I would imagine that anyone who is in the environmental field, and especially those who are great fans of Bill McDonough, is familiar with the concept theory of "waste equals food." The idea is logical, practical and highly beneficial, not to mention "effective." Creating to reuse, throwing "away" our way to a more healthy planet and societal lifestyle.
However, this past week I was presented with a new, more direct way of perpetuating waste equaling food. Whilst sitting in class discussing law and the US Supreme Court for 3 hours of non-stop fun, I was became suddenly distracted and entranced by a strange phenomena taking place in the middle of the room. A fellow summer course student of mine evidently found himself quite hungry and unable to endure the 3 hour class without supplemental nutrition to his 12oz coffee and it seemed that his best and only option was to consume the very cup which had held his morning java.
I mean "why not?!" it's paper (mostly) and paper comes from trees which as we know are organic, living, natural species and thus edible.
The mid-class meal took place in 3 courses; the first was the cardboard-esque cup cozy designed to keep your hand from burning but, unbeknownst to me, also as a small antipasti, then for a change of texture he moved on to nibbling away at the plastic, less natural and highly toxic SOLO top. But after a few minutes of chewing and consuming, this did not satiate his hunger nor his zealous desire to recycle man made products back into the Earth's biological cycle. With 15 minutes left in the class period holding out for a quickly assembled PB&J back at home was out of the question, for the rim of the waxy white bleached paper coffee cup was surely too irresistible.
Needless to say I am without recollection of what material was covered by the brilliantly enthused law professor, but I was, without doubt, inspired by the devotion of my environmentally-driven brother-in-cause.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Eco-IN-justice
information. The first bit of false info was a Mosanto ad posted in
the metro train professing that producing more is the answer to "9
million people to feed" and "a changing climate." The ad further
claims "experts" say food production must be doubled by 2050 and with
Monsanto GM seeds this will not only happen but be a "win-win for
people, and the earth itself." I for one am curious to know which
"experts" they are consulting. To add a little extra hope and twinkle
in our eyes Monsanto is looking out for us, "improving farmers'
lives...and that's what Monsanto is all about." (check it out on www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/advertisements.asp
)
My second encounter was a doozy and luckily was able to snap a shot of
it with my new iPhone (lovingly named Gustave).
I have two questions for you americaspower.org who are these "American
opinion leaders" of whom you speak and in what way is harming the
planet, degrading our environment and stealing the right to a good
life from future generations "affordable?"
Clean coal? Who do you think you're kidding?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Finding someone who did not fully agree with my views on environment and climate change was not a difficult task. My roommate Jill who I consider to be an average American is my best source for debate. She is middle class, well educated and not a business or SIS major! She always questions what I say which in turn encourages me to question what I have learned. In particular I feel strongly about the negative impacts of coal extraction and burning. Although she understands the environmental degradation to an extent she still falls back on the common notion that "but we need coal." This response use to make me flip shit as I couldn't fathom the idea that people actually believed that! But this approach only feeds aversion to environmental efforts, not to mention this is a common response to steering away from coal useage.
I now listen to Jill and use her as my gauge bouncing my usually more extreme views off of "average Americans." Money is, no matter what anyone says, is what drives the world and this is the approach environmentalism has to proceed with.
I now listen to Jill and use her as my gauge bouncing my usually more extreme views off of "average Americans." Money is, no matter what anyone says, is what drives the world and this is the approach environmentalism has to proceed with.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Trading Money for your Soul
At first I thought it would be rather easy to find someone in the Kogod School of Business who had a different viewpoint as I in regards to the severity of the environmental situation. However, it seems as if many agree that the potential of global warming, a continuous population increase, and loss of animal species will lead to many negative effects on our environment. Although they view these situations as serious ones, they still see the money signs in the future and believe that producing more, more, more is what will make our economy continue to grow (along with their wallets).
My friend Julia was nice enough to be as blatantly honest about her thoughts. We talked about the problem of consumption and abundance and why it is important for us to consider design issues in order to fix our problems. I think my most effective argument was discussing what we recently learned through Cradle to Cradle and how we must learn to be more efficient in designing our products, because it is our design flaws that can be changed. However, Julia continued to remind me of the fact that if a product is cheaper to make with toxic chemicals and in a process that would not enable all parts of a product be able to be reused, companies would still likely choose this old-fashioned method.
Julia is finishing her second year at American University, but will be graduating from the Kogod School of Business next spring. I think this is an important note to include, because to Julia - "time is money." Julia has no intent on studying abroad because she doesn't see the point, believing that it will cost her more money and understanding that she can complete her degree in the States. Julia was not turned off by this discussion, but was more than excited to continue it after we had finished our iced teas while sitting on the quad. Julia sees that there may be potential problems with the environment, but since she doesn't see these as threats to her livelihood, doesn't consider them on a daily basis.
I sent her the talk I found on TED: By William McDonough about his idea of Cradle to Cradle design. After watching this video, Julia was more inclined to see my point of view, but continued to turn it to what she knew best - business. Julia showed me that it is best to be proactive in trying to get others to listen to my point of view. If I had simply ended our conversation over coffee, Julia would likely have remained with her mindset. This is not to mean that I changed her point of view, but it did make her consider what I was saying a second time. I do not think you can be successful by being conciliatory. Rather, a more provacative, proactive attitude will get those who are skeptical to think about environmental issues.
Even for myself I have realized that the more extreme a potential situation can get, the more likely I am to change my behavior. By showing statistics and facts to business students, as well as lists of toxic chemicals, constructive change can occur--- it just may take a long time and persuasion from many different angles.
My friend Julia was nice enough to be as blatantly honest about her thoughts. We talked about the problem of consumption and abundance and why it is important for us to consider design issues in order to fix our problems. I think my most effective argument was discussing what we recently learned through Cradle to Cradle and how we must learn to be more efficient in designing our products, because it is our design flaws that can be changed. However, Julia continued to remind me of the fact that if a product is cheaper to make with toxic chemicals and in a process that would not enable all parts of a product be able to be reused, companies would still likely choose this old-fashioned method.
Julia is finishing her second year at American University, but will be graduating from the Kogod School of Business next spring. I think this is an important note to include, because to Julia - "time is money." Julia has no intent on studying abroad because she doesn't see the point, believing that it will cost her more money and understanding that she can complete her degree in the States. Julia was not turned off by this discussion, but was more than excited to continue it after we had finished our iced teas while sitting on the quad. Julia sees that there may be potential problems with the environment, but since she doesn't see these as threats to her livelihood, doesn't consider them on a daily basis.
I sent her the talk I found on TED: By William McDonough about his idea of Cradle to Cradle design. After watching this video, Julia was more inclined to see my point of view, but continued to turn it to what she knew best - business. Julia showed me that it is best to be proactive in trying to get others to listen to my point of view. If I had simply ended our conversation over coffee, Julia would likely have remained with her mindset. This is not to mean that I changed her point of view, but it did make her consider what I was saying a second time. I do not think you can be successful by being conciliatory. Rather, a more provacative, proactive attitude will get those who are skeptical to think about environmental issues.
Even for myself I have realized that the more extreme a potential situation can get, the more likely I am to change my behavior. By showing statistics and facts to business students, as well as lists of toxic chemicals, constructive change can occur--- it just may take a long time and persuasion from many different angles.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Cradle-to-grave: human design
What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
One of my favorite analogies that McDonough and Braungart make refers to the Titanic. It was claimed that this ship was indestructible, as it "pours waste into the water and smoke into the sky. It attempts to work by its own rules, which are contrary to those of nature." This example, along with many others scattered throughout the book explains that the problems we have caused to the environment are because of our design problems, not the design problems of nature.
Unlike Malthus, this architect and chemist believe that the world is facing abundance, not limits. They are optimistic that we have the tools to create a greener world by designing new products and procedures. We need to redesign in order to save our environment, but it is important to consider their point, that creating a rug made out of recycled soda cans may actually use more energy and create more waste than your average rug--and you are still going to eventually discard this rug as well.
Cradle-to-grave: I found that this section of the book related a lot to the video, "Stuff" that we watched in class. As consumers, we actually do very little consuming. Instead, the products that we use are designed for us to throw them away. Our food and other biodegradable products are combined with all of your other products and disposed of in landfills, where the value of these products is then wasted.
One of my favorite analogies that McDonough and Braungart make refers to the Titanic. It was claimed that this ship was indestructible, as it "pours waste into the water and smoke into the sky. It attempts to work by its own rules, which are contrary to those of nature." This example, along with many others scattered throughout the book explains that the problems we have caused to the environment are because of our design problems, not the design problems of nature.
Unlike Malthus, this architect and chemist believe that the world is facing abundance, not limits. They are optimistic that we have the tools to create a greener world by designing new products and procedures. We need to redesign in order to save our environment, but it is important to consider their point, that creating a rug made out of recycled soda cans may actually use more energy and create more waste than your average rug--and you are still going to eventually discard this rug as well.
Cradle-to-grave: I found that this section of the book related a lot to the video, "Stuff" that we watched in class. As consumers, we actually do very little consuming. Instead, the products that we use are designed for us to throw them away. Our food and other biodegradable products are combined with all of your other products and disposed of in landfills, where the value of these products is then wasted.
Defending the Cradle
I would like to take this week's blog to refute most of my classmates' writings.
Starting with my respectable friends of "We Tigers."
Alex explained his interpretation of Cradle to Cradle as a vision "just that, an ideal," I would to beg to differ, this book is not a set of future visionary day dreams, but a workable, feasible, plan that has already begun to work.
John, Sirjac and Alex all brought up the ticking egg timer ending in Earth's destruction....there isn't enough time. I would argue back with 4 points, 1) [a biggie] we have NO IDEA what amount of time we have been allotted to solve this problematic and outdated way of life, 2) the "cradle to cradle" design concept is not one of slowing down and postponing our degradation, but reversing it, bringing back what we have lost, regaining time, 3) this "eco-effective" approach is the most well thought out plan we have yet to come across. Stopping the world's women from having children (good luck with that), creating high-tech urban hot spots where only minimal amounts of space are dedicated to human use and the rest preserved as "wilderness" (suuurrrrre), convincing AMERICANS they have to stop shopping (don't waste your breath)!! Mr. McDonough and Mr. Braungart again and again outline the practicality of their idea, its feasibility, and its overarching please-ability. A lot of which can be achieved with resources and technologies we already have. This brings me to my fourth point, innovation breeds innovation. In taking what we have and know now and creating, we will also create room to improve as we always have and continue to do as a race. Saying we "do not have time" is defeatist and an easy escape to give up and move on, "we don't have time to waste" is encouraging and not accepting of our "time-limit". We must start now, we must "prefer ecological-intelligence" as these two men have told us and we must work together.
I have attached a photo of proof, a photo of realistic ingenuity, a photo of the answer. (and John the ink-water solution can be seperatd and the ink can be used again).
Starting with my respectable friends of "We Tigers."
Alex explained his interpretation of Cradle to Cradle as a vision "just that, an ideal," I would to beg to differ, this book is not a set of future visionary day dreams, but a workable, feasible, plan that has already begun to work.
John, Sirjac and Alex all brought up the ticking egg timer ending in Earth's destruction....there isn't enough time. I would argue back with 4 points, 1) [a biggie] we have NO IDEA what amount of time we have been allotted to solve this problematic and outdated way of life, 2) the "cradle to cradle" design concept is not one of slowing down and postponing our degradation, but reversing it, bringing back what we have lost, regaining time, 3) this "eco-effective" approach is the most well thought out plan we have yet to come across. Stopping the world's women from having children (good luck with that), creating high-tech urban hot spots where only minimal amounts of space are dedicated to human use and the rest preserved as "wilderness" (suuurrrrre), convincing AMERICANS they have to stop shopping (don't waste your breath)!! Mr. McDonough and Mr. Braungart again and again outline the practicality of their idea, its feasibility, and its overarching please-ability. A lot of which can be achieved with resources and technologies we already have. This brings me to my fourth point, innovation breeds innovation. In taking what we have and know now and creating, we will also create room to improve as we always have and continue to do as a race. Saying we "do not have time" is defeatist and an easy escape to give up and move on, "we don't have time to waste" is encouraging and not accepting of our "time-limit". We must start now, we must "prefer ecological-intelligence" as these two men have told us and we must work together.
I have attached a photo of proof, a photo of realistic ingenuity, a photo of the answer. (and John the ink-water solution can be seperatd and the ink can be used again).
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why is it not wise to tell secrets in a cornfield?
There are too many ears!
Okay, enough with the CORN-y jokes. But a week without corn? Now that's the joke. Especially if you eat at TDR.
I did not eat a kernel of corn. I passed on the corn bread and the corn-based tortilla. My pasta was wheat and I ate a lot more salad, fruit, and vegetables all week. But as I still have a meal plan, it was extremely difficult to gauge my progress. As for the salad dressing... was there corn oils inside? I ate a chocolate muffin--- the zillion uses for corn page tells me that chocolate products use corn. I didn't drink soda all week-- I've been trying to eliminate it completely from my diet for a while now anyways, but I knew that drinking it would be a big No-No this week.
There is corn starch in baking powder as I learned from "corn-derived food ingredients I avoid." On Sunday was an event I organized and led called "Shaping Cookies, Shaping People," which was basically a cookie bake-off. Needless to say, I ate numerous cookies as a judge for this competition. I am sure that their baking powder was not of the potato-starch variety.
These, and many others I ate throughout the week, are more obvious in the fact that they contain ingredients made from corn. But the lists were so overwhelming, I did not even know where to begin, especially since I do not prepare a majority of my own food. What oils does TDR use when it lathers its food in grease? What are mannitol, methyl gluceth, methyl glucose, methyl glucoside, methylcellulose, microcrystaline cellulose, modified cellulose gum, sorbic acid, sorbitan, sorbitan monooleate, sorbitan tri-oleate, sorbitol, hominy, and so many more ingredients?? And are they in my food? I noticed that gluten is on there too. The bagel I ate probably had corn in it too.
All-in-all, I know that there was no way I made it through this entire week without eating corn. If I cooked my own food I could have been more successful. For this week, I tried to limit as many products that I could directly identify as products of corn ingredients, while also trying to limit my environmental impact still having the images of last week's videos and readings in my mind.
Okay, enough with the CORN-y jokes. But a week without corn? Now that's the joke. Especially if you eat at TDR.
I did not eat a kernel of corn. I passed on the corn bread and the corn-based tortilla. My pasta was wheat and I ate a lot more salad, fruit, and vegetables all week. But as I still have a meal plan, it was extremely difficult to gauge my progress. As for the salad dressing... was there corn oils inside? I ate a chocolate muffin--- the zillion uses for corn page tells me that chocolate products use corn. I didn't drink soda all week-- I've been trying to eliminate it completely from my diet for a while now anyways, but I knew that drinking it would be a big No-No this week.
There is corn starch in baking powder as I learned from "corn-derived food ingredients I avoid." On Sunday was an event I organized and led called "Shaping Cookies, Shaping People," which was basically a cookie bake-off. Needless to say, I ate numerous cookies as a judge for this competition. I am sure that their baking powder was not of the potato-starch variety.
These, and many others I ate throughout the week, are more obvious in the fact that they contain ingredients made from corn. But the lists were so overwhelming, I did not even know where to begin, especially since I do not prepare a majority of my own food. What oils does TDR use when it lathers its food in grease? What are mannitol, methyl gluceth, methyl glucose, methyl glucoside, methylcellulose, microcrystaline cellulose, modified cellulose gum, sorbic acid, sorbitan, sorbitan monooleate, sorbitan tri-oleate, sorbitol, hominy, and so many more ingredients?? And are they in my food? I noticed that gluten is on there too. The bagel I ate probably had corn in it too.
All-in-all, I know that there was no way I made it through this entire week without eating corn. If I cooked my own food I could have been more successful. For this week, I tried to limit as many products that I could directly identify as products of corn ingredients, while also trying to limit my environmental impact still having the images of last week's videos and readings in my mind.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Going corn-free is a pretty big challenge in modern America, just beginning is daunting, reading through all the lists of foods that contain corn. Ugh.
The thing is if you are conscious about what you eat, firstly, nourishing your body with what it needs and then secondly, thinking of your eco-impact the task is not that hard. Looking through my cabinets I found that most of my grain based foods were just that wheat grain based not corn, including my bread. The rest of my fridge was full of vegetables and natural, non-hydrogenated/unmodified foods which were free from corn derived preservatives and flavorings.
The hardest part was meat and dairy. I eat yogurt almost daily and its organic, plain, non-fat, local -ness was not indicative of what the producing animal consumed. But I still ate it. I was not in the position to just cut corn out of my life, in order to do that I would need time to phase it out. You can't just raid your kitchen and ban yourself from eating perfectly good food, it isn't economical, practical or accomplishing anything.
It is a life style change that must be taken seriously. Examine your body's needs and how you can meet them successfully with the smallest impact on the earth. It takes a lot of effort to be mindful of yourself when you are so highly dependent on other people and a distant system.
The thing is if you are conscious about what you eat, firstly, nourishing your body with what it needs and then secondly, thinking of your eco-impact the task is not that hard. Looking through my cabinets I found that most of my grain based foods were just that wheat grain based not corn, including my bread. The rest of my fridge was full of vegetables and natural, non-hydrogenated/unmodified foods which were free from corn derived preservatives and flavorings.
The hardest part was meat and dairy. I eat yogurt almost daily and its organic, plain, non-fat, local -ness was not indicative of what the producing animal consumed. But I still ate it. I was not in the position to just cut corn out of my life, in order to do that I would need time to phase it out. You can't just raid your kitchen and ban yourself from eating perfectly good food, it isn't economical, practical or accomplishing anything.
It is a life style change that must be taken seriously. Examine your body's needs and how you can meet them successfully with the smallest impact on the earth. It takes a lot of effort to be mindful of yourself when you are so highly dependent on other people and a distant system.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
One Triumph, One Step
Today Lisa Jackson Administrator of the EPA announced a BLOCK on perphaps more than 200 mountaintop removel (MTR) permits being requested by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps contracts companies to extract coal in the most harmful way possible, this includes its own arm...TVA. The fight is not over but, we are winning.
Those who are misinformed will argue that not allowing MTR will shut down an industry in the Appalachian region. This is false. To the contrary MTR is bringing in non-local construction workers and taking AWAY jobs from the local miners.
Stopping MTR will be a benefit to all species, people and ecosystems.
Those who are misinformed will argue that not allowing MTR will shut down an industry in the Appalachian region. This is false. To the contrary MTR is bringing in non-local construction workers and taking AWAY jobs from the local miners.
Stopping MTR will be a benefit to all species, people and ecosystems.
Food Choices
I have recently become a vegetarian (at the start of this year), and this dietary choice is always the first thing I use to make food choices - is it vegetarian? I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian, or someone who eats eggs and dairy. I have been thinking a lot about these choices as well, for a few reasons. First, there have been a lot of articles recently debating the nutritional value of dairy. Is it necessary? There are statistics that say that a majority of East Asians lack the enzyme that properly breaks down dairy, that it is not meant to be in their diet. I believe that dairy should be eaten, but in limited quantities. My reasoning stems from not really a dietary place, but a religious one. The reason that Hindu's "worship cows" is because they play an intrinsic role in the development of the human life by supplying milk to people after the breast-feeding stage is over. Milk is especially important for young children, and the Ghai-ma (Mother Cow) is revered for her role as a secondary mother to children. When my father was young, for instance, my grandmother couldn't nurse him for very long, so my grandpa bought a cow for the house so that my dad could have enough milk. Dairy is important. Plus, it tastes good!
That being said, I still make some food choices that I don't agree with, because it is so ingrained in my lifestyle to eat those foods. The worst, for me, is the late night drunken 555 deals from Domino's. Late night food in general is where I cave in to desires for highly processed, god-knows-whats-in-this foods like frozen pizza, taquitos, and chips. I try pretty hard to be good during the day, but at night (usually after a few drinks), it is so easy to eat these foods that are environmentally unethical. I live about 2 blocks from the Domino's in Tenleytown, and the 7-11 is literally in my backyard, so convenience is also a problem. I have been doing better recently. For instance, I haven't gotten anything from 7-11 recently except for a bag of chips, and haven't ordered 555 deal pizzas from Domino's all semester. Part of this may be because I am a vegetarian, but a lot of it has to do with my consciousness from being in Simon's food politics class last semester.
In the past few days, the least environmentally friendly food choice I've made is eating General Tso's Tofu from Mr. Chen's Organic Chinese Restaurant. Is it really organic? Who knows? The reason I think this is the worst food choice I've made is because of the deforestation that is being done in the Amazon to support an ever-growing demand for soy in the U.S. for things like tofu. The deforestation is horrible, particularly in the most biologically diverse place in the entire western hemisphere. The fact that soy isn't grown locally also means that more corn is being planted in the U.S. to support our processed food needs and to support our biofuels innovation, which is even more carbon-intensive than gasoline can be. This little order of tofu made me think greatly about the effects of my food choices, and how actions I take can help to make a difference. People don't often think that they can take a stance against things, but its empowering to be able to say that I'm a vegetarian because I am against the inhumane slaughter of animals in farm factories, or that supporting meat eating takes up 4-6 more times land than vegetables. I want to learn a lot more about food so that I can make more choices that can effect change in others and the food system.
That being said, I still make some food choices that I don't agree with, because it is so ingrained in my lifestyle to eat those foods. The worst, for me, is the late night drunken 555 deals from Domino's. Late night food in general is where I cave in to desires for highly processed, god-knows-whats-in-this foods like frozen pizza, taquitos, and chips. I try pretty hard to be good during the day, but at night (usually after a few drinks), it is so easy to eat these foods that are environmentally unethical. I live about 2 blocks from the Domino's in Tenleytown, and the 7-11 is literally in my backyard, so convenience is also a problem. I have been doing better recently. For instance, I haven't gotten anything from 7-11 recently except for a bag of chips, and haven't ordered 555 deal pizzas from Domino's all semester. Part of this may be because I am a vegetarian, but a lot of it has to do with my consciousness from being in Simon's food politics class last semester.
In the past few days, the least environmentally friendly food choice I've made is eating General Tso's Tofu from Mr. Chen's Organic Chinese Restaurant. Is it really organic? Who knows? The reason I think this is the worst food choice I've made is because of the deforestation that is being done in the Amazon to support an ever-growing demand for soy in the U.S. for things like tofu. The deforestation is horrible, particularly in the most biologically diverse place in the entire western hemisphere. The fact that soy isn't grown locally also means that more corn is being planted in the U.S. to support our processed food needs and to support our biofuels innovation, which is even more carbon-intensive than gasoline can be. This little order of tofu made me think greatly about the effects of my food choices, and how actions I take can help to make a difference. People don't often think that they can take a stance against things, but its empowering to be able to say that I'm a vegetarian because I am against the inhumane slaughter of animals in farm factories, or that supporting meat eating takes up 4-6 more times land than vegetables. I want to learn a lot more about food so that I can make more choices that can effect change in others and the food system.
food for nutrition.... not for environment
As you know, we'll be talking about food and agriculture during our next couple of sessions. Here are some questions to ponder (and respond to on your blogs) as we look to our next class:
1. What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff?
2. Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why?
As of this past weekend, I have actually just started to really pay attention to the food that I was putting in my mouth, but in regards to nutritional benefits, not with environmental considerations in mind. I find myself--when I ever do decide to think about the food that I am putting into my mouth--always considering it in terms of how if affects me and my health, rather than environmental health. I think about the calories, the food groups, the high fructose corn syrup, and whether or not I really should eat that fifth double stuffed oreo. Of course I would prefer to eat food that is organically grown, but this typically isn't because I would prefer that farmers didn't use pesticides that harm the earth. It is because I would rather not put those nasty chemicals into my body.
Although I will likely never be able to become a vegetarian, I do try to limit my amount of meat intake. But again, this is not because I know that eating meat has large environmental implications in terms of the amount of feed that be fed to each cow, as well as the amount of energy wasted during execution and transport of the beef to the grocery store. This is the sad truth, but I also think that is it a step up from where I was about five years ago, when I would eat basically anything that my mom cooked for dinner. (Although always healthy, I have now been able to adopt her cooking menus in order to make myself healthier).
In the last couple of days, I would say that the Big Mac I ate at McDonald's (gross, I know) had the biggest impact on the environment. I eat mostly at TDR, at which they say they get their food locally grown. So I am trusting them on this, and will admit my failure at succumbing to McDonald's for lunch when TDR was closed. I do not know what went into the process of making this burger, but I am sure that its meat, lettuce, tomatoes, etc... traveled far to get to AU .
1. What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff?
2. Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why?
As of this past weekend, I have actually just started to really pay attention to the food that I was putting in my mouth, but in regards to nutritional benefits, not with environmental considerations in mind. I find myself--when I ever do decide to think about the food that I am putting into my mouth--always considering it in terms of how if affects me and my health, rather than environmental health. I think about the calories, the food groups, the high fructose corn syrup, and whether or not I really should eat that fifth double stuffed oreo. Of course I would prefer to eat food that is organically grown, but this typically isn't because I would prefer that farmers didn't use pesticides that harm the earth. It is because I would rather not put those nasty chemicals into my body.
Although I will likely never be able to become a vegetarian, I do try to limit my amount of meat intake. But again, this is not because I know that eating meat has large environmental implications in terms of the amount of feed that be fed to each cow, as well as the amount of energy wasted during execution and transport of the beef to the grocery store. This is the sad truth, but I also think that is it a step up from where I was about five years ago, when I would eat basically anything that my mom cooked for dinner. (Although always healthy, I have now been able to adopt her cooking menus in order to make myself healthier).
In the last couple of days, I would say that the Big Mac I ate at McDonald's (gross, I know) had the biggest impact on the environment. I eat mostly at TDR, at which they say they get their food locally grown. So I am trusting them on this, and will admit my failure at succumbing to McDonald's for lunch when TDR was closed. I do not know what went into the process of making this burger, but I am sure that its meat, lettuce, tomatoes, etc... traveled far to get to AU .
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Power Shift[ing] the Focus to Technological Based Solutions
Will technology save us? Why, or why not? What does that even MEAN, in environmental terms?
In light of the two recent events in Washington this weekend, Power Shift '09 and the "first mass civil disobedience against global warming in this country," I think that many would agree that technology can be used to save us, but it has also been the major vehicle for destroying us.
In terms of Power Shift '09, swarms of young people, ages 18 to 26 have gathered in Washington, DC for a four day convention on climate change and developing solutions to make our nation have a green economy. The pressure younger generations put on politicians will ultimately be reflected in the amount of green jobs, decreases in emissions, and removal of coal as a source of fuel from our society. These college-age students realize that technology is what may save us. For example, civil engineering students are putting pressure on colleges and Congresspeople to introduce "environmentally friendly building techniques " and "science-based reductions in carbon emissions" to their college curriculum. At Power Shift '09, participants were able to attend a workshop "about integrating the topic of energy efficiency into educational lesson plans." Seems like we're already on our way... we just need to get politicians on board.
Additionally, the protest yesterday, not on the national mall, in front of the Capitol, or at the White House, but in front of the Capitol Hill Power Plant, represented our need to find clean technology solutions to our use of coal for energy. After passing the "Green the Capitol program" in June 2007, the Capitol has taken many steps forward. Hybrid Zipcars, 100% post-consumer recycled paper, biodegradable plates in the cafeterias, and locally grown food-- these all represent successes in technological changes. And these changes will help to save us. Even if the Capitol still needs to work on its largest issue, continuing to use energy from coal burning in the local Power Plant.
What this means in environmental terms? We can use technology to correct our problems. However, we have many of the solutions, but it is going to take massive amounts of pressure on our government to pass legislation and get them to understand that the monetary cost of converting power plants from coal to electric energy, (or even better... to solar and wind power) will be over weighed to the cost placed on our physical health, environmental health, and the monetary cost of both in the future.
If technology doesn't save us, what will?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Possibility in response to the "Tigers"
I am a man of faith and one of reason. I, like John, view technology as a tool to assist man, not one to govern.
Douglas has eloquently outlined a path for our future, as eloquently as any could imagine the extinction of homo sapiens to be that is, but, I do not agree with such a one-way street.
As I stated I am a man of faith, which for me signifies that I have to believe in possibilities. Thus I shall search for reason behind such an assertion of optimism. My analysis of Doug's flowchart is that the "stratification of society" should be at the top of the chart then "innovation" stemming from the rich side and "resource depletion" appearing twice branching from innovation, as well as from the poor column.
In my version of the chart I would also see other streams flowing from innovation such as "intended consequences" which would imply we, as human, would develop technology that would help solve the problems we design them for. Furthermore, what about the beneficial "unintended consequences," many great inventions have been stumbled upon by mistake.
Even as a self declared water conservationist I see hope in our abilities to already create more from less, who's to say this trend won't continue?
Douglas has eloquently outlined a path for our future, as eloquently as any could imagine the extinction of homo sapiens to be that is, but, I do not agree with such a one-way street.
As I stated I am a man of faith, which for me signifies that I have to believe in possibilities. Thus I shall search for reason behind such an assertion of optimism. My analysis of Doug's flowchart is that the "stratification of society" should be at the top of the chart then "innovation" stemming from the rich side and "resource depletion" appearing twice branching from innovation, as well as from the poor column.
In my version of the chart I would also see other streams flowing from innovation such as "intended consequences" which would imply we, as human, would develop technology that would help solve the problems we design them for. Furthermore, what about the beneficial "unintended consequences," many great inventions have been stumbled upon by mistake.
Even as a self declared water conservationist I see hope in our abilities to already create more from less, who's to say this trend won't continue?
Monday, February 23, 2009
$787 billion
According to the New York Times article, "The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion," the $787 billion stimulus plan has listed many opportunities for improving our environment, largely in part by increasing energy efficiency.
The largest portion devoted to energy conservation is a $14 billion tax cut for businesses. The plan promises to "extend production tax credit for wind energy facilities through 2012 and other renewable energy facilities through 2013. Allow renewable facilities to claim investment tax credit instead of production tax credit. Remove cap on investment tax credit for small wind property. Allow renewable energy producers to claim a 30 percent cash grant from the Treasury Department in lieu of the 30 percent investment tax credit." This is an excellent opportunity for businesses to invest in renewable energy and earn a tax incentive to help compensate for the possibility that these types of energy policies actually cost more than in the past.
As a double major in International Relations and Business Administration, I understand that businesses often need to be pressured to make environmental changes that bring a larger cost to their company. If they do not see an increase in their bottom line, then many businesses will not deem the new energy policy necessary. Therefore, the aforementioned tax cut, as well as the "30% investment tax credit for manufacturers of advanced energy property, which may include technology for the production of renewable energy, energy storage, energy conservation, efficient transmission and distribution of electricity, and carbon capture and sequestration," (totaling $1.6 billion) will help to drive businesses toward clean energy solutions.
I do feel that in order to make a change, businesses need to fully be behind the effort. Without big business supporting environmental change, all of our stuff will continue to be made, distributed, and disposed of in environmentally inefficient ways. However, I fully agree with Matt when he states that "People have to 1) know that these options are out there 2) know why it's important and 3) see and feel a connection with the effort." Currently, the American population is concerned with how the $787 billion stimulus plan will fix the economy. But we need to look at the big picture and understand that investing in the environment will ultimately save our economy as well. Hopefully the $20 billion designated for "green" jobs to make wind turbines, solar panels, and improve energy efficiency in schools and federal buildings will be brought into the public eye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)