my co-bloggers' posts. From Hilary and Montana's, I got the feeling they were saying that technology will most likely be our saving grace from environmental degradation. I agree in that humanity has evolved to a point where the North (for lack of a better term) relies heavily on technology. Most Northerners use some sort of new technology every day--here I am typing on a computer, which is necessary for my class. What would happen if somebody told us that the only way to save Earth would be to end our advanced lives and go back to living the lifestyle of hunter-gatherers? My guess is that this could never happen. Thus, I also believe it is technology that we must rely on to help our current ecological situation.

Dan also brings in a good point about how, up until now, technology has mostly degraded the environment even more. Personally, I blame a lot of our problems on the Industrial Revolution so many years ago; but, how else were humans to evolve? We are where we are right now because of it and I think that's a good thing. The development of CFCs provides us with another example of how technology has further damaged our planet. The answer to this problem was the creation of international laws about CFC usage. This worked out surprisingly well, but I doubt whether we can rely on international agreements to solve the rest of our environmental problems.

Conclusively, I believe that because of the way our society is set up, we have no option but to rely on technology to save us. Do I think this is the best answer? No, probably not because in creating new technology, we are creating new waste. But until the next Einstein is born, I don't see any other option.

Technology

Will technology save us...I’m not sure...it complicates things. Take gasoline. The technological advantage of moving to unleaded gas certainly helped the environment. As a lifelong resident of Los Angeles, I appreciate the reduction of smog tremendously. But the same technological advances are building gas guzzling SUVs and allowing people to drive longer distances and use more gas. Because technology has reduced the perceived cost of driving, people will now get in their cars to drive a quarter mile.

Technology is neither the absolute holy grail nor the destruction of humanity. It just is, and there is not that much we can do but accept that.

Technology is only a manifestation of our will. If we do end up being “saved”, then it will be because humanity yearns to be.

Small Steps Are Better Than No Steps

Before looking deeper into the environmental problems facing our world in a formal academic setting I was quick to say that technology would be a major factor in solving these problems, and to be honest, as I gain a better understanding of the issues and the schools of thought I still believe that. However, I have come to recognize why some environmentalists are critical of this view. In todays world that has become so invested in, and even driven by, technology its far easier to believe that technology will eventually save us instead of adressing the problems in a more drastic way. By putting your faith in technology, the average person can sit back and wait for environmenatally friendly technological advancements to come around and fix our problems, for the general population its a belief that requires very little work or adjustment on their part. That being said, I still believe in technology. At the same time, I full-heartedly acknowledge that to date technology has been far more detrimental to the environment than it has been positive. Not only in making it easier and faster to deplete the planet's resources, but it has also created a surge of unprecedented consumerism in developed countries. Not only do we now have ipods, but we need a new ipod every year, not to mention the latest cell phones and computers. These technological advancements are driven by profits and consumerism and not only do not help the environment but create a society of waste and want that makes it very hard to rally people to help the environment.

I realize all this sounds like I'm saying technology is bad, but i still believe in it, and I suppose thats partly true. However, technology has developed to a level that it cannot all fall under one all-encompassing category. The chainsaw, machine gun, i-phone and reusable energy have virtually nothing in common other than that they were all at one time technological innovations. There is lots of harmful technology but there is an increasing amount of good technologies that are helping the developed world 'clean up their acts' (granted, not enough, but still). One thing that studying at AU has made me realize is that man's greed and self-interest can cause unimaginable damage, but man's intelligence and imagination (to use a word from class) can produce even more amazing ideas and advancements. I have yet to read or see anything that has deferred me from the idea that environmental solutions and the global economy are going to have to find a way to work together not against each other. Aside from a large scale disaster (which at this rate is not out of the question) trying to localize our economy that is increasingly and actively becoming global is not feasible. There is a lot of talk and complaining about a lack of solutions, but so far the only place i see any real improvements being made is in the area of technology, positive technology. I believe there is a way to provide profitable incentives to persuade governments and corporations that going 'green' can be good for them as well as for the world and i see this happening through positive technologies.

I will be the first to admit that my knowledge in the area is limited and I may be overly optomistic, perhaps to a counter-productive extent, and perhaps even lacking in my own imagination when it comes to the state of the economy, yet i see the development of positive technologies as the most viable route to feasible solutions. We must divide 'technology' into categories of positive and negative when it comes the environment, once that happens environmentalists can stop being divided on this issue and stop fighting against the technologies that are helping. Even if you don't believe that technology can save us, there are technologies that are helping, and small steps are better than no steps.

Question #4 - Technology

For my journal entry, I am going to focus just on the first group of questions – on whether or not technology will save us. I personally believe that if something is going to save us, technology will be a part of it. For our world to get better humans either need to go back to a more simplistic way of living (go backwards), or go towards the future. Going towards the future would mean that technological advances would have to help us. I think that humans, specifically Americans, like their lifestyle. I think that telling someone that they need to resort back to a way of living 200-300 years ago would result in some pretty nasty responses. Americans like to find new and better ways of doing things, they do not give up on a current system and return to a older one. However, it is possible that they might get rid of their current situation (which is completely destroying the environment) because something better and more efficient has come along. This is why I think that not only technology will save up, but that it has to save us. In environmental terms this means a few things. One, technology will have to improve in such a way that it betters our environment. It also has to be done in such a way that affluence or consumption does not continue to increase. Furthermore, technology cannot wipe out living species or take away more of natural resources, but it should work to protect those things. Humans must also make sure that they are in “control,” because we do not want future technology removing the capability for humans to think or act. Technology must be used as a tool to help steer the world in the right direction, but it must be done strategically and have its limitations.

Week 4

I would say the main argument of the article is that, while is it important to make the small changes in our lives, these small changes will not save the environment. If everyone took a 3 minute shower and used reusable bags, this would not save planet Earth. What is important is to make some larger changes- changes that are widely used by individuals, companies, and the government. This argument does make sense in terms of what we have learned. However, because I am just an individual I wonder what I can do beyond saving water and recycling more. Granted, I could have fewer children and make bigger life changes, but I am one person. A lasting positive change will not happen unless MANY people work together, especially if there is cooperation with corporations and the government. Yes, the argument does make me think about affective political action. Unless some political figure "acts" and actually makes a change within the government, my little changes will be all that I believe I can really do. I need a leader to inspire me and to tell me that there is more I can do. I want a leader to make environmentally friendly actions a part of our every day lives.

Are We Doing Enough?

Maniates's article definitely raises serious and timely concerns about the U.S. and our role in stopping, or at least affecting, environmental degradation. What he is suggesting is that it is in the politicians' hands to alert citizens as to what we need to do about this problem. While I agree, it seems as though environmental issues are still somewhat taboo in government circles. What we need first is for our leaders to have a clear understanding of what and who is causing environmental degradation, that it is a dire situation, and what needs to be done. Before this happens, it will be difficult to convince Americans that we need to do much more than recycle, replace our light bulbs, and conserve energy; someone needs to act as the glue to bring us all together. Once this happens, I believe we can make a huge impact on the planet--in a good way. Maniates has it right when he says, "...Americans are at their best when they're struggling together, and sometimes with one another, toward difficult goals." In the meantime, though, at least a message is getting out there about the environment and people are starting to take steps, baby steps, toward saving our planet.

Week 4

Michael Maniate raises a significant issue dealing with the environment: the solutions and paths to curbing environmental damages are much more complex than many environmentalists would have the common person think. His article seems to serve as a rallying call, but who is he trying to rally? I agree with raising the level of discourse about the environment, and environmental change is driven by consumers. We should hope, however, that politicians and academics are having these difficult conversations already. And there is a fine line between “frank talk” and the Chicken Littles screaming “the sky is falling.”
I initially agreed and was moved by this article. Mentions of Martin Luther King Jr. and Paul Revere elicited that initial reaction, and as a student, simplicity has bad connotations. There are plenty of good points in this article, but the books we have read in this class are all available publicly. Environmental organizations publish on a wide range of complex policies. Maniates mentions the Live Earth concert addressing simple solutions; it was a concert series, not a symposium or conference!
“We’re ready for frank talk about how we best confront...the planetary emergency before us.” Academics and environmentalists all agree that we need to reduce carbon emissions, but if people who are familiar with the environmental literature can’t figure out the best way to do this, how is the common man? Analysis of a recent journal article in Science that declared biofuels to be more environmentally dangerous than fossil fuels was in The Washington Post and all major news papers. The environment debate is public. There is no giant conspiracy to keep things easy. Information is available, and will be consumed, by the people that are interested and will act on it.

Environmental Problems are Human Problems

Michael Maniates article takes an interesting perspective on the role of everyday citizens in the global environmental crisis. Basically, he expresses the idea that people are capable of more than we are being asked, recycling and taking shorter showers are all well and good but people are capable of banding together and making a stronger effort for change if only they would be given more credit and asked to rally together to make difficult changes instead of just trying to get them to do the minimum which will not have an extreme enough overall effect.

He refers in his piece to great leaders who inspired people to make tough choices that changed the world: Martin Luther King Jr., Paul Revere and Franklin Roosevelt. However there is a major flaw when it comes to comparing our environmental crisis to the Revolutionary War, Civil Rights movement or fighting facism. All these battles had to do with human rights and while I would absolutely agree that environmental problems are human problems because, as we have discussed in class, humans are inherently connected to this planet we inhabit, we have also discussed how in general humans have seperated themselves, placed themselves above, the issues of the planet. When it comes to protecting their nation or their rights or their families or their ideals many people are still willing to make hard choices and take strong action, but when it comes to protecting their planet it is much harder to inspire the kind of passion that is necessary for taking the hard steps towards change. It's undoubtedly a sad fact, but i believe that it is true. Even with all the books he mentioned about the 'easy' steps, when you look around many have not even taken these small steps so how can you assume that these people will care enough to take the large ones.

On the brighter side, awareness is being spread and more and more people are acknowledging the huge environmental problems that lie at our doorstep. I do not deny that people are capable of the revolutionary change that is needed to save our planet, but it will not be as easy to get people involved in the push for environmental change as it is to get them involved in issues of human rights (not at all to imply that those are easy fights, but hopefully you get what i mean.) It will take more widespread acknowledgement of the problems, great leaders and frankly, a new 'spin' to make people realize that environmental issues are human issues and they are our issues to inspire people to protect their planet with the same fervor they would protect their country with.

Week 2

Ron Paul argues that the federal government has failed to protect the environment, and that the solution isn’t to try harder, but to respect property rights. Market liberals believe poor government policies are also part of the problem. He argues that the free market contains mechanisms like law suits that allow NEIGHBORS, and not states, to resolve disputes. I would argue that this makes him a market liberal. Contrary to the common belief of the “free market” being without rules, he argues that there are.
Many of Barrack Obama’s proposals coincide with the market liberal’s, even if he does put much of the focus on government spending. One thing I did notice was the focus on ethanol. While the numbers vary, every debate on the virtues of ethanol for fuel raises the issue that just one tank full of ethanol could contain as many calories needed to feed a person for almost a year. Private industry hasn’t found the best solutions to the problems in the environment, but that doesn’t mean the government knows best.
Obama certainly shows much more of an effort into describing his environmental stance, but I don’t know if any of the candidates make sense. And keeping in mind that the President certainly has power in the U.S. Environmental policies, so does Congress. The environmental issues that are facing this country will transform over the next 8 years; new issues will come up, and some might fade away. So which candidate do I trust to react to these issues with appropriate solutions? No idea...

Week 3- Political Candidates

The two candidates I chose are Barack Obama and John McCain. I first argue that Barack is a market liberal. His plan is highly focused on the economy. This can be seen through his market based cap-and-trade system by using generated revenue to help develop clean energy or job training for more environmentally-friendly jobs. He also wants to invest about $150 billion dollars in clean energy. Market liberals also think that technology and science can help solve environmental problems, and Obama wants to double funding for scientific research and cleaner technologies.

John McCain is also a market liberal. On his website it even says, “Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy” (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm). Thus, it is obvious to me that he is a market liberal, considering that he fits the description exactly.

It is interesting that I have put the two candidates into the same category. In this sense, the category does not help me make any sense of the differences between the candidates. However, by looking at their actual policy recommendations and plans one is able to notice clear differences. For example, it is clear to me that Barack Obama is taking on more to protect the environment because he has a page full of plans and ideas for how to better to protect the environment—not to mention at the top of the page he mentions that it is “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/). Yet, John McCain does actually address any set plans on his website. All he mentions is that he is concerned about the issue but offers no specific solutions.

What Environmental Problem? Oh, you must mean our foreign oil security problem...

I chose to look at the environmental policies of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. Clinton seems to fit pretty nicely into the institutionalist category. Her website acknowledges many of the environmental challenges that we face today, including climate change and energy efficiency, and her plan includes mostly research and regulations. Its a 'yes, we have a problem, but we're not lost and we can start fixing our problems through government regulations and research' stance and I see that as a very 'institutional' approach. Now, Romney on the other hand is a bit harder to classify. He's seems to be largely unaware that this country and the world are facing environmental problems at all. He's in favor of increased energy efficiency and energy research, but not so much to deter global warming and climate change, more so that America is no longer dependent on foreign oil. He's not combating environmental disaster, he's combating Putin and Chavez. Being as all of these categories are for those who at least acknowledge that we are facing environmental damages that are human induced and need to be adressed, its hard to fit Romney into any of these categories. If forced I would label him as a market liberal. He seems to believe in some sort of natural flow taking care of this problem, he is focusing on increasing American growth (thought not terribly concerned with getting off of oil, just drilling our own) and research into new forms of energy. Its still not a neat fit, but he doesn't fit at all into any of the other categories.

I don't really see these categories as being all that helpful for categorizing candidates. The categories make sense and definitley have there uses, but it doesn't really make the candidate's policies any clearer for me personally. However, I can see how some might find these categories useful to simplify the candidates views and organize them in their mind.

Of Clinton and Romney I think its very clear that Clinton has a better policy plan. First of all because she acknowledges the problem and I believe the institutional approach is a very reasonable one. Governments are going to have to get increasingly involved and providing regulations, research funding and commitments is a far more reasonable start than Romney's plan of 'there's some kind of energy crisis going on, so we should drill up our own nature, and cause more problems, to find more oil so that we don't need Russia and the Middle East anymore'. Romeny has a energy plan, not an environmental plan, and a bad one at that, so in this case Clinton definitley has the better policy for adressing environmental issues.