Thoughts on Cradle to Cradle

In Cradle to Cradle Braungart and McDonough discuss the fact that currently we are only slowing the destruction of our planet, not stopping it. They suggest that through changes in business practices and materials we can turn this around. In order to put into practice what they mean, their book is printed using infinitely recyclable plastic, not paper. The ink can also be reused and is not harmful to the environmental. Braungart and mcDonough suggest that all companies can do this and that everything we make can work with the environment, not against it. I do agree with this statement. We've sent a man to the moon, why can't we build things that don't kill the natural world? I think we can and I think that in doing so we can better ourselves. In many ways I think that this is the only way to address the environmental issue in our society. It would be great if we would just produce less. It would also be great if companies weren't what is dictating our lives aand choices. However, this is the soceity that we created. Our culture of consumption is harder to change than the business practices of companies. We can make companies change through legislation—for instance making companies use materials that can be reused without releasing toxins or downgrade through recycling—but I don't know how you can make a person stop wanting things. Therefore, I believe that Braungart and McDonough are on the right track.

Towards a Zero Waste Future

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough presents the reader with the irrationalities at the heart of our current industrial system and argues why mainstream environmental solutions are not doing enough.  Reflecting themes we have covered previously in class, McDonough finds fault with consumer driven environmentalism. He criticizes these feel good measures as merely slowing down the detrimental side effects of our current system. The solutions he offers instead take aim at the systemic roots of our waste stream problems, and consumer driven industrialism in general.

One of the big ideas behind Cradle to Cradle is that we must kick off a new industrial revolution which focuses less on unnatural, unrestrained growth and more on a closed loop system where the resources involved never exit the stream and are continually used for the same or equally valuable purposes.   The physical book itself tries to exemplify this by being designed to be entirely reusable. The pages can be cleared and reused for a new book, while even the ink can be extracted and used for printing again.  Doing so does not require huge amounts of energy as traditional recycling processes since the book is designed to be reused.  This lack of design is at the heart of our current waste problems as many of our products are designed in way that makes them either impossible or prohibitively expensive to reuse.

Another major idea in the book is waste as food.  McDonough looks to nature as a guide for how our future economic and agricultural systems might function. Instead of massive, monoculture type processes our systems of production would instead reflect the complexities and diversity found in nature. A respect for natural systems is key to this, and the example of a cherry tree is used to show how the trees waste (leaves and fallen branches) are used each year to cycle nutrients in the soil.  Similarly our industry should be able to supply most if not all of its own energy and resource needs through a well design cradle to cradle process.

I agree strongly with the sentiments behind this book, specifically its critique of feel good, consumer driven environmentalism. Real and effective change will only be possible through radical shifts in how we do business and the ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle are in excellent step in the right direction. 

Discussion #9

Unfortunately I haven't had time to get through Cradle to Cradle yet, and I have to be at work very soon (I plan on reading more when I get home). I've only read the introduction, and as such I can't fully answer the blog question. However, I can say that based on what I've read so far I'm excited to continue reading.

All the books/articles we've read thus far in the semester have undoubtedly been interesting, but pretty grim. While this one also seems as though it will confront us very honestly (as shown by the first few pages where the authors discuss all the hazards of home comforts such as the armchair, small children's toys, etc), it also seems more hopeful.

I had never heard the terms 'technical' or 'biological nutrient' until picking up this book. After reading about these concepts- that a technical nutrient is a product that can be broken down and circulated infinitely in industrial cycles, and a biological nutrient as something that will reenter the water/soil without leaving synthetic materials and toxins, I wondered why I hadn't heard of them sooner. By no means am I in the inner circles of environmentalism, but given how "duh" these ideas seem (for lack of a better word), it's surprising that more of the public doesn't know consider them.

I really like what the authors had to say about "being less bad." It echoes what we've been discussing in class- that what we're doing isn't nearly enough and that the targets we're setting with international treaties/agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol aren't where the need to be. Thus, as we've also discussed, the whole system needs to change. So far the book is more than just depressing facts that leave us thinking "Where do we go from here?", it's an actual dialogue that appears as though it may have some concrete proposals for solutions. I look forward to reading more about their ideas and what they've deemed as the new industrial revolution.

Cradle to Cradle Ideas

In his innovative and progressive book Cradle to Cradle William McDonough proposes a new way of thinking about solutions for the environmental issues that we face today, especially those that are centered around the materials economy. While he sets forth a lot of interesting ideas in his book, there are several that form the backbone of the argument:

Less Bad is Not Necessarily Good

He also frames this idea by comparing the eco-efficiency (what we strive for in our current system) and eco-effectiveness (what we should be striving for). Essentially, eco-efficiency is simply making less of a bad impact, reducing all the horrible things we already do to the earth. While this is better than the status-quo, it still cannot sustain our earth. What eco-effectiveness suggests is that instead of simply cutting down on our bad impact we work on making our impact a good one. Then, instead of working towards decreasing are "footprint" we could have a huge positive footprint.

Think Like a Cherry Tree

One way to work towards being eco-efficient is to think like a cherry tree. This means, thinking like nature, which means thinking in cycles. In nature, things use the resources they are given in the best way possible. Every resource is used to it's fullest, so nothing is wasted. In other words...

Waste Equals Food

Any seeming waste in the system is actually cycled back into the system for reuse. With a cherry tree, the dropped blossoms decompose and fill the soil with nutrients to help the tree grow next year. In an industrial system, this would require systems that use their waste to fuel other parts of the system. Products that can be completely reused as materials back into the system, instead of thrown out or "downcycled."

Needing a New Design Challenge

In the end, McDonough suggests that we need a new design challenge for reevaluating our industrial system, one with better goals than simply cutting down on the harm we're already doing. These goals, while certainly lofty, are definitely headed in the right direction. As we've talked about in previous classes, little efforts are not going to be enough. We need to stop working on just making our impact less bad and actually have a major re-haul of our system. It may not work out as well as we would hope, but if nothing else it will get us thinking about solutions differently.

Discussion #8

Upon viewing the "Friends of Science" website, I was very surprised to read that in the 'about us' section the website claims the organization's membership is "comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmosphere scientists, engineers, and other professionals." Quite frankly, I don't understand how such professionals and scientists could reach the conclusions that the website displays.

Although this site gives some charts and time lines, I feel like they don't put the data into perspective or context. One example is the "It's been hotter" link where they show a graph of fluctuations in the climate throughout history. While this is true, it doesn't negate the strong possibility of global warming or make the evidence that correlates the most recent changes with human activity illegitimate. In one of the videos featured on the website a scientist claims that the sun is one reason for climate change. This is repeated on several parts of the site and almost makes it seem like there's no space for other possibilities. Sure, the pattern of the sun may have something to do with it, but does that mean there's no chance that our lifestyles are also contributing?

My first inclination in addressing the question of "Why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change?" was to turn to the politicization and stigma of such words as "environmentalist," which has inevitable become associated with being a liberal. And, as we discussed in class today, a good republican can't be an environmentalist or believe in climate change. Now that the terms have such a political connotation, the debate on global warming doesn't even seem to be on the status of the planet, but rather on validating and assuming one's political identity.

I think the best way to make sense of these competing websites is by trying to take the information they give us and look at it as part of a system or in the context of the bigger picture. As such, I find the second website, "How to talk to a climate skeptic" more convincing." Almost all of the articles presented on the site have links to other sources of information such as charts, graphs, reports, and documents from many other organizations. The other reason I probably find this site more convincing is because it aligns more with my thoughts and what I believe to be true. The witty title of the series doesn't hurt either.

Fact vs. Doubt

One of the most contentious issues in American politics today is the debate over climate change. Considered by many to be the most dire threat to our nations prosperity. Others believe that it is a hoax designed by anti-consumerists, in what they also argue (ironically) is a threat to our nations prosperity.

The root of both sides concern is material well being, and by extension, money. And oh boy is their a lot of money involved. The human forces most often attributed to climate change are some of the biggest engines of our 21st century global economy (i.e. petro-chemicals, agriculture, etc...). Alternatively, proponents of man made climate change envision a green economy not only replacing our currently fossil fuel based system, but becoming the largest and fastest growing market in the world. Those who support the status quo have the most to lose, but also have far more capital to expend on keeping things the way they are, as was witnessed in the well publicized Proposition 23 in California.

Money is the clear driver of peoples passion on the issue, but why can't facts just be accepted at facts? I purposefully labelled climate change as a contentious political issue in my opening paragraph, as opposed to a contentious scientific debate, because their is a consensus among the vast majority of scientists and scholars in the world. That consensus is that the world is warming due to the primary driver of anthropomorphic GHG emissions; obviously their are other contributing factors. Their are legitimate skeptics in the scientific community but they are a minority to say the least and are generally not considered preeminent members of their respective fields.

With little debate in the scientific field, it is the interpretation of scientific studies by policy makers, the media and industry and its subsequent dissemination to the public, where doubt arises. Often those most opposed to stopping our reliance on fossil fuels fund this doubt but some blame does lie with the failure of the scientific community to properly explain climate change in lay-mens terms. Part of this failure is due to the sheer complexity of global climate change, however this leads to an argument for more science education in general and is a bit too off topic to delve into further.

A lot of these communications problems can be exemplified by two websites, http://www.friendsofscience.org/ and http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics. The former supporting man made climate change, the later proposing natural causes as the leading drivers. friendsofscience.org seems to intentionally bombard the reader with indecipherable graphs and figures while making bold claims on historical climate trends. However, the how to talk to a climate skeptic series on Grist often runs into many of the same problems, although to a lesser extent. Their short comings center mostly around a lack of organization and navigability of the site.

Neither site is perfect, but Grist does a better job of seeming legitimate. Data is more thoroughly cited, an abundance of links to additional sources are available and a comprehensive debunking of skeptics claims is provided (I was able to find a cited article refuting every claim on friendsofscience.org and only looked through the first section of the site).

Much of the world believes in human driver climate change, as does much of the worlds scientific community. The American public and the businesses and industry that shape the public narrative will one day reach this position but only once the costs of continuing on a business as usual approach become apparent. People vote with their pocketbooks, and tend to have shorter memories and even shorter far-sight. Proper public policy and education are the solutions to this. One can only hope that they will start working soon

Climate Change Competition

The competition around climate change reminds me of myself when I'm pressed for time and I need to write an essay. Sometimes I forget about a paper, have to work, or have another paper (or class) that is more important so I need to write a decent paper in as little time as possible. When this happens I pick a side to an argument, write all that I know about it, and then find literature to support it. I don't make sure that what I am writing is correct or even if I really believe what I am writing. Sometimes there is evidence that is better for the other side of the argument, but I just ignore it and find more ideas that support my side. I often think that this is how the arguments on climate change work. You can find facts that support anything. You can analyze facts however you want. It's all about interpretation and this becomes most important when there is a political or economic agenda at hand. Many people and businesses have an incentive to not believe in climate change and to convince others that it does not exist either. Other businesses and people have the economic incentive to do the opposite. I believe that if money were not involved, then there would not be such a heated debate about the subject. People would just want to know the truth. One group has to be right.

I find the “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website more convincing, but I am also biased. I automatically find the other website to be less convincing because of all of the other literature that I have read. To be honest, if I have never studied the environment before I do not know which one I would believe more.

How to (Not) Understand Climate Change

Looking through these two websites (Friends of Science & How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic) was incredibly frustrating. The more I read on either site, the angrier I became, until I finally had to set down the computer and come back to it later. Both websites were incredibly biased, neither seemed credible, and all their arguments were very weak.

It's no wonder there's so much confusion out there regarding climate change science. People can post anything on the web. There are no editors or publishers to filter what is being sent out to the public. Moreover, there is so much data out there about climate change that it is near impossible to understand it all, let alone include it all in analysis to figure out how it fits together.

So, websites such as these have the ability to choose the data that supports their views to include in their arguments. Moreover, they get to interpret much of the data they choose as they wish. So much of the data presented is so confusing that people are likely to believe what someone who seems "expert" tells them it means (not that I think either seems expert, but they sure have expert sounding titles). But even their expert explanations weren't very clear; in some of the articles I read I couldn't figure out what they were trying to say.

Both websites talk a lot about correlations between different changes in the earth and different factors that could be causing it. These correlations are probably convincing to a lot of the public who don't understand the idea that correlation is not causation. In the end, I didn't feel like there was a lot of conclusive evidence on either site.

Not that all this confusion is entirely the fault of the creators of these websites. The earth is currently changing in so many ways, was that we can't really understand. The causes of these changes are probably many, and may include sort of chain reactions. The causes certainly aren't simple enough to encompass in a single platform for a website. For example, in the About Us section of the Friends of Science website, they state their opinion as follows:

Our Opinion:

It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.

I'm not even sure what this means. The factors playing into climate change are much too complex to whittle down into a single sentence. The arguments on both sites seemed very simplified, and not in a way that made anything more clear to their audiences. Their arguments were just jumbled and juvenile.

Climate science is confusing. Although I'm not sure how we can reconcile the different ideas presented on these websites, they are certainly not the way to educate the public about climate change. Instead of having so many deep set opinions, I think that people who are analyzing climate data should have more open minds and be willing to admit that they don't understand everything. Instead of working against each other, the creators of websites like these would be better off to work together. Maybe then we'd figure something out.

Seeing Vega and Getting Sirius

One of the most awe-inspiring experiences I've had with nature was on my family's recent trip to Yosemite National Park when I got to see the sky light up. It had already been an amazing day: biking all over the park, seeing incredible monoliths and beautiful waterfalls. After dinner I was set to go on a bus to one of the highest peaks in the park and observe the stars. We drove for about an hour and a half, seeing spectacular views of the park on the way up and hearing about all the different species of plant and animal that were present in and around the park. Like any park, Yosemite was proud of it's relative biodiversity.

Once we finally made it to the top (we were held up by road construction and traffic) it was almost dark. We all settled down into a stone amphitheater and began to watch as stars flickered on one by one. Before long the sky was brighter than Broadway. There were more stars than I even knew existed. I was, quite literally, star-struck. I had always loved the stars but I had always been close enough to some lit up town or city that they would lose some of their luster. But here there was no light anywhere nearby. The stars had the stage and it was quite a show.

I realized as I was sitting there that our human sprawl is not only threatening the biodiversity of our lands, but it's threatening the sky as well, at least our ability to enjoy it. Because of all the light pollution in the world, I had never really seen the stars until I was nineteen years old. That's unacceptable for something so incredible and accessible.

Sadly, even our national parks, areas we've set aside to preserve natural beauty such as this, are being affected by human activity. The sheer number of people I had observed in the park that day could not have passed through without causing an effect. There were trash cans, bathrooms, and food carts placed all over the park. There were roads and bike trails etched throughout. I mean, for goodness sake, we got stuck in road construction and traffic while driving a huge gas-guzzling charter bus to the top of the peak (which, if I may mention, was in no way full of people).

While I would never say we shouldn't be concerned about saving nature, I wonder if that is the wrong mindset for us to have. The natural world is incredible. It would be a devastating loss if it were completely gone, and it is already devastating how far gone we've let it get already. But I wonder if we give ourselves too much credit in our ability to intervene and "save nature." Wasn't it the human hand that got us into this mess in the first place? While we could certainly work towards making our impact on nature good rather than harmful, do we really understand this other world well enough to know how to do this effectively? While I certainly have faith in our ability to try to save the non-human world, I envision all sorts of unintended negative side effects that could arise from our interfering.

Maybe a better focus than saving nature would be for us to work on completely reducing our impact on it. Remove ourselves from the equation and let nature govern itself again for awhile (it was doing just fine long before we showed up). While there is certainly an argument for us helping to save it--people who say that we have harmed it so much that it's too far gone to revive itself--we need to at least stop harming nature before we can think about trying to help it

The Beauty of Silence

Reading Kelly's post, I was struck by how similar it was to the experience I was thinking about writing on. The time was late last February. Having been studying in Europe I went to Morocco for part of my spring break. I had initially planned on spending my time in Fez with the vague notion that I might take a day trip or two to surrounding attractions. But fortune smiled on my traveling companions and I and we found ourselves offered a discounted trip to and overnight camping stay in the Sahara Desert. We jumped on the opportunity and set off on a trip I will never forget.

From the outset I was floored, Having lived on the east coast my whole life I have never seen a desert of any sort and I was more use to the Appalachian variety of mountains. The eight hour trip there included it all, miles of orchards, mountain forest home to monkeys, high glacial prairie dotted by herds of sheep, rocky desert akin to the American southwest, the great Atlas Mountain range, winding red -walled canyons, palms valleys and finally the ocean of dunes that is the Sahara.

I was literally overwhelmed by the sensory experience, however up until this point we had yet to abandon civilization. A sweeping vista would be interrupted by a cell phone tower. The glacial praire was dotted with shanties belonging to the marginalized and impoverished Berber minority. I don't mean to understate the beauty of what I saw that day but only to emphasize the extent which humans have changed our world.

It was the Sahara that broke the mold. That evening we rode camels into the dunes and watched the sunset. After a dinner prepared by our Berber hosts we setup a small fire. Two young men who take care of the camp ground played drums for us as we asked each other questions about what our respective lives were like (they had never been to a city, seen TV, or gone to school but knew of Bob Marley). I stayed up as late as I could, staring into the vast night sky, appreciating a canvass of stars that one could never see in a developed country. I would describe it as a dark night, but the intensity of the star and moonlight substituted for the dull incandescent glow of a city and cast silhouettes onto the surrounding dunes.

The silence was deafening, there was no high way, no planes, no electric generators, nothing at all but the wind and the sand and occasional grumpy bleat of a camel. That morning my friends and I awoke before the crack of dune, climbed up one of the nearby dunes and huddled together under blankets as the sun rose over a distant ridge of rocks. It was without a doubt the most stunning and unique twenty four hours of my entire life.

I can still feel what it was like to be there as a type down these words. The experience was so visceral, so unlike what the average American experiences in their fast paced technologically obsessed life that I can remember the smallest details of the trip where it's a stretch to remember what I did the two weekends ago. When I compare my story to Kelly's I see a connection in that the experiences were made so profound by the distance from modern civilization.

The absence of the modern is itself a thing of beauty, but it is nearly impossible to find. One must travel to the least hospitable environments on the planet to remove themselves from lands impacted by humans and even then success is not guaranteed (my sunset view from the dunes was briefly interrupted by a land rover speeding across the horizon).

We have profoundly, and in some cases irreversible, changed our planet. We have turned ourselves into living gods. We change the course of rivers, level mountains, clear forests and do so at every increasing rates. Our impact has massively negative consequences for biodiversity, climate stability and ultimately our own well being. We are animals and as much a part of Earth as any other species. We are responsible to mitigate the damage that we have wrought, or as the old cliche goes, "you break it you buy it". We may survive without a healthy bio-sphere made up of myriad diverse species and vast wilderness, but we will loss a part of who we are. Our connection to nature is as important as any social bonds or creature comforts we hold onto and is essential to a healthy state of mind. We were a part of nature but we are becoming its master, I only hope that we learn to be benevolent.

Pico Turquino

While I was studying abroad in Cuba this past spring, my friend and I spent two days hiking in the Sierra Maestra mountains. The mountains are in the eastern part of the country, and they hold a lot of historical significance for the revolution. It was here that Fidel Castro hid out for the better part of a year building up the resistance and support made the overthrow of Batista possible. Obviously, one of the reasons this spot was chosen was due to the geographical layout and the ideal protection the mountains provided.

The hike starts at sea level. We spent the night before sleeping on the floor of a shack with the Caribbean sea in front of us and the mountains to our back. Our hike began at sun rise- due to the fact that the mountains are so important to the country's history, you have to have a guide. Thus, the three of us set out for 11 kilometer hike to the top of Pico Turquino, the highest mountain in Cuba. Within 3 km, we stopped at pretty much the only farm in the area to have some fruit and so our guide could talk to his friends. After a while we continued on. The experience of hiking there is indescribable. If you turned around you saw the cliffs and the sea, and all ahead of you were the peaks of various smaller mountains. By the time we reached the 8th km, we were already walking through clouds and unable to see but white when looking out. We reached the summit by early afternoon and then hiked another 5 km to where we'd spend the night.

We stayed in a small cleared area with some field workers who maintained the area. Pico Turquino was directly behind us and it was as though we were spending the night in a small valley surrounded completely by mountains looming over us. We continued early the next morning and hiked 8 miles to our next destination. On the way there, we passed through a few seeminly different ecosystems. It went from barren dry rock, and then a ravine with a stream and dozens of banana trees as we continued our descent. Finally, after the 8km, we had 3 more to go in order to get to Fidel's command center. Once, again, it was just the three of us and we spent over an hour walking through where Fidel and other revolutionaries organized before taking Havana. In Kelly's post she explains that one of the significant parts of her experience was being alone. I'd have to agree that the fact that it was me and two other people in the middle of the mountains made the hike that much more meaningful and personal.

I also strongly agree with Kelly as far as why we should save nature. By this point, everyone knows we need to maintain the ecosystems and the natural services that earth provides in order to survive. However, if we approach it from this way it almost seems like we're only trying to save nature to save ourselves-it's just another mechanism in production to serve human interests. Too often the intrinsic value of nature is completely forgotten or disregarded. I like that Kelly talked about harmony and the behavior of people when their in nature- I hadn't thought about it but I completely agree that interactions and just the overall way of being is transformed when people spend time outdoors.

Why Nature

In March 2010 I decided to run a 24 hour 250k relay race from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea. The last thing I expected was for it to be an amazing environmental experience, but it was one of the most amazing experiences I've had in nature. Maybe it was the fact that I had already run 10kilometers and it was 3 in the morning, but there was something extremely beautiful about running in the middle of the desert, surrounded by huge cliffs, and being able to look up and see more stars than I ever imagined. During this round of running, there were no other runners near me. I was alone. The air felt cleaner than I ever imagined, even though I could feel the sand particles in my throat. It felt pure. All I could think about was how beautiful and peaceful the world was at the moment. It was a stark contrast to living in Amman, Jordan, which is over developed and full of poverty. But just a few hours away was this amazing desert, completely undisturbed by humans except for a single highway that connects Amman to the Sinai. For some reason, I didn't even notice that road while I was running. What was under my feet was the least important thing to me. What I cared about were the amazing mountains and the vast sky. Everything felt right.

This is why I feel like people need to save nature. I could go into all the scientific reasons why we should save biodiversity, but to be frank that is not why I care about what we are doing the natural world. I believe in harmony and I don't think that modern human society embodies it the way it should, but when you see people in nature that seems to change. Any time I've spent time camping, in Bedouin villages, on small farms, or in an ecovillage I always found that people have more respect for each other. They live in harmony, with themselves, the people around them, and their environment. Things feel peaceful and in a world full of hustling and hate, that's what is needed most. By destroying our environment and raping the land of all its treasures changes who we are. We start thinking that taking what we want, being selfish, and dominating all that is around us is good, even though that is the worst way to live. I want to save nature to save humanity from itself, regardless of how silly and idealistic that sounds.

Cookstove Changeout Promises Health Benefits to Worlds Poor

Hundreds of millions of the worlds poor are exposed to toxic emissions from inefficient and antiquated cookstoves. Hillary Clinton recently announced a new initiative that aims to modernize the cooking methods for millions of people in the developing world. The emissions from said stoves are closy correlated to infant moratality rates and pneumonia.

The program aims to "create cleaner, healthier, environmentally sound and locally adapted stoves that women will want". The program aims to promote local markets by funding development of cleaner cookstoves. as one official was quoted as saying, "If local tastes are not consulted, [the stoves] will stack up and not be used. That’s why a market-based approach is needed,” Over 2 million deaths a year are attributed to exposure to fumes produced by commonly used cookstoves. Learning from previous failed aid attempts, the program does not claim to have a blanket solution and instead takes local and cultural prefrences into account, providing different stoves in differnt regions.

The health benefits promised by the program are obvious but the program could also lead to environmental benefits. In many cases deforestation and degradation of agricultural land are closely tied to subsistence charcoal production. Modern stoves often rely on alternative fuels such as wood pellets or solar power. If succesful the initiative could act as a framework for future efforts and fostering sustainability in the deveoping world.

Bethesda Court Hotel

Interested in learning about "green companies" in the DC/MD area, I decided to do a quick google search. One of the first that came up was the Bethesda Court Hotel, whose website can be found by following this link http://www.bethesdacourtwashdc.com/green_hotel/. There the hotel describes its green initiatives:

• 100% smoke free environment, for the health of guests and air supply
• Project Planet linen reuse program, which allows guests the option to reuse their towels and sheets in order to conserve water, energy and detergent
• Recycling Program, to encourage the recycling of all paper, plastic, cardboard and aluminum products
• Green Natura program, ensuring all bath amenity containers are biodegradable and all packaging is made from recycled materials
• Energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs, located in every hotel lighting fixture
• Pedestrian-friendly location, within walking distance to the Metro and area attractions

While many hotel guests most likely follow at least some of these measures at home, such as recycling or using energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs, it's probably a safe bet that there is less focus on reducing environmental impact while traveling. Often times when one is traveling and staying in a hotel, it's for vacation or some other type of luxurious purpose. But really, who needs clean, new sheets every single night, or five new towels every morning. Although these measures are fairly simple, I'd think they make a sizable impact- at least within the context of the hotel itself. Just by using the same sheets for a few days in a row, one noticeably reduced the amount of laundry done and thus energy used. While ideas like this won't save the planet, it certainly helps in raising awareness and incorporating greener behaviors into a busy lifestyle.

If Not Cap & Trade, Then What?

Many proponents of the environmental movement were upset when the Cap and Trade bill fell through in Congress. While it certainly wasn't the best news for environmentalists, this article from the New York Times suggests that it there might be a better option for reducing our dependance on dirty energy.

The author, David Leonhardt, lays out a few reasons why we should stop counting on cap and trade. First of all, we have to ask when Congress will even take another shot at it. Then, we have to wonder how effective it would even be in causing change. Although cap and trade would force companies to reduce their energy use, it would probably be in smaller ways rather than ways that encourage groundbreaking innovation in clean energy. What fast growing developing nations need are groundbreaking innovation.

What could promote this innovation is direct investment into making clean energy technologies more affordable. A surprising number of people agree. The conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Brookings Institute are releasing a joint proposal to greatly increase federal spending on clean energy innovation, and to moreover toughen regulation for the use of this money. In other words, more money would be put into research and development into clean energy technologies that are actually working to make clean energy cheaper than the dirty alternative.

The article suggests that, historically, this has been able to work. The military has helped develop and promote a lot of new technologies, and they may be doing the same with clean energy.

While I'm still skeptical as to whether technology of any kind can "save us," I think this article shows us a little ray of hope. First of all, it shows bipartisan work towards a goal that can benefit us all. While this may not ultimately be the solution we need, the fact that unexpected people are working together is an important step.

Second, more investment put into clean energy could help in developing the infrastructure we so desperately need in order to get clean energy off and running. Some companies are already discussing investing significant amounts of money into this, but more federal spending on innovation could make a big difference.

Finally, more people are likely to something that will hopefully decrease the cost of clean energy than anything that causes an increase in oil prices.

In the end, I think the most promising thing about this article is the fact that we're trying something to get us off the path we are currently on. It might not work, but at least we're trying something new.

Food for Thought

Out of the many personal choices I make concerning the impact of my lifestyle on myself and the world around me I consider the food I consume to be among the most important. I have been conscious of my diet since reading Fast Food Nation a number of years ago and have made great efforts to expand my knowledge of the impact food has on our planet. I try to follow a number of self imposed foods when I eat...

Eat Local: Although it is not always possible, I try to eat food produced locally as often as I can. This means trip to farmers markets (although this becomes difficult during the winter) and purchasing food at the super market that is labeled as local. This has a number of benefits, the largest being reduced fossil fuel consumption due to shorter transportation times. It also tends to support local economies and small farmers/businesses. Additionally local tends to mean fresh, which has obvious benefits to health and flavor.

Eat Organic: This one can be risky since the market is flooded with faux organic products and the government guidelines are very lax. However, purchasing truly organic food has hugely positive environmental effects. Petro-chemical based fertilizers and pesticides are a huge source of our oil consumption and thus carbon emissions.

Don't Eat Processed: Processed food has many negative effects on both personal health and the environment. Ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, unbleached wheat flour and the many other multi-syllabic ingredients out there are tied closely to the increasing rates of obesity, and diabetes. They are also a direct result of the over subsidization of corn and food chemicals. Each of these are big contributors to the environmental damage caused by our food production.

To Do: Vegetarianism is an excellent personal decision that can halve the impact of ones diet (meat is by far the most damaging food to produce) and improve health. I have dabbled in vegetarianism before, especially when I was living with three other vegetarians. I did not find reducing my consumption of meat to be difficult, in fact I enjoyed trying new types of food to substitute protein in my diet. I am sorry to say that I did not continue my experiment in vegetarianism, I wrong I hope to right in the near future.

Following these rules can be very beneficial to the world. However it's hard to live perfectly. This last weekend would be a perfect example. My diet was, to say the least, atrocious this weekend. I broke all my rules and I splurged. My meals all included meat, many of the ingredients were processed and nothing was organic. By far the worst would have to be a chicken hoogie I pruchased as a Wawa on the way home, which included white bread, meat and vegetables probably grown half way around the world. Splurging is okay once in awhile, but it's definitely a good idea to avoid making it a habit as it is neither sustainable nor good for the planet.

A Hearty Bowl of Realization

As a major foodie, I think a lot about what I eat. Because of this, there are many different factors that come into play when making my food choices:

1. Nutrition: having been raised by doctors, I always consider how good (or bad) for me the food I'm about to eat is. This certainly isn't to say I always eat healthy foods; I just always think about how the food I'm eating is going to affect my body, both now and in the long term.
2. Cost: as a college student trying to live on a budget, cost is often a factor in my food purchases. It's sometimes hard to justify buying the fresh produce for example, when the frozen is much cheaper. The cost factor comes into play a lot during the organic versus not organic choice as well.
3. Convenience: also as a college student, one of the biggest things I lack is time. Because of this, I will often consider the convenience of foods. Frozen foods or preprocessed foods are great for this, but they don't necessarily match up with some of my other considerations, like nutrition or environmental issues. Personally, I would much rather cook fresh food every day, but my schedule just doesn't allow it. Convenience affects my daily food choices as well as my food shopping choices. When I'm trying to decide what to eat during the day, it usually comes down to what's in the fridge.
4. Taste/Cravings: probably one of the biggest factors in my food choices is what I want to eat. As I mentioned before, I love food a lot so I have a hard time ignoring my cravings. I never seem to be satisfied until I've eaten what I want. In attempts to justify this, I always quote the idea that you have cravings because your body knows what nutrients it needs. Sure this probably isn't entirely true, but I still tend to eat what I want.
5. Environmental issues: I commonly consider this factor when making my food choices, but it tends to get drowned under all the other considerations. I've know so much of the information about how our food choices affect the environment. I do my best to eat in a way that harms the environment least. But at the same time, it's difficult to do. Our current food system is so engrained that I feel trapped in it sometimes.

It's almost impossible to satisfy all of these considerations at once. Different ones win out at different times. For example, my decision to eat mostly vegetarian was driven by nutrition and environmental factors. When I drive to the grocery store and buy off-brand products, cost and convenience are winning over. But when I make it to the farmers market, nutrition and environment (and just sheer enjoyment) are on top. The motives underlying my food decisions vary so often, I constantly struggled to figure out what is most important when deciding what to eat.

Of the foods I've eaten in the past couple days, the one that probably has the greatest environmental impact was the bowl of cereal I had for breakfast this morning: Berry Berry Kix with Silk Soymilk and bananas on top. As I was sitting there eating my cereal I looked at the ingredients, which consisted of three different forms of corn (whole grain corn, corn meal, and corn syrup) as well as a bunch of different sweeteners. It was essentially a puffed piece of sweetened corn, which is one of our biggest industrial agriculture products. The soymilk is made primarily of soybeans. Although the package claims they are non-GMO beans, they were still likely harvested in an industrial way. Finally, the banana was probably imported from some far off tropical place. My meal was not at all local, small scale, or organic. For such a seemingly simple meal, it was very representative of our dependence on factory farming and on the luxury of being able to import goods from far away, both at a high environmental cost.

In a world where so many underlie our food decisions and even a simple meal can cause so much harm, the real question is, what can we eat?

My food choices

When I'm hungry the first question that always runs through my head is “how much should I eat?” Not because I'm concerned about over eating or anything, but because I often don't know when the next time I'll be able to eat is. I need to know how many hours I'll be sitting in class, studying, waiting tables, biking, etc. I need to know if I have snacks to pack (or if I'll even be in a situation in which I can eat a snack) and if not I need to determine what is heavy and will sustain me for the next 6 hours or more. Sometimes I also find that I'm hungry, but I'm suppose to meet my friends for dinner in a few an hour, so I need to know what is light.

After determining how much to eat, my next step is what to eat. My fridge is usually pretty bare. I like to eat fresh and I don't like to buy things that end up rotting. I also dumpster dive, so what I have available also depends on my free time. I live behind Firehook Bakery in Cleveland Park, so it's basically guarantied that I have a blueberry muffin, croissant, donut, vegetable sandwich, and some loaves of bread somewhere (if my housemates didn't get them first). If I've had enough time, I'll also make my way to Trader Joe's in Bathesda, usually supplying me with eggs, vegetables,fruit, bread, hummus, some pastries, cereal, and whatever else happens to have “expired” or gotten dented. Dumpster diving has definitely shaped the way I look at food. The amount of food I see in dumpsters, no matter how many times I see it, always upsets me. So when I eat, I like to eat knowing that what I have isn't getting logged into a computer so that the store can buy more. They already buy too much. I've also found that sometimes I get a little twinge of guilt when I do buy food and sit down to eat it. As a joke, when my friend sees me eating something I've purchased he enjoys telling me that I'm eating the seeds of capitalism and thus, helping to end the world. Of course, it's an exaggeration, but there is something about eating food that would normally be left to rot (all the food I get from the dumpster is usually weeks away from actually expiring) in a landfill somewhere and then replaced with more food that would also end up rotting, that feels good. I'm also a vegetarian, so that is definitely something I find myself thinking about when I go out to eat or buy something on campus quick between classes. Other than these thoughts, I don't think much else about what I eat, except whether or not it tastes good.

Over the past few days I've eaten mostly pastries and sandwiches from Firehook, but I did buy a sandwich and some chips yesterday for lunch from the cafe in Ward. My guess is that those chips had the greatest environmental impact. First, they were made in a factory producing tons of other little bags of chips. Plus I'm sure the potatoes were cut using a machine that uses energy. Not to mention it was packaged, which took a lot of energy and materials to produce. Then, the chips had to be shipped to AU. From what I know about Firehook (I've never actually gone into the place), most of the food is prepared there. They also use a lot of organic foods, which decreases the environmental impact. Thinking about those chips now makes me feel a little guilty, but they were really tasty, so I'm sure I'll buy them again. But I'll probably wait a few weeks.

A Double Edged Sword

Technology can save us from an environmental catastrophe as it has done in the past. It can also cause unimaginable damage to the planet as we have seen time and again. What's important is how the technology is implemented in practice. Technology is essential to our 21st century world. Providing food, fresh water and shelter to the vast majority of people on the planet is a task that is just not possible without modern technology.

However, the methods we use to provide these essential services to people are wrecking the planet. This does not have to be the case, if technology was properly managed and sustainably implemented then you wouldn't see the level on unnatural desertification, fish stock decline, deforestation and climate change (and that just skims the surface. If these seemingly benign technologies are the origin of some of our biggest problems then it is terrifying to think about the repercussions of "luxury technologies" such as electronics, bio-engineering, vehicles etc...

The sheer amount of resources consumed to provide these goods, not to mention the slew of toxic chemicals created and the numerous other issues surrounding 21st century industry makes technology seem like an evil that needs to be purged. This is not necessarily the case. Technology has saved us from some serious problems in the past (i.e advances in medicine, crop production, transportation and energy). If developed wisely, with environmental and social justice a necessity, then it can lead into a sustainable, technologically advanced future. However I fear we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We need technology, there are not enough people seriously willing to give up their current lifestyles. Developing efficient, low impact technologies is the best way to ensure that we will sustain the Earth's ecosystems. The unknown consequences and repercussions of these technologies may be just as bad as the problems they were designed to solve, unfortunately we have no other choice, we can only hope and advocate for oversight and good management.

The Technology Tool

Present day technology is something that never ceases to amaze and intrigue me. Yet many times, it also somewhat terrifies me. The things we are able to do today are incredible compared even to just a couple years ago. The rate a which technology is changing is increasing rapidly...

...and so are our environmental problems. Global climate change seems to be more prevalent every day. Pollution and resource depletion is a growing issue. Our technology may be advancing, but it's not helping us save the earth (or ourselves).

That's because technology cannot save us. Technology is inanimate (at least presently it is--as more research goes into robots and artificial intelligence, that could be changing). Technology is simply a tool. Like any tool, whether it is helpful or harmful depends on how it is used.

Let's look at my laptop as an example. My dear macbook has the power to be very beneficial. With it, I could:

• Look up information very quickly to improve my understanding of environmental issues
• Learn news immediately after it happens, including things that will affect the global environment
• Gain access to works by environmental thinkers that I may never have read before
• Run computer programs that could help me quickly model environmental changes
• Get in immediate contact with people across the world in a variety of ways, opening up the door for conversations about environmental issues I never would have had
• Compile information on environmental issues easily and compactly
• Share my thoughts, beliefs, and discoveries with others (like you, reading this blog)

Technologies like my computer have the power to speed up the spread of ideas and make communication easier, perhaps making it easier to teach people about environmental issues and what they can do. Technology has the power to help us do great things.

But with great power, comes great possibility of problems. My computer also:

• Uses valuable resources in it's construction that are very difficult and harmful to extract from the computer in order to be reused
• Is built, as part of our system of consumption, to become obsolete or outdated relatively quickly
• Quickly spread lots of false information about the environment
• Serve as a venue for more consumption, as online shopping explodes
• Waste a lot of valuable time that could be used for coming up with the ideas that could save us

While this is a hugely simplified example, it represents the key idea that we cannot rely on technology to save us. Only we can save ourselves from the mess that we have gotten into. We can only rely on ourselves. Technology can certainly speed up the process and make it easier. Whether the process is helpful or harmful is completely up to us.

Should we depend on technology?

As I mentioned last week, in general we are obsessed with technology and we want things to be easy. When there is a problem, we often look to technology to fix it. Environmental problems are no different.

When the ocean stopped providing us with the fish it used to, we created fish farms. Now that the climate isn't providing us the way it used to, I think it is inevitable to look to technology to fix it. However, this is not addressing the root causes of the environmental issue and it is dangerous to think that this alone can save us.

The main thing that got us into this climate change mess is the desire for more. Consumption is the problem. Wanting things to be easy is the problem. Finding new technology to live in a world of climate change is not addressing these issues, therefore it is doubtful that technology alone can solve all the problems. We still need to consume less. Plus, making technology uses materials that probably needs to be extracted from the Earth. It'll also produce waste to make them. Even more importantly, we cannot know for sure how a new technology will affect the environment and sadly, we cannot afford to experiment.

There needs to be a change in the way we think. Production is our number one priority, but should it be? Do we really need to come up with absurd environment saving technologies (like putting sulfur into the atmosphere or making artificial trees) in order to keep our economy growing and keep up on toxic lifestyle? I don't think so. We can afford to produce less. We don't need to drive, fly, or buy so much. Consuming less meat and buying less things means producing less harmful substances.

Of course, creating new technology isn't a bad thing and will be necessary. We should switch to more solar, wind, and water power. But it needs to be coupled with a change in lifestyle. Otherwise we're only addressing the symptoms and not the problem, which will only mean we'll have more work to do in the future.

DQ 4

I become a little more worried each time I hear talk of how technology is the answer to the environmental situation. Maybe it’s because I’m terrible with modern technology, (as evidenced by the fact that it’s taken me a month to figure out how to become an author of the blog) but I think at best, the “solution” is really just a band-aid. Innovations will certainly increase efficiency and perhaps turn the process into more of a graceful decline than a death spiral, but it won’t truly fix anything. I think many people like to think that technology could be a solution because it’s like a security blanket; it helps us to sleep at night not feeling bad that the air conditioner is on or that we forgot to turn the lights off. In short, relying on modern science doesn’t force us to accept a major lifestyle change, which, let’s face it, would be an extreme affront to mainstream American society.
On that note, one really interesting juxtaposition I’ve noticed this fall is our IEP class contrasted with an International Communications class I’m taking. The IC class is more specifically about means of communication (which I didn’t realize before signing up). To put things into context, several of our readings have been about the history/evolution of the telegraph up to the personal computer. My professor is basically a technology genius and he completely supports the theory that technology can save us all. Just this past week, he made a comment about how we must get technology to developing countries in order for the planet to be able to support a population of almost 7 billion people. I suppose that one could agree with this statement or shake their head in disbelief depending on their approach. However, as we’ve discussed in class, I think that increased technology means the potential for increased overuse of resources. It is my opinion that any gain we make by more efficient technology will most likely be countered by more depletion due to conventional wisdom that technology is our answer.

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.

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).

The Issue of Indifference

I think that the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is indifference. There are plenty of venues out there for working towards alleviating environmental problems, if enough people cared enough to seek them out. The keyword here is enough. There are certainly some people out there who care a lot about the environment, and are working tirelessly towards making it a better place. But there is also the other extreme of people who can’t directly see the effects of environmental degradation, and therefore don’t believe it affects them. If more of these people cared, then we would have more fighters for the environmental movement. And there are the people who do care, but have so many other things to do or think about than helping the environment. If these people cared more, maybe their other obligations suddenly wouldn’t seem as important.

Although there are certainly many other huge issues facing the environmental movement, having fewer indifferent people would help us move towards overcoming these problems as well. More environmental stewards could help spread information to people who just don’t know the magnitude of this problem. Politicians would have an incentive to actually take action against environmental degradation if enough of the public cared for it to be politically beneficial. Also, more people would care enough to make even small changes in their lifestyle, potentially leading to a huge decrease in our harmful effects on the environment.

Stanley Fish is a god example of somebody who doesn’t care. As he says in his article, he believes that our actions are harming the environment, he just doesn’t care enough to do anything about it. Although his wife is trying to get him to make small changes in his lifestyle, he won’t be convinced. The environment is an inconvenience in his mind. It’s people like this who will be our biggest problem to tackle in the environmental movement.

Race to the Bottom

Thomas Friedman repeats a common theme in his NYT's op-ed article titled Arn't We Clever. We are losing the green-tech /manufacturing race to competitors in China and Europe thanks to inaction by our government. This will mean both an increasingly dire climate change situation and serious troubled down the road for the US economy.

These warnings resonate with many, environmentalists fear for the future of our world, while those in the pro-business camp worry about American's ability to compete in the 21^st century. There are compelling arguments behind both these positions, but they are grounded in false beliefs over what is needed to confront climate change and how it needs to be done.

The first major misconception is that we are in a race to “beat”the Chinese and Europeans in creating a clean-tech future. This view is often based off of a comparison of the challenges we face today to the space race we entered against Russia at the height of the Cold War.

Supporters of this idea point to our gargantuan effort to beat the Russians to the moon as a perfect example of government supported R&D and manufacturing coming together to literally send a man where no man had gone before. This is all fine and dandy, except that the scale at which our economy must be transformed is beyond anything the space race ever tackled; an effort that had a rather narrow, albeit impressive, goal

Additionally, the space race was a competition of political wills and technological prowess between the Soviet Union and the United States. As the two world powers of the day, each side was attempting to gain an advantage in missile technology and credit with non-aligned nations.

The geopolitical situation in the world today is much different. We live in a uni-polar world, although that is quickly changing, and the world has globalism. This means changes and instability somewhere in the world can send shock waves throughout the globe. Inaction in the US, the worlds largest market, will effect development and production of green-tech everywhere. If we try to compete on these issues we will end up in a race to the bottom as each nation on Earth undermines the other while our small window at curtailing the worst effects of climate change is still open.

So we shouldn't be racing anyone in the development of a 21^st century green economy. But should we really be focusing as much effort as we are on technology? The cornucopians would tell you that rapidly re-developing our economy is the only way out of our current situation. But this development will also carry it's own footprint.

What is instead needed is a change in lifestyles, a step back from our breakneck advancement which is sapping the Earth of it's carrying capacity. For this to work all the countries of the world must work together, collectively face up to our challenges and embrace a future of austerity and restraint. This is the only truly sustainable path we can take.

Change is Never Easy

In Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It Michael Maniates criticizes elites in the environmental movement and the government for "selling us short" on solutions to the critical environmental issues facing us today. He argues that the challenges we face today are a zero sum game, and sugar coating the outcome with feel-good, easy solutions to our problems can do more harm then good if it creates complacency within the public.

The main issue that Maniates brings up is the widespread dissemination of tips to people through books, television, and even government websites. Each list of "Earth friendly" tips is remarkably similar and usual includes recycling, taking shorter showers and installing efficiency measures in the home such as CFB's and weatherized windows.

As important as these practices are, they will only stem the ecological damage occurring to our planet. Maniates does not argue that we should stop recycling and aiming for efficiency; he sees these practices as essential to forming a civic environmentalism within the public psyche.

The real culprit according to the article is green washed products. Essentially unnecessary consumer items that claim to have low or no impact on the environment but which still require energy and resources to create. We should ignore these minor changes to lifestyle and habit and instead focus our effort collectively on revolutionizing our agricultural, transportation and energy sectors, by far the largest contributors to our ecological footprint.

The greatest changes in society have occurred around broad social movements, sacrifices are often made but the end goal is reached. Maniates points to the sacrifices made during other great moments in our history, the revolution, the civil right movement. The leaders of these movements did not ask us to shop wisely or be more efficient, they asked to change, which is what we need to do to make sure our planet continues to support us. The challenges we face will be difficult, but together we will be able to overcome them.

Reaction to "I Am Therefore I Pollute"

Stanley Fish's New York Times Op-ed piece, I Am Therefore I Pollute, is multi-faceted and leads me to draw different opinions on his varying conclusions, his intended message especially seems to change in the different sections piece.

Fish laments the struggle of being a “good environmentalist”, which he does through a number of angels. His main argument (his dissatisfaction with environmentally friendly alternatives) I find the least compelling. It is interesting that he shows a generational gap in his adoption of “green stuff”, but his reasons for doing so seem petty. He laments that the lights are too dim, the meat taste too leans, and his friend’s wife makes him unplug appliances.

In each case the opposition is based purely in the material. Yet he has no issue with turning off the lights, or using traditional recycling methods; behavior he grew up with and has ingrained subconsciously. The small amount of effort required to adapt these behaviors is just not a burden I can sympathize with.

However I do not disagree with him on all his points, I find his first point to be quite salient. In reference to a call to action by Greenpeace to boycott Kimberley-Clarke over it use of virgin wood pulp Fish responded by looking back,

“But we had already done that once before when it turned out that the manufacturer of the paper products we used to buy — Procter and Gamble — engaged in research on animals. That’s when we found Kimberly-Clark”.

Kimberley-Clarke was suppose to replace the unjust company, but ended up practicing equally undesirable policies. All too often a company has green washed itself, making its customers feel good about what they are doing while hiding the true costs.

This leads to the more general question of what is means to live in an “environmentally friendly way” in a modern US city. This is a question I tackle on a daily basis. I profess to be a environmentalist. I turn off the lights, conservatively heat and cool my apartment, recycle, use mass transit or walk; you name it. But the overall effect of these small actions, the ones Fish found so hard to adapt too, can become ineffective if you are being fooled by a company into believing their products are sustainable, or if the real energy saving methods are ignored.

Being a true environmentalist means understanding all of the impacts of your choices and knowing how to mitigate those effects as much as possible. Buying carbon offsets for electricity, dropping meat from the menu and consuming less in general are all essential actions people will probably need to take if we are to leave as small an ecological footprint behind as possible in our day to day actions. It is accepting what might feel uncomfortable, the actions Fish finds so hard, that are most essential for this next generation to succeed where previous ones have failed.