Like John, my conversation was not with someone who is against the belief that the environment is an issue that needs immediate action, but there were still many aspects that we disagreed on.
After establishing how important this issue was to him, I asked my friend what he thought would be the next best steps to work towards resolving the issue. He responded by saying that he thought that the steps taking by the Obama administration have been the right ones, because they not only enforce new regulation but also give economic incentives to move towards greener means of practice.
I then asked him how he would go about convincing the average American citizen that the environment is a matter that needs to be addressed, given that the economy is the number one issue on everyone's mind. His response was that economic incentives are the best way to get people on board with reforms, especially at this time of economic recession. Giving companies and individuals subsidies if they moved towards greener practices seems to be the best method to persuade people to make changes in the way they operate, according to him.
We both agreed on the fact that it is hard to make people see how urgent of an issue this is because of the lack of tangible evidence. People only choose to believe what they see and while there might have been ample of methods that scientists have utilised to show people the truth, most have a hard time conceptualising all of it. My thought are that it will take something drastic to happen, before we finally take the action we need to take, and by then it might be too late. He, on the other hand, is more positive and believes that we have the time and the potential to pull ourselves out of the ditch we have dug ourselves in to. I agree that we have the time and the potential to make changes, but that is only if we actively work towards them immediately. The problem is that, too often, we cannot be bothered to inconvenience ourselves to make changes if we are comfortable where we are, even if these changes mean that we will be more efficient and even, quite possibly, more comfortable.

My conversation was not with a climate-change skeptic. I don’t know too many of those. Rather, I had a lively debate with my best friend, deciding on which of the pressing issues the world faced it should deal with first. He is an avid supporter of human rights, and I an equally strong proponent of environmentalism. The issues he posed were these: third-world exploitation, cultural imperialism, indigenous peoples’ rights, racism, sexism, paternalism...the list goes on and on. I, on the other hand, defined our most important issues in environmental terms: exploitation of natural resources, cultural consumerism, the defense of indigenous plants against invaders, speciesism, anthropocentrism, and pollution.
We came to some conclusions and agreements right away. A lot of his issues were intertwined with mine—the exploitation of natural resources is, at the same time in many places the exploitation of impoverished nations. Pollution from the haves is increasingly and negatively affecting the have-nots. And it is a false dichotomy to say that this issue or that should be addressed first. There are all kinds of people and organizations working to remedy every wrong that has been committed, against man or nature, and it is not as though everyone must turn their full attention to one issue at the expense of another.
However, on the individual level the problems are big enough that we cannot dabble in civil rights and deep ecology at the same time. If one has the aim to change the world for the better, one must first decide what needs his or her attention the most desperately. I have decided to focus on the environment not because I don’t believe in human rights but because I am convinced that if drastic changes aren’t brought to our food, transportation, and energy systems then we will see more human suffering than ever before (this is not the entire story—I must admit that what scares me just as much is the destruction of Nature that has so far resulted and will only worsen if we do not change our ways—but I had to focus on the human cost because, as Alex pointed out, it is best to promote your arguments by the logic of the person you’re attempting to persuade). My friend, however, found it hard to try to widen the scope of ethics to include ecology when humanity has a hard enough time treating its members fairly.
We debated. It was heated but friendly (we’ve had enough practice disagreeing), but in the end nothing had changed. Of course, in this scenario I don’t consider it a loss at all. We need people working to protect people from other people as well as people working to protect the environment from people and people from polluted environments.

The circumstances around the beginnings of my environmental conversation are a bit fuzzy, but in the end I can say it was one of the most encompassing and engrossing I've had in recent memory. I had been enjoying the nightlife in Adams Morgan, and when my two friends and I began our walk back to the apartment the conversation too began.

The conversation first began about a girl that my friend had been spending time with only to find that she had a long-term boyfriend. Rather than table the uncomfortable issue right there, we decided to evaluate the situation using some the common debate passageways of the ethos, the logos, and the pathos. I will not go to in depth about the results of the first leg of the argument, but needlessly to say--even though both sides of the issue were vigorously exercised-- my friend made the right choice. Yet it was here that we began to make an evaluation of the very debate style we had been using. Could everything be encapsulated into one of the categories? Were these elements revelatory pathways to understanding reason or compassion or were they merely blinders that would force us to miss things? Fortunately, one of my friends, Friend A we will call him, was willing to make a stand that whatever could not be explained logos or ethos was truly a pathos. We considered the issues of environment and the world that persists around, wondering whether or not most people would even bother to debate over their lifestyles.

The logical arguments are clear said Friend A as are the ethical ones. It is merely a matter of not working enough on the control that the pathos can have on people. He stated that people could be appealed to for compassion or at the very least fear to move forward. It was at this point where my other friend--B-- stepped in being a very deliberate thinker. "Yes, but do people continue to work for fear or compassion when they are more closely surrounded by mundane "necessities"? We can't expect them to stay fearful when the effects of what is happening are being shipped across space and time."

"Do we not need to indict our leaders for not taking a greater part in the move for action?" I said. Of course, this spawned a large tangent about a whole mess of issues concerning leadership, people stealing recent elections in northern states etc etc. Eventually, however, we were began to evaluate whether or not leaders were really not just like any other person who could not be appealed to to make change. Perhaps in trying to be leaders they were giving up their freewill to merely be a voice of constituents and interest groups. The conversation continued on for some time and eventually returned to an evaluation on our debate pathways. It was perhaps most revealing that we could talk to each other and concede points and win in others, yet such a debate is never possible or sought on the issues at stake on a large enough scale to truly matter. Even 3 intelligent FRIENDS could not decide whether conventional ways of appeal were even worth using let alone what would be the best angle to approach another.

Go for the Relatives

My dad has long associated himself with the conservative cause. Going along with the conservative line of the day, he long was a global warming skeptic - up until this past semester, in fact.

What I found with him, and with most people who are climate skeptics, is that they have associated themselves with the Republican party and the conservative cause, to varying degrees. Often this was their upbringing - for my father, his immediate and extended family were all from the South. Though I have no data to numbers to back this up, I think Civil War era divisions are still at the root of the split in this country (just look at the presidential election map). Many people in the south still think of northerners as Damn Yanks, and northerners consider southerners backwards hicks.

For my dad, and I think most people, where they stand on the issues is largely determined by where their family stood before them. Politics is not nearly as conscious as it should be. For most people, when they are not already knowledgeable on an issue, they are not going to bother to become so, unless it seriously behooves them to do so.

The party line provides an easy cop out to actual research into the issues. This is one of the larger problems I have with the party system that we have, but I won't digress anymore.

Regarding climate change, my dad had a basic knowledge of the conservative line regarding climate change. It took me awhile to convince him otherwise, but eventually I did. The biggest factors in convincing him was tailoring my argument to him. I had to convince him using things he was familiar with and respected. For some people this is religion, for others this is broad distaste for big government (or government at all). I lucked out because for my dad, it was science with a little dab in politics (both of which I have extensive background in).

He had always gone along with party line and never really thought much of it because it didn't affect him. I think my choice to focus on environmental issues in my academic life made him reconsider what he had always followed. Broader than that, the last election provided the perfect stage upon which I could engage him and my entire family in a debates over prominent issues in the election. My parents had never really engaged these issues head on before, but my focus on them brought them to reconsider their views.

This is a trend I see with many people. When family members, or friends that they deeply respect are passionate about certain issues, they reconsider. This was the case for former VA Senator John Warner, who's grandchildren convinced him of the reality of climate change. It has been the same with many people, on many issues (Even Dick Cheney and Gay Rights via his daughter). The lesson I take from this is that, if you want to get to someone high up who otherwise wouldn't give you the time of day - get to someone they care about, who will do the convincing for you.

I have, thus far, really enjoyed reading William McDonough and Michael Braungart's piece and it is definitely great to finally see a positive side after a semester of pretty depressing factoids. It is indeed empowering to see this two gentlemen step away from the norm and bring about change in their own respective fields.

One of the reasons I have enjoyed this read the most is because of the experience these two authors bring. They have both been involved in sustainable solutions for a while now and have a lot of experience which makes it easier to take their word and believe what they have to say. Hence, I am a lot less skeptical perusing through their book as compared to other texts we encountered in the duration of this course.

I especially enjoyed the beginning, where they analyse the waste of an average family whose members might think they are conscious about their effects on the environment, but who unknowingly continue to out a strain on the planet. They don't just criticise and preach, but, rather, they show how they have been able to make changes in the way they operate.

They provide optimism and advice on how there is still hope and ways in which we can save ourselves from all the damage we have done. And while it is great to hear that, I am not sure if I am entirely convinced. Sure, there are plenty of alternatives to our wasteful ways of living and I believe that. The problem I see us having to face is convincing people that it is imperative to move away fro our ways immediately if we expect to overcome our mistakes. People know there is a problem and because they do not see any major effects just yet, most are unwilling to move away from the comfortable lives they currently possess. Until something drastic occurs, I do not viably see any changes being made. Alas, when that drastic event occurs, it might be too late. I hate to end on such a dire note, especially when these two authors are so positive about our planet's future, but those are my honest sentiments and I hope that I am proven wrong!

I really appreciate the spirit of Cradle to Cradle because Braungart and McDonough display optimism. This is an essential element if people are to have any hope of correcting their course. They claim to see a world of endless possibility. I too can see no reason to limit the human imagination or deny it any chance for creativity. In so much of what the two men present, there is a sort of childlike quality. No doubt that stems more from the limits most people are satisfied being confined to in adulthood than from any true open imagination gateways that only children have. I really love their evaluation of how the current designs bulletpoints would appear. It is a perfect indictment of the absurdity of the systems we "thrive" on. I believe them when they say that cities can breathe and release and contain energy according to intelligent, lightweight, and beautifully simple design. I believe them when they say that cars can glean energy in a quiet way. When it comes down to it, the principle they live on is that the theoretically possible is indeed possible. If we can see it in our brand and begin transubstantiate thought into matter, the world can begin to change. Frankly that is the least difficult part to believe because it has already happened.

What cannot be taken for granted is whether people have this innovation in their minds and in their hearts. If a fire is not lit for our leaders to move collectively with responsive citizens to change, no quick change will come. And it is at this point where I believe I stray from Braungart and McDonough because I do not feel that we have much time. This is essential to remember because I can only concede that is "anything is possible" when there is a long enough timeline. Design is essential, but clean energy has not proven easy to extract in unnatural ways. Can we wait for new forms of this essential part of design puzzle? Will changing cause us to damn ourselves before the new, long-term, renewable sources actually come to a point where they can sustain us. I feel very much in need of an experience to jar from a critical perspective that fears failure. Perhaps the authors' strength is that they know simply that failure is unacceptable.

Vision and Post-Environmentalism

I loved reading this book. It stands in stark contrast to the majority of environmental works preaching doom and gloom. I see that some people think this book is a bit lofty and naïve, I disagree. The vision that McDonough and Braungart set out is just that – a vision. They are simply putting out there a goal, an ideal, that they recognize is just that, an ideal.

Without this ideal, environmentalists have been ineffective. Traditional environmentalists are much more about breaking everything down and excising the cancer that is man from Nature. This book lays out a vision for what the environmental movement should strive for, instead of just working against things. This has been one of the largest criticisms of the traditional environmental movement; they fight industry but don’t really offer an alternative vision.

Cradle to Cradle is that vision. It is the flagship for the post-environmental movement, which I count myself among. Certainly this vision won’t be realized in the near (10, 20, 50, 100 years) future. But, it gives sustainability advocates a goal to work towards. And, it provides a more optimistic vision that translates better with normally non-environmentally inclined people. They see this integrative vision, and see that is does not simply breakdown industry and the social fabric; it offers what they see as a legitimate (and probably better than the status quo) alternative.

Cradle to Cradle: We may have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater

Cradle to Cradle has got me thinking in new ways—I must credit it with that. Never before had I given so much thought to closed-loop production cycles, or all of the hazards of cradle to grave production. I begin reading the book in the library, but by the tenth page was starting to feel nervous and out of place, worried that my fidgeting would lead to abrasions of my clothes and the carpet and the table and that I might be breathing in any number of poisonous fumes without knowing. I quickly moved outside, where I was much better able to focus on the book and not the threatening presence of so many untested synergies of mostly unknown mixtures of chemicals.

I liked most about the book its fresh ideas. Instead of coming up with a better answer to the question of environmental efficiency, it presents a new question: eco-effectiveness. To live in such a way that human activity benefits nature—I have hopes that it might someday be a reality. However, I feel that the book may have oversimplified the issues involved and their solutions.

Take the book itself. Made from a special plastic, it has the possibility to be upcycled indefinitely. The ink can wash off, and new words could be printed on it. However, exactly what chemical washes this ink off? How is it produced? Transported? Packaged? What happens to the ink-water combination? Some of these questions are resolved in the book, which presents baby-steps for companies to introduce these new concepts. However, what happens in the mean-time, while chemicals are still harmful and cars still pollute? I am afraid that the time it would take to convert the world economy into a cradle to cradle is too long—our old ways might rob the cradle of its possibility and leave us with nothing. Already, the Earth’s ability to sustain future generations is called into question. What kind of time do we have to change our ways? Less, I think, than what it would require to change the world one soap-company and car manufacturer at a time.

Sorry to be so dreary, I know that this book was supposed to bring us some uplifting. Please, someone, prove me wrong.

After reviewing the two websites, I’ve come to the conclusion that global warming does indeed exist.
Supporting evidence (not proof, because, as Coby Beck reminds us, proof belongs to the domain of mathematics, not science):

The “friends of science” appear to know very little science. None of their claims about the “myths” of global warming are backed up by cited research. Also, and I quote, “Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.” This kind of faulty logic is the kind of stuff I’ve seen while going through their website. Both gases, when released by mechanisms outside of the natural cycle, are pollutants. While the “friends of science” were trying to prove global warming wrong, they presented a graph used by “climate alarmists,” to show the strong trend upwards in global temperature over the last forty years. Using another graph (of the sine curve), the “friends of science” proved that the first graph could not possibly have a strong trend upwards if it was part of a normal cycle of events. In such a “normal cycle of events,” trends go up and down, and if one looks only at the immediate rate and recent past, he or she would be mistaken in thinking that trend is down or flat or rising, or whatever the normal cycle was doing at that point. But to assume that the trend of rising temperatures is part of a normal cycle of events is fallacious; to use your conclusion to support premises are, as even they remind us, illogical and ungrounded. On the other hand, if I were a climate change skeptic, and as my objections and “facts” started to crumble around me, as more and more evidence is added to the other side, I might have chosen to resort to invalid or inconsistent arguments too.

The other website was full of data, cited research, and compelling facts. Though it presents an idea that neither I nor anyone else (I don’t think) really want to exist, overwhelming evidence shows us that, yes, indeed global warming is happening. It is up to us to do what we can to face it and mitigate it, but first we have to accept it. I agree with my colleagues that it is a little childish—the name is rather condescending even. However, as Romm points out, scientists are not good at repeating the same thing over and over. Nor will they argue about things that have already been established. As much as I wish that people could be rational and accept scientific fact as such, it seems to me that is up to the rhetoricians of the world to convince it.

PR Battles

The Friends of Science site basically wipes the floor with Grist's 'How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic'. Both the web design and the language used in Friends of Science is much better than Grist's. People want information to be well packaged, simple, and straightforward.

The clarity in type, page layout, and eye-pleasing blue background make reading the information on the page much more pleasant than Grist's much narrower page layout with way too many links and much less pleasing-to-the-eye to the eye white background. +1 to Friends of Science in the PR Battle.

The fact that Grist's page of links is much longer than the Friends of Science page of 10 straightforward 'myths' and 'explanations', is another indicator of loosing the PR battle. +1 to Friends of Science. People do not want to click 261 separate links (Yes, I counted). If I as an environmentalist am put off by their website, how can they ever hope to get skeptics to wade through their poor web design?

The fact that Grist has so much information is laudable, but it also hints at the fact that many environmentalists and climate scientists still do not realize that they are not in a battle of science, they are in a PR Battle. It is understandable that scientists speak in science. But, they (and we) need to realize that the vast majority of the public does not. They need to think back and remember that most people didn't like school, and especially didn't like their science and math classes. To expect all these people to reason through science is, unfortunately, naive. People think in terms of money and people. Grist's site fails to recognize this. +1 to Friends of Science.

I could go on, but really the result is the same. Until the environmental movement learns to speak in popular terms, they will not only lose the war, but most of the battles as well.

After looking at both the websites, I will have to agree with what Siram said in his post published below. If these websites are intended to change the opinion of people in the opposite group, I don't think they have succeeded in doing so. It is so interesting that such vastly difference exist and both consider themselves to be truly scientific websites, created with no intention of profit. As Siram mentioned, the fact that there is still so much ambiguity around this subject as to whether we can concretely say that global warming is a problem or not, continues to impede our progress on solving it, if it indeed does exist.
I found that both the sites seemed to attack the other side rather aggressively, in their attempts to prove the other side wrong, and I am not quite sure whether that is the best approach. When you are trying to convince someone of an opposing viewpoint your own beliefs, it might almost be more effective to at least acknowledge the other side before you go into your rant of why your ideology is better. However, I will admit that they do a good job of going through all the so called "myths" of each side and disprove them one by one quite effectively.
If you are an ordinary person, who had no opinion on the topic, was to stumble on both of these websites right after the other, I'm not really sure whether they would walk away having formed an opinion. Both sites claim to be credible, scientific websites, not designed for profit, but rather to educate, which makes it even harder to judge how reliable they actually are.
Content wise, I think that WWF was more convincing, but it also might be because I tend to agree with what they say more than the other website.

Upon investigating both of these websites, there exists one great barrier to effectiveness in both of them. Being a college student who is supposed to thinking critically and examine bias, both of these sites do little to even mask their prejudice. One of the greatest problems with the climate change debates is arriving at a true scientific consensus, a definitive proven conclusion. Is global warming happening or not? As one of the websites conveys, these sorts of absolutes rarely exist in science. There is always debate regardless of the issue, and while some issues seem to have breakthroughs, the whole truth seems to never come to light. Newton laws even break down at high enough speeds after all. Admittedly there does seem to be a vast consensus on the issue on the side of climate change being real and immediate. Yet it seems that somewhere between the unbiased media, certain peoples' interests, and varying projections the impetus for action falls flat.

Likely Friends of Science's existence is both a driver of the this confusion and ennui and a result of it. Perhaps some people want comfort or easy answers. Others may need support for their livelihood, business practices, or policy support. Others may genuinely be seeking all scientific works to come to a conclusion. Still, the point remains that neither one of these sites is going to convince someone who is of the opposite mindset. Certainly this could be more a comment on the stubbornness of the human perception, but the debunking myths approach lacks subtlety taking swats at myths whose argument the FoS actually frame with their own their words and interests in mind. Seemingly, the CFC-ozone issue had more of a incentive to change because of testing results being frightening. Does it then make sense to believe that the climate change issue can be solved by two sides arguing to change each others' minds with contrasting science whose results can vary based on region. To nail down the weather patterns of the whole world is difficult because no one trend is visible in every region nor is the issue sequestered in one region. I did not find either of these sites very illuminating. They throw models up and make claims. They are not going to mystify me with science graphs, though the actual idea of weather and biology is incredibly mystifying. They are only going to confuse and bog down my mind. I admit my own bias leads me to believe that climate change is real and immediate. Perhaps I was never going to like the Friends of Science site. Yet the WWF site was designed in the same childish, argumentative style that serves the interests of no one, merely causes the debate to fester.

2 and a half days without corn

Epic Failure.

I took on the challenge starting after class on Tuesday. It lasted 3 days. I decided that I would completely cut out anything that had corn, corn products, or ate corn ever in it's life. This would have been much easier to accomplish if I was buying and preparing my own food. Unfortunately, as a freshman I am forced to eat most of my meals in TDR. This diet simply doesn't work when you don't have control over what food options are available. I could not eat any of the foods which are my staples, so I had to rediscover the options available in TDR. This in itself has proven to be a good thing. My diet is more diverse post-no-corn experiment. TDR has very, very few foods which don't fit somewhere in the corn cycle. About the only food I could eat was fruit, black beans, and granola(which I'm still not sure whether it's corn-free or not because one of my friends mentioned that it had butter, but I couldn't find any mentioned in the maker's recipe). This was a HUGE calorie reduction for me. I'm used to eating probably 3,000-4,000 calories a day. The beginning of this diet also coincided with me beginning my bike training for this summer when I'm biking from Venice across through Southern France, then up the coast to Brittany, over to Paris, and up into Belgium. So the reduction in calories, plus a significant drop in protein (TDR's bean supply was irregular, they only had beans at 2 of the 7 meals I ate), coupled with me training for this bike ride resulted in me losing weight at an alarming rate. So, I stopped. Another effect of the options available at TDR was that I ate probably 15 to 20 servings of fruit a day, with no grains to absorb the acid, such that by the third day, my stomach was burning with acid, and tissue in my mouth had begun to be eaten away by the acid.

All of this succeeded very well in demonstrating the extent to which corn has pervaded our food system, which is very alarming from many perspectives - health, economic, security, etc.

I failed. I wish I could say that I didn’t. I think it might have been possible. I like vegetables and cooking and fresh produce, and find processed food kind of gross. However, I don’t have time to check ingredients, or to find substitutes, or to make every meal from scratch. I have presentations and papers and a job and friends and no money. Find me over the summer, and I could do this. I could totally do it.

In my defense, I made it a day (I think). To do this, I had to avoid TDR (who knows what goes on in those kitchens?) as well as the frozen dinners and pizzas that I had. Instead, I made noodles and vegetable stir fry. But the next morning, not thinking, I had cheerios. The web tells me that modified corn starch is the second ingredient in the cereal. From there I only got worse. I went out to eat with friends, ended up at Chipotle, and realized that their tortillas are made of corn after ordering one. I pulled a box of muffins out of the dumpster behind a local grocery store, and after biting into one realized that it was a corn-bread muffin. I made vegan banana bread, and was doing fine until I added baking powder. My failures, I’m sure, go on.

However, I did have very limited corn intake, mostly due to life-choices and less to do with this near-impossible assignment. I don’t drink pop (diet or otherwise), I don’t like twinkies or oreos, and am wary of anything with ingredients that I can’t pronounce or find in a farmer’s market. I've been waging my own personal war on high-fructose corn syrup for some time.

This (attempted) experience was eye-opening. There used to exist a time (not so long ago) when people knew and had intimate connections with the food that they ate. Now, we have so little time and money and energy to devote to food that we don’t even know what we’re putting into our mouths. When corn is subsidized so heavily, it is bound to find its way onto our plates.

Maize: Stacking the Deck

Had this been a competition with some prize riding on it, I believe all of us challenged to avoid corn or corn derivatives in our diet would have reason to complain. Our lives are simply inundated by corn. In some ways, I can see this as a blessing. Corn is simply incredible in its versatility. However, to be challenged to avoid for a week is quite separate from a blessing, much like it must be to have a corn allergy. Eating in America without consuming corn or its derivatives is something akin to trying to drive a pickup that has no metal in it. I left class last Tuesday not having eaten anything and proceeded to run straight into my first dilemma. I went to Subway to have a sandwich. Not having seen the list I started with the assumption that high fructose corn syrup is everywhere today. I knew I could not have any dressing on my sandwich, and those who know know that a sandwich needs something for lubrication. I then wondered if the bread might not have been sweetened with some amount of the corn syrup. My calculations were later confirmed... The difficulty it seems is that I simply have no say in the way that so many of the processed goods that are a staple part of my diet are made. I suppose if corn is subsidized and can be used in so many ways, it will be.

If I were to break down my diet, it would consist of meat proteins, whatever vegetable or fruit produce can be gathered at a market, carbohydrates in the form of starches in potatoes and pasta or couscous, fats and oils (for cooking and from animal proteins), rice, limited dairy, and then just junk. Now junk is really any condiment ever made, the clearly processed crud that are snacks/drinks etc, even juices more than likely are largely junk. So, the surprising challenge is I can eat the animal proteins (mainly chicken I suppose) and the produce (excluding corn) avoiding the dreaded maize because I assume that none should be added to these things in their processing. Then again, the animals I eat were fed corn, so including myself in the food chain, that would have to be excluded. I am not even entirely sure what it is the pastas I buy. Anything with even a hint of sweetness is suspect because corn syrup is cheaper than sugar. Sugar, the thing that had us oppressing millions for centuries to provide us with stimulant, and we have supplanted with another plant that is so processed that it can hardly be considered a plant anymore. I feel powerless. I have no say in where the things I eat come from because I do not grow them, and the dollar dictates what should be put into them. The dollars it costs to make them. The dollars we spend to buy them.

I do not want food to be so thoroughly run through a system to reach me, but it happened before I was born. I know that no food would reach me without the system. I know not enough Americans farm for everyone to go buy what has been grown within 50 to 100 miles. What was most frightening is that corn is not only the food but the means for conveying the food-- the plastic, the spark plugs in the trucks that move it, even the fuel sometimes. The vitality of our food is lost in the confusing maize *cough cough* constructed that is so effective our evading our eyesight while stuffing our mouths. Corn is a fine plant that evokes seasonal senses and memories, but what has happened when we have forgotten that seasonal cooking was once the only cooking? If it grew naturally in winter, you were thankful and ate it. Knowing that not much did, people canned vegetables like my grandmother still does for the winter. I used to think that was so silly considering I could always go the market and grab whatever I wanted year round. I question how is anything special or a treat if it is always there, always mediocre like our tomatoes? Then I question, how have we lost the idea of everything in moderation so thoroughly? Corn can be everywhere all the time, but should it be?

Cornsumption

This week I've challenged you to go a week without eating anything containing corn or corn derivatives. On your blogs this week I'd like you to write about the experience. How easy or hard has this been for you? Did you come across anything particularly challenging or surprising? What did the overall experience teach you about the contemporary US food system?

After a week of trying to have a corn-free diet, I really have only one thing to post: It must really suck to be allergic to corn and living in the United States! Corn is without doubt king in this country and it almost feels like there is no escaping it!

My first step was to look at all of the three websites and figure out exactly what I could and could not eat, and man, those lists were daunting! I am a person who definitely enjoys her food and was worried that this week would be one where I would end up hungry for the most of it. No cereal, no caramel, no vegetable oil, no instant coffee or tea, no potato chips and not even salad dressing! It feels like if you want to avoid corn absolutely, the only true option you have is to eat plain, raw salads. Or it might just be that I am not creative enough to think of alternative options.

I feel like this would have been much easier had I been back home, than here on campus. Most of my meals are either consumed in TDR or the Tavern, and even if you try to be careful with what you put on your plate, there is no guarantee that it was not cooked in corn or vegetable oil. In TDR, the safest bet would be the salad bar, but I would still need to add some salad dressing to that! When I am back home, we usually cook Indian food, and we don't normally use corn for much. Most of the food is cooked in either sesame or olive oil and we normally don't use corn in most of our dishes. I am not a soda person either, so I usually stick to water or milk during my meals.

I think this challenge made me realise how hard it must be for people who are allergic to corn in any capacity, because their options are very slim. Again, I might just lack creativity in thinking of meal choices, but the ones I was presented here on campus were definitely not that great in number. I think that the US contemporary food system needs to take a step back from this crop and think of alternatives. I did not even mention the indirect consumption of corn we get from consuming meat in our diets! I praise those who were able to complete the challenge without consuming corn at all for this week! I know that I was not able to do it!

Eating with Environmental Awareness - A New Concept for me

1. What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff?

Until just recently (this semester), I am sad to say, that I have rarely if ever taken environmental considerations into account when making food choices. Save the immediate, obvious health concerns of food served or prepared in a dirty environment, my ecological impact did not ever cross my mind. Writing this post has made me ponder what the reason for this is: Part of it is lack of exposure to ecological thought concerning food. I was raised in a wealthy suburb of Dallas, and both of my parents work full-time jobs, so we spent more nights of the week eating out than preparing food at home. On top of that, I usually didn't accompany my mom to the grocery store, so not only did I not experience the cooking process, I also didn't really know much about grocery shopping or the different options that are available. Because of all this, I was extraordinarily distanced from the modern industrial agricultural system that our food comes from today. This semester, I am finally delving into environmental issues head first. I was pulled into the movement in opposition to fossil-fuel induced climate change, but have since seen that my scope of environmental thought was fairly narrow. Most of my life I have had a very American diet. TONS of meat, processed junk food, WAY too many calories for my body size. I have actually conducted numerous food experiments in my life, though until recently these were entirely exercises in self-will and health based endeavors. Beginning this semester though, I have begun thinking about the environmental impact of my food choices. I have cut back on meat. I have greatly increased the proportion of my diet that is plants.

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?

Monday, I had granola, yogurt, canteloupe, 4 hard boiled eggs' egg-whites, and a banana for breakfast. I had a boxed lunch with a turkey sandwich, yogurt, an apple, and a banana for lunch. For dinner, I had three servings of mexican enchilasagna bake, a serving of pasta, two slices of pesto cheese pizza, and some rice. This morning's breakfast consisted of yogurt, canteloupe, grapes, and an apple for breakfast. Monday's dinner is without a doubt my least environmentally friendly, as well as least healthy, meal. The quantity of food that I ate, along with the food's composition of hamburger meat (in the enchilasagna) make that meal the least environmentally friendly by far.

The Trick of It All Is...

...turn your brain off. Stop thinking. Step away from your thoughts. Take a bite. Sometimes it seems like one of those game show competitions where the contestants have been toiling away for an hour perfecting their craft and must finally just step away for fear of disqualification. With all the concerns that can go into eating today to achieve a environmentally friendly diet can lead to some toil and perfecting.

To be honest, I wonder sometimes if being a farmer would not be the best life choice for me. I do enjoy something about the outdoors, and the exhaustion of a hard day's labor is uplifting. Of course, that this idea pops into my head each day before I eat something is likely not very helpful. I have to admit my diet is not to the point where I want to be yet. I have not completely removed animal protein or even red meat from my diet. I was raised eating family meals which were well balanced with carbohydrates, a few vegetable options, and a protein entree. The most important part of this I believe was that it was a family meal, and I learned how to cook quite well, even exceeding my parents interest in different ways of preparation, flavor profiles, along with textural and visual elements. Thus it was with these things in mind that I began to get into cooking for myself and choosing meals. I still indulge in far too much junk food and use college lifestyles as an excuse. Yet, more recently with an expanded knowledge of the risk factors in meat protein or the mercury scares with fish like tuna, I have started to think a bit before purchasing meat to prepare for meals at my apartment, even to point where I rarely purchase it anymore. I do enjoy a properly prepared piece of meat. It is an essential part of so much of Western cuisine, and I do not believe it should be vilified... only balanced with plant matter and substituted for most meals. Frankly it isn't essential to many Eastern cuisines, and the substitutes of beans or tofu or lentils provide intriguing amounts of alternatives for even complete proteins with rice. Thus a diet rich in these items with the occasional meat proteins would seem to serve me fairly well.

Yet...the environmental issue is the one that is truly grim. Because as it turns out, any meat that I am likely to get my hands on in the store-- whether or not it has been fed a lot of unnatural things (organic or not)-- has still released large amounts of green house gases. By eating organic we assume we can at least be putting natural things in our body and into the ground when we eat plants. We could hope that this would be a sustainable way of farming, but the issue is that when I go the supermarket, virtually none of the stuff there is truly sustainable because it is from so far away. How can I ensure local produce when I have no ties to local farming? When there is not a huge amount of local farming, especially for certain products that do not grow here? Reverting back to my love of cooking, I would love to be more versed in seasonal cooking, a term I admit is a bit silly to me because seasonal cooking used to be the only type of cooking. We used to only be able to cook what would grow, so in the winter if hearty squash was what was left that was used. The whole idea of jarring and canning our own food came from the need to have things for winter. I always used to enjoy black eyed peas and tomato preserves even on New Year's Day because the peas were dried and the preserves jarred in summer. Where has our knowledge of this gone? When we aren't growing and picking our own food and orange is there in February at the supermarket, it's hard to roll back expectations and begin to learn this lifestyle again. So eventually I've gotten very hungry and to avoid calling in something I go ahead and make what I could buy at the store. Even so, I did eat out with a friend last weekend, and I wasn't really thinking about what I had until after the meal, only of enjoy myself at dinner. So who knows how far those things traveled and what was fed to the animal I was fed? The trick of it all is...

The Solution to Overthinking

I am an over-thinker. From girls to papers to books to dreams to afternoon activities, I take over analysis and thinking about possible consequences and implications to absurd proportions. This trend extended into my political thoughts at the same time that I began to develop them (after reading A People’s History of the United States, in case you were interested), and initiated my foray into the world of facts concerning food. My first encounter with factory farms and everything that went along with it was through the book The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer.
I had gone vegan for Lent my senior year in high school. In Waconia, Minnesota, this was akin to giving up your chance to eat in the school cafeteria, but I wanted to try it after both of my parents became vegan after being introduced to some alarming statistical correlations between cancer, along with other “non-preventible” diseases, and animal protein. I read the book they did (The China Study) and was by no means convinced that there was a true connection. However, I wanted to give it a shot.
After Lent, I started eating ice cream occasionally (it’s so good), but had lost my taste for meat. When I found Singer’s book, I thought it might provide me with reasons to feed my incredulous friends and their families when I refused to eat hamburgers and hot dogs. What it provided me with was a long list of reasons to eat lower on the food chain, and enough information to never let me take the food I eat for granted again. Where my food comes from, how it was grown, harvested, produced, shipped, kept, sanitized, and sold; these all bog me down in an unescapable morass of questions which sometimes keep me from buying anything when I go shopping.
My food choices are influenced by four things—cost, taste, health, and environmental friendliness. I try to balance cheap food with healthy, tasty food, with a small impact on the environment. Last year, I found the ultimate way to get all of the above without compromises, complete with exercise, a clean conscience, funny stories, and good times with friends. I’m thinking about publishing a book about the new diet, but I know it wouldn’t catch on too well. I dumpster-dive.
And to cut off your objections before they start, let me say this: I have seen much more mold in refrigerators than I have ever seen in dumpsters. I have only ever seen one rat by a dumpster, but more than I care to count scurrying around AU after dark. I have never gotten sick of dumpster food. The legality of it is questionable, maybe, but the ethics are clear—food going to waste is fair game to those who are willing to dig for it.
My dinner last night was composed of pasta, bread, tomatoes, red peppers, and bread—all from a dumpster. The only pieces of the meal that I didn’t salvage from eternal damnation and rotting in a methane-producing garbage heap were the spices I used to season the sauce I made form the tomatoes. Not every meal I eat is express from the “dumpster gods,” as we call them, but most have some connection.

Food Choices

Though my size might not show it, I am someone who really enjoys food, and is always ready to try new cuisines and new delicacies. Simply put, I am a food fanatic. When I decide where or what it is that I want to eat, it is based mostly on my mood, how hungry I am and how much money I have, if I am eating outside of campus! While eating on-campus I try eat as balanced a meal with my meats as well as my vegetables. I have never been one to diet, so my choices of food are generally based on what I think my needs are in order to remain healthy, and never about restrictions. In short, I eat whatever it is I want to!

It is not till recently that I have really realised how big of an impact my meal choices have on the environment. As a college student who eats most of her meals at on-campus dining facilities, it is hard to only eat locally grown products, because it all depends on where the school does its purchasing from. However, there are definitely choices that each one of us can make to lessen out individual impacts on the environment, and while I know that I can never become a full-out vegetarian, I have tried restricting my diet so that I am only consuming meat-products only once a day.

Looking back at my meal choices in the past few days, I cannot say that I have followed my above rule very rigorously, but I am getting there slowly, but surely.I think that it is mainly the meat that I consume that has the highest impact on the environment. In addition, this meat is most probably not locally produced, adding more to the problem. I am mostly a milk drinker which would also have effects depending on where AU gets its milk from.

To begin by addressing the question-- whether or not technology is the answer and should always be viewed positively-- is admittedly not the focus of my argument. Yet, I will get it out of the way first to weigh both sides of the issue. Admittedly technology is the literally the bedrock of human society. It is the fusion of elements to expedite, manipulate, extract, synthesize, add, subtract, multiply, and inevitably elucidate the human mind to its own experience. It is in so many ways the opposite of nature, even if it can be designed to not affect it negatively.

At this point, we have pushed our society to the point where we need energy, and a lot of it. Thus the element of technology perhaps most needed is to extract. Extracting fossil fuels as fast as possible is what will likely carry us for a minimum of another 20 to 50 years. Certainly there is impetus and in some cases incentive now to move off fossil fuels and adopt more sustainable methods of transportation, raising livestock and farming, and fueling our buildings and homes, yet these are often expensive even when feasibly these methods should not be. Most worrisome is the model that developing countries with a greater number of people to carry out the lifestyle are following, which is the quick, cheap, and dirty method. Can we simply innovate and let technology lead us to the next century without frying up? Not likely. Quite simply the gains that technology claims to be ready to make soon are in many cases not so readily available, often theoretical, and truthfully no time can be spared emitting more considering that many of the effects of what we do now will not be felt for years to come.

The real issue concerns the mental ethic that arises from this trust in technology. "Knowing" that technology will innovate to save us means that we can always just plug something new into the system of our economic expansion. Not only is it likely that even with our endless innovation we will still exhaust the Earth's supply and ability to suck up degradation, but also plugging things into a system never change its trajectory by much. Thus, we are simply continuing to uphold our values of consuming and consuming to upkeep our false economy. There is not always a synthetic substitute for what the Earth can create, and we must realize the truth about our lifestyle.

What we will see in the future is the possibility to stabilize the destruction we are making through technology. However, should this be possible, we will have a world not beautiful in its natural splendor, we will have a synthetic system upheld in new systemic ways that nature had never intended. This is certainly acceptable to some, but in many ways it does seem to undermine the place nature has held in the human spirit, confirming us spiritually and creatively. Just waiting for technology to fix the problem we eschew our responsibility socially, politically, and personally to engage our roles in the environment.

Technology: a means to an end...or a beginning

I agree with John, in that technology is merely a tool and it is up to humans to use it in way that will save us or lead to our own destruction.

there is no doubt that technology has assisted us in many aspects of our every day lives, and that without it, we would be very lost. In order just to write this blog I need my laptop, the Internet, music on my itunes, electricity, etc. Of course, one can argue that we do not necessarily "need" technology in our lives, but it would surely be hard to revert to not using gadgets we are so accustomed to using.

However, the technology being used to make the various gadgets we utilise on a daily basis, and the usage of those very gadgets themselves can sometimes lead to environmental damage. So, while it provides us with benefits now, many of these gadgets might result in very harmful affects in the future and we are in a battle between short-term gain versus long-term pain. The stratospheric ozone depletion is just one example of how we found short-term benefits from using certain products without realising the long-term harm that those products were going to cause us.

Fortunately, our knowledge has increased about the effects we are having on the environment, and we have come up with ways to combat those effects. Some of those ways to combat the negative effects have been through technology. Technological innovations such as hybrid cars and solar and wind power are just some of the ways that we poured our creative juices into developing. In addition, with the economic crisis in hand, green energy is one area where a lot of attention is going into. While the incentives behind it might not be the right ones, it is still reassuring to see that efforts are going to develop it.

Hence, I reiterate the point that John made: technology is a tool and it is up to us to use it for our long-term benefit or for our own eventual death. I have faith in human capabilities to create things that will be beneficial in all regards, both in the short- and long-run. However, attention needs to be given right now and focus must be made right now towards those areas, towards creating greener technology. If not, it might be a tad too late to save our planet. As the stratospheric ozone depletion case showed us, it is possible to remedy a wrong that we commit, as long as we take effective action immediately. It will take international commit and a large enforcement of changes, but it is quite possible to realise in the end.

Technology: Our hope, or hell

When it comes to Climate Change, technology consistently receives some of the most mixed reviews. It is, in the same breath, condemned for pollution and then vaunted as the only hope of our salvation in the form of wind, solar, and hydro energy as well as greater efficiency. How is it that our feelings towards technology are so mixed? We are alternately Luddites and technophiliacs, slandering technology one moment and then praising it the next.

If we take a moment to review some technological advances, and see if there is a common trend shared among them, we might get a better understanding of what our future holds for us.

The wheel: It think we could put this solidly in the "good" category, though in recent times the things we've begun to attach to wheels (namely, motors) are somewhat more objectionable.

The hammer: Though helpful, the hammer is as much a sign of destruction as growth. The same hammer could one day construct a house and the next, a gallows. Next, it could be put to work tearing both down.

Nuclear energy: Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned this. A bit polarizing. Let's just say that no consensus has yet been reached by environmentalists, but the possibility of good is likely outweighed by the possibility of nuclear winter.
Things to think about as well: Nuclear waste, Nuclear weapons, North Korea

Wind Turbines: Most would argue to place this one in the good category—finally true cheap and clean energy. Yet I feel that we must ask, what will we use the energy for? We could use it to power homes, or factories spewing smog into the air. We could charge electric cars or power gas stations continuing to pump out fuel.

And this then, is our answer. Technology is not an answer in itself. We must ask, what will we use it for? It is just a tool, to use for good or ill, with fine or hurtful intentions. Technology could save us, if we found out how to best implement it and did so for those purposes alone. However, it could just as easily (and much more quickly) destroy any hope we have of continuing life on this earth as we know it.

A Matter of Proportion

The gains that the stimulus pain make for the consideration of the environment's future are rather difficult to define so close after its passage. Certainly that money has been allocated for tax credits for greening the economy is a wonderful sign that even at the highest levels the crisis of climate change is one that cannot be denied. Obama had continually mentioned as part of his platform a drive to reinvigorate the power grid and to open up opportunity to innovate in the use of renewable energies. The focus it seems of Obama's plan is a sort of opening-up to the adoption of further renewable energy. So looking optimistically, we can see that the government is starting to embrace the fact that renewables are the future. Thinking critically, we see that there is still a lot of money used to continue clean coal technology. Why is this is significant? Well, many might think that clean coal being a myth is the real issue. That wasting that money is the folly. Frankly, though, it is the motive of supporting clean coal that is most bothersome. Politicians, it seems, are still beholden to powerful special interests, and there are few stronger special interests than oil and coal. Thus, rather than looking critically at the science behind clean coal, we are continuing to support it.

Another issue with the plan is simply the magnitude of support for energy and pollution correction versus the myriad of other causes that get much larger amounts. I suppose that that contrast in support coupled with the open-to-but-not-necessarily-pushing-greenness approach with tax credits make me worry about the administration's sense of the immediacy of the problem.

Environment: 1, Economy: 70,000,000,000

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill could be a step in the right direction for America. Yet, it is important to realize that, at best, it is a small step. It allocates a large sum of money to “greening” the economy: by making our energy usage more efficient, by improving mass-transit systems, and by increasing the amount of alternative energy we use. It sets aside funds to improve energy infrastructure, and to further research global warming and technologies to deal with it.

However, it has many downsides. Money is granted to NASA for further space exploration, which, though intellectually stimulating holds neither promise nor chance to solve our current environmetal crises. Almost 30 billion will go into the improvement of our highways and bridges, so that our cars can continue to pollute the enivronment. Another 2 billion will go into airports and airplanes, ensuring that we will be able to release those harmful greenhouse gases high in the atmosphere.

As Doug stated, 5% of the Bill will support environmental measures. That is simply not enough. The Introduction of the Bill states, “Our short term task is to try to prevent the loss of millions of jobs and get our economy moving. The long term task is to make the needed investments that restore the ability of average middle income families to increase their income and build a decent future for their children.” Nothing about the environment is mentioned. Instead, it is imperative that we work to increase our affluence even more. This Bill, at best, nods to the need to address environmental issues. However, as long as the environment remains on the fringes of our policies, we have no chance of effecting any meaningful change.

Environmental Prominence in an Economic Act

The Stimulus Plan passed last week, named The American Resource and Recovery Act, has both positive and negative aspects when viewed through an environmental filter. The Act takes an unprecedented level of action on the environmental front, but then again, much about the ARRA is unprecedented. The total allocation of funds for the environment is different depending on the source you look at, but the general consensus is that a great deal of funding has been appropriated. Reinforcing the Act's environmental credentials is the fact that several of the core tenants and stated intents for the Act are labeled as development of clean energy, environmental protection, etc. The funding labeled as Environment and Energy is often not as environmentally friendly as one might assume. For instance, a greater amount of the provisions for transportation are going to expanding and fixing the Nation's highway and road system than to development of much more environmentally conscious mass-transit systems.
That said, the prominent standing the environmental issues have in this Act bodes extremely well for the future of environmental policy. This is fundamentally an economic recovery act. In past administrations, economic interests have come at the expense of environmental imperatives. The prominent standing of the environment in this bill signals a great departure from policies of past administrations.
If this administration gets its way, I think environmental interests will come to play a huge role in determining the future of our nation. I hope that Obama hasn't bled away all of his political and financial capital with this Act. The fate of his first term rests on the success or failure of this bill in turning around the economy.

The Green Package

With $5 billion set aside to make homes and buildings more energy efficient, it is hard to argue that Obama's stimulus packages has not taken the environment into consideration. This money will go towards not only saving energy but also creating new jobs for people in need during these times of economic crisis. In fact, according to President Obama, the plan would allow for the creation of 460,000 jobs as well as double the amount of alternative energy produced over the next three years.

Another initiative taken in this plan towards greener energy is to move 3,000 miles of transmission lines in the attempt to use electricity from wind farms and solar installations in the West and the Southwest to consumers living in the rest of the country. Although this action might take longer to implement, it is, nonetheless, one that will aid in out fight against further deterioration of our planet.

With all these things considered, I would have to say that the package can only be a good step towards correcting our errors. Environmentalists have been demanding that the government take more responsibility and it looks to me like the United States government, with this package, has done just that. At such a hard economic time this action is really great, for not only will attention be given towards bettering the environment, but other governments will look at this and might be convinced to do something similar in their own countries. In this way, more efforts like this stimulus could occur around the world resulting in a global response to this global problem we are in danger of facing.

References:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101059253
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99895320

My Color Green

What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?

I am conflicted about the most enchanting experience I've had with nature. It is the most vivid memory in the entirety of my experience; almost too vivid for me to think it's real. I think and dream about it nearly every day (or night as it may be). I also have no context in which to place it. That said, it has a kind of grip on me that won't let me write it off as the work of a fanciful imagination.

The memory is always the same. The same duration. The same smell of moisture laden air blanketing my body. I awake, my eyes remain closed. A sense of completion, satisfaction and unity unparalleled by any other experience courses through my veins. I am intensely conscious of every slow breath. In. Out. I move ever so slightly and my eyelids part, early morning rays spill in the widening crack. My pupils adjust to see a dazzling forest. I stare straight up at the most intensely lit green forest canopy overhead. This green has become my mind's definition of the word green. A soft wind stirs the dew-soaked bed of leafs I lie upon. One of the leafs twirls in the eddying wind and soars up and over my face, blocking the sun's streams of light, illuminating the leaf's vasculature. It ends right there. Everytime, the same place. The same length.

This experience has instilled in me a profound love of nature. It is perhaps my favorite of all my memories.

And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?

Saving nature is an important issue because so much of the human experience is based around nature. If future man is to understand his past, he must know nature, and the only way to know nature is to experience it personally. Appreciation of the beauty and magnificence of nature is a uniting force. Like music - it breaches barriers between people.

Before most people are awake

As both John and Supriya have emphasized, nature's influence is so pervasive it may be impossible to nail down a definitive "most magical" moment. After all, nature was once the whole world, and even considering how difficult it is to channel all the drone of mankind there is a eminence to the creeping growth and swirling winds that surround us. Perhaps my fondest memory of nature's intervention though in my life occurred this past summer. I worked at two sister summer camps with a mission of inspecting our religious views emphasizing the message of stewardship in the Bible. Rather than the exploitative interpretation that many people have mistakenly carried out, the camp was a lovely opportunity to come with creation. To get the counselors to more deeply experience the vitality and majesty of the environs that North and South Carolina could afford the camping program, we were made to hike up Rockface. Beginning at 4 AM in the cold of the pre-dawn, the first group began our ascent. The beginning of the trip was a virtually pitch black scrawl over hilly moss with the sounds of insects and the dewy persistence of life that goes on long before most people are awake.

Little were we warned that our resolve would have to match such persistence as miles into the trek when we took a break at a large root structure, we were told that we were a bit over halfway and the rest of the trek would be exceedingly steep. Sensing the coming of the sunrise, we rushed to reach the summit in the ever-increasing light. Finally there, many who found the trip had pushed them to the limit broke into tears as a sort of release(I was later to find out that this was a common practice of this particularly person, but I certainly appreciated the gravity of the situation). The pinnacle provided a natural clearing upon which we watched the sun break the horizon miles away over sprawling green foothills and peaks. I could not muster a word until we were back at camp. I pondered literature, art, architecture, love-- the entirety of man's most treasured exploits-- and could not find one thing to contend with what consumed my vision and what I knew was only the smallest section of what nature could put forth.

I suppose it is with this statement that I make my case for saving nature. Humans toil to keep intact so many of the inherited accomplishments of artists, writers, craftsmen, and thinkers that came before us. If these can still manage to pale in comparison to nature's beauty, and were you to have been on that mountain on that morning, you'd know that they can, then preserving nature is just as vital a pursuit. In many cases, nature is the source of innovation and introspection in poetry, architecture, and in relationships. To see it disappear might certainly mean that the scope of our abilities to produce these essentially human exploits might also dwindle to nothing.

Natural Beauty of Nature

I agree with John in that is really hard to think about one specific magical moment that I have had with nature, because there are so many. However, the most recent magical and thrilling experiences I had, occurred over this past Christmas break. I was in the tiny island of Mauritius for two weeks, and, simply put, it was amazing. I have two top highlights from this trip (I say top because there were many highlights!), so I will share both, because I cannot choose between the two. The first is when I got to do what is called an "Underwater Walk", where you wear a breathing apparatus that looks like a big glass helmet on your head, and you are dropped into the sea and you actually get to walk around. I got to interact with the beautiful different varieties of fish in their own environment, which was just absolutely unbelievable. I got to walk between a school Zebrafish as well as touch a live octopus, experiences I will never forget!

Another fantastic and magical moment that I got to experience with the non-human world while in Mauritius was at a wildlife sanctuary. On this occasion, I got to interact with the Queen of the jungle herself, an incredibly beautiful lioness. This was such a thrilling experience, it is just hard to describe. Its one of things where you just have to do in order to really understand just how amazing it is to be in such close proximity to those magnificent animals. Another moment I will cherish forever!

But, you do not need to travel half way across the world to observe and experience a magical moment with nature. It might be hard to see it, living in the urban jungle that we do, but it is still there, and it is our job to ensure that it continues to exist. There are so many reasons for why we would want to do so. For one, it serves as a reminder for where we have evolved from, and destroying it would result in a loss of our very connection that we have with this planet that we reside on. Secondly, there is a reason everyone likes to get away from the big cities so often and that is because nature soothes us and cures us of our stress and other illnesses we tend to accumulate while living in the polluted cities. Lastly, although these are by no means the only reasons we should save nature, the very beauty of it should be enough incentive to save it.

Nature Good. Period.

To name just one magical experience I’ve had with nature, and then to have it be the most magical, is most definitely not a simple task for me and quite possibly not possible. When it comes to nature, I’m still a little kid full of wonder. My most recent magical moment happened just yesterday. A couple close friends and I biked down to the Potomac and worked our way up its bank to a lot of big rocks sticking out into the river. We worked our way out to the edge, and then the sun set and the sky was pink and orange and blue and yellow and the clouds were purple and yellow, and the river was rushing around me and if I concentrated hard enough I couldn’t hear the traffic from the highway across the water, or the planes overhead. It was really windy, and as each gust blew by us it whipped up the waves. We sat and watched gusts race down the river until it got dark and then biked back. Last weekend, a friend and I biked through Rock Creek Park and skipped stones on the creek. A couple weeks before that, I took a walk through a park to the river, and the creek flowing through it was half frozen, and I spent hours following it. Not too long before that, I was cross-country skiing along the St. Croix River in two feet of snow. I’ve done my best to have magical moments as often as I can.

Of course, my anecdotal evidence might not convince anyone else that nature is worth saving. Some people not acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature. For those kinds, there are valuable economic roles that the environment plays. Besides doing a lot of work for us behind the scenes (like carbon sinking and filtering water sources), nature is beneficial to our health in a lot of ways. This link and this link tell you why nature keeps people healthy, and helps them heal faster. Did you know that indoor air pollution is often higher than outdoor pollution? What more do you need to know? Nature good. Period.

On the Slow Path to Change

While I do not think that many can quite contradict what Mr. Maniates has to say in his article, I think it is important to note just how comfortable we have become to our current ways of living. Consumption is now more than just a luxury, its a religion and its going to take something drastic to occur in order to see some major changes in the way we live.

In that case, we cannot truly blame the politicians and environmental activists to tread the ground carefully in their attempts to convince people that going green is not too complex of a process. Their task as enforcers is to try and get as many people on board as possible, which is why they emphasise the “ease” through which one can right our past wrongs. Lets face it, the majority of us are very happy with our consumerist lifestyles and are not going to weaned off of it anytime soon, especially if it is clear that it is also going to take a lot of effort to do so. Why would anyone get on board that wagon, especially when there are still skeptics in the world who think that the world is fine and that global warming is just a myth?

It is unfortunate that in order for the message to really hit home that severe changes need to be made today, and not delayed until tomorrow, something truly drastic needs to occur, before everyone will be convinced. Unfortunately, that drastic event could also signify that we are too late and that we have reached the end of the road. This is indeed a predicament.

And who is to say that drastic event has not come already? With the occurrence of the Tsunamis as well as Hurricane Katherina, we have already received eminent signs that our planet is undergoing some major changes, in big part due to our actions. One would ask: how many more signs do we need before we take real action?

To conclude, I am not contradicting Mr. Maniates when he says that big steps need to be taken to solve this issue and simply screwing on twisty light bulbs is not going to save us all. In addition, he is indeed right in saying that politicians and activists need to put on their thinking hats and think of new and hopeful ways of reaching out to the public, without shying away from the truth of how dire a situation we are in now. The pessimist in me just thinks that it is going to take an incredible event to truly convince the non-believers, and then it might just be too late.

The Idiocy of Easy

Some of the rhetoric that Mr. Maniates reflects an element of society that I believe I have seen growing ever increasingly over the last few decades. It starts with a sense that we have achieved, at least in developed countries, a level of education that allows to analyze critically the world around us. Certainly, we can consider ourselves lucky to be wealthy enough to get educated in a system that allows for and even upholds critical thinking skills rather than prescribed knowledge. Thus, when Mr. Maniates states, "we cannot permit our leaders to sell us short," he is declaring his and our curiosity, inspiration, criticism, and indignation.

We are and must be curious, as this is human nature. Ironically enough, it is this very part of our human nature that has perhaps led us to environmental crisis. Our curiosity has led to us to innovate, to grow, to consume. Whether it be knowledge or resources, we have sought to progress and delve deeper in spite of our questions and in search of our answers. Should curiosity then be considered our undoing? My answer would be absolutely not. Curiosity is not the evil. It is the blinders placed upon on our curiosity that is against our nature. Why should we be pushed to innovate microchips or mining practices? Develop faster modes of travel or stronger building materials? And yet, when we seek to find alternatives to outdated ( in that they are finite and destructive) modes of providing energy, we are encouraged to cut corners? We do not need to have our minds shaped to think that environmentalists are doomsayers. We do not need to be given platitudes about simple answers to the great problem facing in the environmental degradation we carry not, and we certainly do not need to be told that no problem exists. As Maniates states, we can struggle together. Furthermore, we are at our best when we do so. Therefore, we cannot let lobbyists and leaders mislead us with thinly veiled rhetoric that serves to protect their interests. We simply must continue to foster the curious questioning spirit that we all have naturally. It is this that must be protected at all costs. Interestingly the cornucopian/malthusian debate may in fact be moot. Limits may almost certainly exist to our sources and sinks, but no limits appear to exist to the innovation of the human mind. Our recent elections have shown that ideas and excitement can become dollars and power. And they do not need to be spoonfed simplistic ideas. Can we not use this as proof positive that we can overcome the idiocy of easy?

We are by no means all, maybe no more than a few

“The time for easy is over. We're grown-ups who understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices. We're ready for frank talk about how we best confront -- in ways rewarding, confusing, creative and hard -- the planetary emergency before us.”
—Professor Maniates

Personally, I share Professor Maniates’ enthusiasm to tackle the central issues of global warming instead of settling for limited individual choices of consumption. I don’t want to just change the lights in my lamps, I want to change the ways those lamps were made, transported, advertised, bought, and will be disposed of. Additionally, I would like to change the source of the electricity to power those lamps, and the mindset that requires more than one in each room.

Yet, though I know that he and I are not the only two Americans who feel this way, I think we are in a small minority. I get the feeling that most people go along with the idea that they can easily solve the problems that stem from climate change because they wouldn’t bother if it was any harder or if it subtracted from their perceived well-being. We have a culture that prides itself on being fast-paced, individualistic, mobile, and rich. This is not conducive to green-living.

I don’t know this for sure. The only proof I have is anecdotal, limited to my experience with a small number of people. Yet, from the interactions I’ve had, I would conclude that the majority of people, as of now, would reject the sweeping reforms that would have to be enacted in order to cease harming the environment further than what we’ve already done. Far from ready to spring up into the ranks of environmental stewards and activists, they are either skeptical, apathetic, or convinced that recycling plastic bottles and using CFLs is the answer. Before we have a frank talk about confronting the environmental crisis, I think we need to have a frank talk about the existence of the crisis, and the lengths that we will have to go if we are to meaningfully address it.

Treat the Disease, Not the Symptoms

the 'lazy environmentalist books' like our current medical practice of treating the symptoms instead of treating the disease, or better yet, focusing on prevention

In short: I agree completely.

The Extended Edition: Maniates gets at the heart of the problem with the environmental movement. Few leaders have emerged in the environmental movement over the past couple decades. This, coupled with the poor efforts of environmental elites to frame the issue in the way that it must - as a matter of utmost importance. I recognize that environmental issues took the last seat on the bus during the Bush administration, but the environmental elites did not respond maturely. They felt defeated and let their defeatist attitudes handicap them more than the Bush administration ever could have. Perhaps they thought that framing the issue as one which can be solved by the aggregate effects of each and every individual doing their part (as professor Nicholson has noted, this for Cameron Diaz means simply turning off the water in the shower when she shaves). Put simply, this will not work. Even if everyone does their parts (and this is a BIG 'if'), the results would come nowhere near to solving global warming or restoring the world's fisheries. The books Maniates offers as evidence of the faults of the environmental elite, ""It's Easy Being Green," "The Lazy Environmentalist," or even "The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time."", are for the environmental movement what the modern practice of treating the symptoms but not the disease are for medicine. Such books do have some value; they get people to think about their impact on the planet. But, these books go terribly wrong when they convince people that they can save the world simply by turning off the water when they shave. Environmental problems are much, much bigger than that, and these books delude people into thinking that they are saving the planet, when in reality they are still killing it by driving their big-ass suburbans hours every day to and from work and by flying in private jets. This strategy played right into the hands of the engine that fuels the destruction environmentalists should be fighting against. Chevron has "gone green" in its new greenwashing campaign, where they spit out the exact same lines that environmentalists have been about the green lifestyle: "Iwill unplug stuff more", "I will think about buying a hybrid", etc...It took them surprisingly long, but they realized that they can embrace this new, wimpy environmentalism without actually changing any of their practices and get great positive PR. The environmental elite went wrong when they stopped focusing on the disease and just tried to alleviate the symptoms. Such a practice does not cure, it deludes. New leaders are emerging with real power to redirect the focus of the environmental movement. They would do good to treat the disease instead of the symptoms. They would do even better to prevent new ones from taking hold at the same time they work on the old ones.

The Global Equity Issue and Stanley Fish

1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?

The most pressing challenge facing the global environment is the structure of the global economy. The West largely spawned this system with no regards to the ramifications such a globalized economy would have on the world. This is not so much their fault. They did not know that the population explosion would have such wide-reaching consequences. They did not expect that their colonies would one day want equal status within this global regime. They could not predict global warming or climate change. That being said, they are not blameless. The intentions they had in setting up the globalized economy weren't malicious towards the earth. But the ramifications this system had were, and as such, they must take responsibility for it. The West has largely recognized that its resource consumption is unsustainable, and efforts are already underway in much of the West to reduce carbon and ecological footprints. But, the new members in the global economy do not want to restrain their pollution. Their argument of equitable opportunity for economic development, through whatever means they choose, is a good one. The greatest issue we face is bringing these developing nations into the fold on addressing global climate change. If we do not do so, our own efforts at reduction will be negligible compared to their consumption.

2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?

Stanley Fish's article reflects a big issue regarding environmental attitudes in the US. Much of his generation is still skeptical that global climate change is anthropogenic. They do not want to make drastic changes in their consumption. His complaining attempts to disestablish his responsibility for the way he consumes. Many of all generations in America do this. Even when we recognize that our consumption is an issue, we frequently convince ourselves that someone else will do something about it.

To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US today, often means simple adjustment of which brands to consume, instead of the more important task of consuming less. People want to be eco-friendly, but they frequently don't change levels of consumption, as they should.

Old Man and the Sea...Rising

I would begin by conceding to all of the arguments of my fellow authors. They innumerate a myriad of the most immediate obstacles. They range from lack of concern for the "negative externalities" of our "never ending appetite" to sheer apathy. Certainly Dr. Fish displays a stubborn reluctance to sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evidence-- evidence with which he admits he is intimately familiar. However, this may just be the way of an old soul. When enough dust has accumulated and our perspective has become sufficiently murky, cannot the urgency of necessary action seem to diminish? Moreover is not the wisdom of this measured, reflective approach the very source of esteem for experience in our leaders? It comes as little surprise then that a paradigm for such experience as part of leadership rather than some alternative, new ideas per se, represents one of the most intrinsic and systematic challenges facing the global environment.

Simply stated, people may not become aware that they are capable of autonomous thought until it is too late to have any. Can we be expected to shake ourselves from the traditional paths of accruing clout and serving our due time before we take our seat at the table when these paths are a part of our values and our values an integral (often unchanging) part of our identities? Progress, and further the idea that idolness is regression, has settled into the mind of humans around the world as a value. Actually returning to past maxims, an act more severe and sinful than settling into the current way of life, is unthinkable and precludes much hope for sacrifice-- a word I see as sometimes synonymous with truly being "environmentally friendly". It begs the questions: is farming "un-American"? Is craftwork "un-American"? Could young people ever be expected to settle for these alternative (certainly a good deal more sustainable) ways of life? We are subject to the will of trends and prescribed choices. While our options are considerably more vast than ever before, we simply have no sense of where any of them originate or how deep (not necessarily sinister) the system of providing those options to us runs. To be so much a part of a system's proliferation and to be so complacent would then seem logical. The sheer difficulty of grasping its entirety is monumentous enough to discourage most people from ever pondering to change it. Thus, American "environmentally friendly" living typically prescribes to the options our trends permit while our values never permit us to sacrifice our defunct practices and revolutionize our decrepit paradigms.

Waste more, Want more!

The biggest challenge that the environment faces currently revolves around an issue of equity combined with man's never ending appetite, which wants to consume more than it can actually handle. As Conca and Dabelko explain in "Green Planet Blues", if you give a man a pasture and cattle, it is only a matter of time before he starts to crave for more: additional cattle and land space for the cattle to graze. While this can be looked at as "progress", it continues to degrade our environment, yet we are nonchalant because of the various personal benefits we gain from it. Then, it hits us that we are actually harming our planet, and that if we continue to do so, we will not be able to reap any more profits from it. And this is where the equity problem comes in, where the more developed nations impose their concessions on the less developed ones, expecting them to comply. Unfortunately, the latter nations view this whole situation as entirely unfair, due to the amount of restrictions constrained on them for merely imitating the former countries' actions to reach similar goals in terms of development. While these actions need to be taken in order to protect the planet, how exactly must they be carried out in as fair a manner as possible? Everyone wants to be able to have the same comforts and luxuries as the next person, so why are restrictions suddenly coming up that will inhibit people from certain nations to achieve that level of comfort? Or, at least, not gain it as easily as certain other nations have.

Fish's article definitely articulates the mindset of the majority of the people in the world, let alone the United States. While people are definitely getting more responsible for their actions and becoming more eco-friendly, it is still quite clear that we all could be doing so much more, but we are just not bothered enough to do it. And the little bit more than we can do, probably would not impose too much of a burden on us; we just could not be bothered to do it. I applaud those who go out of their way to make sure that every action they commit is the least pollutant to the environment, but the majority of the population is more concerned in their comfort and would not really go out of their way to ensure that their actions are more earth friendly. Maybe if we start with the little things, the bigger actions will begin to look attainable.

As skepticism becomes rarer, global climate change (and the drivers behind it) find a new friend: Apathy

To address both questions at once—I believe that addressing the attitudes espoused by Stanley Fish and some of his followers is the most pressing challenge facing anyone looking to affect positive environmental change. Fish’s apathy is a scary thing to face; how could one engage him in meaningful discourse when all he wants to do is complain? Proving that his way of life is unsustainable and contributing to climate injustice isn’t hard—he’s already admitted it. What one has to do is convince him that it matters. Too many can ignore that fact because they can so easily displace the negative environmental effects of their lifestyle onto other people.

Fish refuses to accept the trivial aspects of environmental responsibility because he feels that they might subtract from his quality of life. He is comfortable, and chooses not to give it up, though its continuation is being bought at a dear price. Perhaps if being environmentally friendly were easier, or profitable, he would reconsider his actions.

One of the supportive responses to this blog concludes with the erroneous declaration: “There are many ways to helping the environment without degrading quality of life.” Out of context, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but the author of the post (“addicted”) meant to say something much different. “Addicted” would purport that people can help the environment without sacrificing their material quality of life. They could find ways to continue living how they’ve always been and still meaningfully address environmental issues.

I would argue that helping the environment would entail redefining our concept of “quality of life.” If we shifted our focus and energy from material accumulation to environmental stewardship and found more meaning in real relationships and less in artificial interactions, we could much more easily find happiness in living sustainably. What would be so much more effective to change in Mr. Fish’s life is not his actions—what would have much further reaching consequences would be to change his values. If only it was as easy as giving up was...