Environ-Mentally Challenged

Poster mocks topless Judd for coal criticism | BlueRidgeNow.com

2010-07-11T11:16:00.000-07:00

Poster mocks topless Judd for coal criticism | BlueRidgeNow.com

This is outrageous. When did we start allowing such trashy "businessmen" to have the last say on our nation's environment? Is this now just the beginning of what we will have to put up with at oil vomits into the Gulf of Mexico? I bet coal miners and the industry leaders of Massey and TVA are feeling high and mighty now that oil is taking the focus off their own destruction.

During this next couple of years it will be critical to create a solid, usable and encompassing system of monetarily calculating environmental feed back systems. The effects of the recent Gulf Coast oil spill will be, undoubtedly, astronomical. Our gravest mistake as stewards of the planet would be to let it go by and become a faint memory. The TVA coal ash spill of December 2008 is already a ghost. The challenge we face now requires the inclusion of economists, policy makers, scientists and environmentalists. The underlining point here is that if the planet dies, we die. There is no human existence without a healthy planet to support us. We have had the luxury of distancing ourselves from that fact but, we no longer do. Regardless of your "belief" in global climate change, there is no denying the degradation of the planet, we all see it. This is a mirror. The degradation of the planet is subsequently the slow death of the human species.

"Waste to Food" revised

2009-06-06T09:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Eco-IN-justice

2009-05-03T09:38:00.000-07:00

Walking around town on Friday I noticed a disturbing trend in Eco-
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?

2009-04-28T07:54:00.001-07:00

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.

Trading Money for your Soul

2009-04-26T21:03:00.000-07:00

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.

Cradle-to-grave: human design

2009-04-20T23:05:00.000-07:00

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.

Defending the Cradle

2009-04-20T23:01:00.000-07:00

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).

Proof

2009-04-20T23:00:00.001-07:00

Why is it not wise to tell secrets in a cornfield?

2009-03-30T00:13:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

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.

One Triumph, One Step

2009-03-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Food Choices

2009-03-24T07:36:00.000-07:00

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.

food for nutrition.... not for environment

2009-03-24T03:41:00.000-07:00

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 .

Power Shift[ing] the Focus to Technological Based Solutions

2009-03-03T07:52:00.000-08:00

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?

Possibility in response to the "Tigers"

2009-03-02T16:37:00.000-08:00

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?

$787 billion

2009-02-23T17:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Economic Distancing = Eco Distancing

2009-02-23T12:22:00.000-08:00

It is exciting to see a good portion of 40billion dollars working towards cleaner energy sources, more efficient energy usage and less polluting forms of mass transit. On the other hand the troubling aspect is that it's all being done out of sight or, certainly not "in the spotlight." The short film "The Story of Stuff" talks about economic distancing and that a major problem is that we are so far detached from where all of our stuff comes from we don't see how making it all is hurting our environment. I see this stimulus package as a similar let down for us, it's kind of a "don't worry about kids, we'll take care of it." This again just reiterates what the government already does in regards to environmental issues...expects very little of its people.
Why not create jobs through social/community work? People could be trained to then go out and educate and train Americans on living a more green and sustainable lifestyle. Why was this not on the docket? The benefits of such a program would far extend beyond those of just putting more electric buses on the road, who is gullible enough to think that just because it's there people will use it? 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.
Global climate change is something that is affecting every citizen on the planet, it is our common ground. Communities of PEOPLE need to take action not communities of GOVERNMENTS, this isn't a highly complicated economic crisis in which we are mere pawns, this is our planet, our lives and our futures and it is us that will make the difference.

2009-02-17T05:28:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most difficult questions I could think of answering but, luckily this past year my life was graced with many such interactions with nature. Last April, while traveling in Southern China, my best friend and I took trip to the Tiger Leaping Gorge which hugs the West side of The Jade Dragon Mountains. This gorge is one of the highest in the world and holds a very special place in the hearts of the Chinese; as the name suggests there is a jutting plateau from the west side of the gorge out over part of the river where the tiger leaped across to the other side. The hike begins at the southern opening where the river merges with another but, the quickly rising trail takes you higher and higher above the rushing rapids, too dangerous for kayaking.
We climbed at such a rate that we could note the change in vegetation and soil color every few minutes. Once making it through the treacherous 28 Bends, a test of will and physical ability you discover THE ledge from where the tiger made its infamous leap. Slowly stepping out onto the ledge the stories of hikers who have died here recently quickly enter your mind but, the majesty of the surroundings calls you further. The longest river in China rushing at a steep and immediate 4000m below. The two of us sat in silence, our thoughts connected through the awe we were both feeling, the convergence of mountain, river, man and heavens was undeniable. No one would want to deny such a intertwining of souls.

Gateway to the Valley

2009-02-17T04:26:00.000-08:00

What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
The summer before my Junior Year of high school I went on a two-week trip to Yosemite National Park, where I went on a 3-day backpacking excursion with a group of girl scouts from all around the United States. The park itself is magical, as much of it seems so untouched by human presence, which made me feel like an intruder. The waterfalls were hundreds of feet high and the beauty of Half Dome and El Capitan were simply breathtaking.

But this particular afternoon captured an experience that I will likely only see again on a Discovery Channel episode. One afternoon after setting up our camp for the night, the girls and I decided to go exploring around our site. While walking through the fields, we suddenly caught sight of two male deer running into each other, backing away, and running into each other again. For over ten minutes the antlers clashes and the intensity soared as we anxiously waited. It was not until at least two minutes into the fighting that we noticed a lone female deer standing slightly off to the side. It was such a remarkable experience, to witness the two males fighting over the female. I will never forget this experience for as long as I live. (Although very tiny, the three deer are in the picture to the left... take a look and see if you can find them!)

Part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Saving nature is something we should absolutely be concerned with. It is so ridiculously important to protect parks such as Yosemite, not only because of the serenity it brings to those who live there, but also to the many species of animals and plants for which it is home. Stephen M Meyer's expresses his fear that there is "virtually no place left on Earth" that fits the definition for wilderness in "The End of the Wild." Others suggest that National Parks provide this specific environment for many species to live in, making it impossible for them to survive if this environment disappears or is ruined by human interaction. However, we need to be concerned with saving nature in all forms. We need to make sure that we are not intruding into areas with "relic species" and doing more than our best to protect what we have left.

Holding Our Hands

2009-02-08T10:25:00.000-08:00

Prof. Maniates is right. We have yet to see politicians with enough spine to lay it out like it is and care more about the lives of Americans than their re-election. They are holding our hands, hoping that they are doing enough to keep environmentalists happy and simultaneously not pushing too hard on us in order to not seem like radicals.

One thing the professor does not point out is that politicians and even environmentalists are too comfortable with their way of life to really make the sacrifices and changes that have to be made. But in doing the "simple" things and preaching them and supporting them they are able to ease their own minds and feel like they are doing "something," which, is better than nothing, so we've been told.

This all stems from two things 1) a lack of urgency felt in the general American public about global climate change which then also ties very closely to 2) uncertainty, if a unified voice could express a clear idea it would be easier for people to get on board. People don't know what to believe so they abstain form taking a stance and wait, wait to see for themselves. Thanks to perfectly planned economic distancing, by the time people are able to see the impact of their lives on the planet and make up their minds on this issue it will probably be too late.

President Obama - a chance for political promotion of environmental change?

2009-02-06T08:42:00.000-08:00

This week I'd like you to read and comment on this piece, which appeared in the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day last year. The article was written by Michael Maniates of Allegheny College, one of the authors of the "Confronting Consumption" chapter we read for our last class. What do you make of Professor Maniates' argument?

Yes, yes, yes. We in order to save our planet, we need to do WAY more than the list of everyday changes an American can make in his or her daily life. But is the typical American actually as concerned, eager, and willing to go beyond the "little bit to recycle and conserve" or "simple things... because... that's all they think we'll go for." Tell an American to carry around a portable, reusable coffee container, or Nalgene water bottle, and they may be very willing to do so--as long as it is cute, has some slogan about reusing/recycling, or in some way portrays a status symbol they are trying to portray. But I am currently sitting in the Davenport Lounge right now, and there are at least eight throwaway cups being used that I can see without getting up from my seat.

Professor Maniates professes that environmental elites and political leaders treat us as children by not requiring us bring forth the best in us in regards to enivornmental change. The reason that this is their method, I believe, is that many Americans still do not make the effort to even do the little things that make each days environmental impact less. A recent fad on Facebook is to post 25 random facts, thoughts, goals about yourself, and then tag 25 friends friends who are supposed to do the same. One of my friends recently posted this on his list: "19) I know that recycling is really great, but I hate taking those extra steps in order to recycle. TRASH IT IS!" See today's Washington Post article, 25. We Never Do Random Things. Until We Do. for an interesting insight on this phenom. But what I really want to explain, is that it is easier to tell the population to make these little changes, that more people are willing to do.

I have hopes that President Barack Obama will continue to work to environmental change, which he has already shown to be a key concern in his administration. New Energy for America will not only provide jobs for many Americans, but help us create new sources of power and lead to environmental changes that would not progress under the governance of George Bush. I believe that there are thousands of Americans who place environmental change at the forefront of their concerns, and much of this was demonstrated during Obama's campaign, and hopefully these Americans can fulfill Maniates hopes that our political leaders will now help sponsor and invest in our future by environmental changes. In the meantime, we must continue to impress upon those who do not consider environmental issues important to continue reducing their environmental impact one small, simple step at a time.

Beyond the wall

2009-02-01T06:46:00.000-08:00

It is is my opinion that the greatest challenge facing our environment today is the innate human characteristic of stubbornness and our unwillingness to change. As of late, the necessity of the notion that we must be "greening" our lifestyles has become widespread but, then the wall is hit. People are concerned, people want Earth to continue living but, people don't want to do what it takes for that to happen.

It becomes a sociological issue. How do we convince, and change the minds of millions enough to where they are beyond educated on the issues but, are enlightened? Millions who have had the luxury of being American, Western, privileged (environmentally and economically). How do we inspire the need to look beyond one's self and "shrink" the world in terms of conscious thought?

The eco-terrorist inside of me desires a depression. As with the Great Depression people learned to value everything, nothing was wasted, luxuries like gas and electricity were not taken for granite. People of that era still hold this mindset. Losing faith in people and their ability to take charge and and create change on their own freewill has led me to ponder, what if it were forced? What if people had no choice but to live more simply, to conserve water because they could not afford the bills, take colder showers to save electricity, grow their own food because after losing their jobs their savings had dwindled? Can anyone argue that in this context a depression of such nature would be bad? I am not a communist but I am realist.