Manufacturing Concenpt without Trash

McDonough's premise is the changing the product cycle without trash. Since people start producting goods and services, the premise for manufactuing is cradle to graveyard. And what he suggest is the approarch that produces any trashes in manufacturing process. Creating the process "cladle to cladle", and this is the way to have sustainable environment. He also mentions about wrong definition of "sustainable development" again and again. What he mean was that sustainable development does not mean saving resources, keep staffs using in long term, or being environmental freiendly, rather than it means developmental, growth, and fluid which indicates establishing a recycling based eco system. I was really impressed by his thought and this cladle to cladle concept, and I really like it (we should proud of having a SIS building with his design!).


In my experience, I think I'm still in behind when I observe my ebehavior. As a consumer perspective, I try to buy clothing at second hand shop, or donate my old clothing. Regarding to using energy, I try to save energy by turing lights off, using less air conditioner, but still I know it's not enought to change our environmental situation. I think he gave me a huge impact of the idea of cladle to cladle as consumers for the next decade. Thinking to buy the stuff which is enable to recycle, whether manufacturing process is safe and non-poisoness materials. 2 weeks ago, I had to go to see a doctor because when I was washing dishes, in accident dish detergent get into my eye. It was so painful, and hurts last few days.. And before go to see a docter I checked what kind of things in dish detergent.. Also that was the first time to think what I was using for dish detergent..... I have been using for long long time. Until this happen, I did not know about it at all and even did not care about it. I think this happening taught me about what kind poison I use everyday and how it hurts me and my health from in my daily life. Also I have to face my lack careness and knowledge for environment in daily life. Now, I am going to find a new dish detergent which contains non poisonesss and very close to natural materials!

Cradle to Cradle, And the Babies in Them

Cradle to Cradle breaks down consumption in the most invigorating way of any commodity-chain analysis that I have come to understand throughout the course of this class. The film "Stuff" illustrates our struggles with consumption as a baby-course to "the powers the be" in an non-transparent system. The system is so clearly broken, but the room for changes that McDonough and Braungart suggest in their implementation, and that Lauren has outlined below, do not seem sufficient to me. Power and money stand at such a point in the corporate world, and as evidenced in leadership ties to our American government, that the need to burn structures and find catharsis in redesign and ReNewed construction, so that our future is built out of the ashes of our waste is more urgent than ever before.

On that note, their backgrounds as innovators and designers means that in writing (and controlling the means of production of) their book, McDonough and Braungart are ensuring their continued employment. There is a temptation to continue to produce in order to maintain a consumer market. If we eliminate the sins of over-profit what would people work towards? Without an incentivized system for the scientists making paper out of waste, could their book have been produced? These and other questions arise that make me questions the precepts of growth and designers at the head of that growth. Some of those designers (not the authors discussed, necessarily) are the culprits of the greatest injustices on the Third World's peoples. Education needs redevelopment and constructive recycling as much as any Computer part. I tend to doubt the sincerity of designers out of the first world in their perceived ramifications for the Third World in the development of environmentally sustainable options for the future. I state my bias.

In the next century, the First World is not where we will see the most growth; our populations are declining or staying more level at least. The Third World will still cope with a population increase, a flood of Urban Centers, environmental crises that require environmentally concerned solutions. If the people who live in these areas are not producing their own answers to their problems, there will not be the safewords in place for how far the First World's designers can experiment on them. Technology is a fetish of our consumer culture in the United States. The dangers of exploitation exist in deep, entrenched values that we have already been feeling the backlash from. Education, and innovations for how that education is distributed and allocated, are really the largest priorities for the consumer cultures that are only burgeoning presences on the global markets today. "eco-efficiency," "mono" structuring of any kind, these are products of geo-political entities that are not owned by the people they will most deeply effect. It's time to recognize that design can only answer half of the questions in the commodity chain change. Who will be transforming our trash into Swatches?

Redesigning the cradle to grave lifestyle

This book starts out by alerting the reader to the fact everyday items are full of poisonous materials, but as McDonough and Braungart continue their argument by supporting their initial statements and finding ways to change the design humans have created the reader feels as though they have some power in stopping this unsustainable lifestyle. The introduction explains that this book is not made out of tree pulp; instead it is a synthetic material that mimics paper. This initially raised a few questions in my mind because the authors were just discussing how our modern world hides unhealthy materials in certain products. I wondered how this product is any different, yet in chapter three they discuss how they came to the decision of this “paper”. I’m sure there has not been adequate research on this product yet considering it is a fairly new company, but the authors assure the reader that the creator thoroughly researched the options for a waterproof and paper-free book.

One important take away from this book is the concept of waste. We have created a design that is not sustainable. There are limits on the earth, but they are unknown. The uncertainty of the tipping point will make changing our design difficult. The authors discuss the design problem humans have based on consumerism and capitalism. Other animals have a sustainable life on the earth, yet we are unable to have one due to our structural design. The industrial revolution started the over use of materials and the unsustainable lifestyle Westerns lead and built-in obsolescence has only perpetuated the trend. Only those who consume in vast quantities can curb our use and this may mean limitations, but it is a sacrifice that will allow for our sustainability. This is a valid point, but once again it is hard to convey this concept to the general populous.

The “eco-efficiency” term was coined five years after the Business Council for Sustainable Development. This brings up the main premise of chapter two because this term made people feel like if they were less bad there lifestyle could be sustainable. This is not necessarily true; efficiency does not mean sustainability. Yet, somehow through capitalist measures, efficiency or being less bad is better for the environment. The authors touch on the topic of growth and overgrowth. Traditionally, we think of growth as a positive thing, but now with a growing population and limited resources growth seems like a more negative thing for the earth. Yet, the concept of growth in capitalism is still positive, so we have a conflict of opinions that will make redesigning our infrastructure difficult.

The final premise the authors discuss is the cradle to cradle approach of manufacturing. They use the Ford Company as an example of how changing cradle to grave to cradle to cradle is virtually impossible. The infrastructure is so large it would be hard to change design of the company. The authors lay out a list of five ways to change our infrastructure and they are get “free of” known culprits, follow informed personal preferences, creating a “passive positive” list, activate the positive list, and finally, reinvent. These steps are well explained, but can they be effectively put into reality. The authors failed to take into account the power of these big businesses they are trying to restructure. The only way to create rebirth is to create new. This seems counter-intuitive because creating new things would mean more waste. But, after a little while the redesign would save and conserve resources.

"You want to change your jeans, not your genes."

Instead of products flowing from the cradle to the grave—like historical design has perpetuated—McDonough and Braungart suggest that we can design products to flow from cradle to cradle. McDonough is a progressive architect and Braungart is one of the original environmental chemists. Their unique backgrounds allow for a diversified approach to their proposed central problem: a flawed system of design. Beginning with the origins of the Industrial Revolution, the authors point out the principles that have led to a sole focus on economic growth and ignorance of environmental degradation. One of the main points is that many of the harmful substances present in many everyday objects do not need to be there. The presence of these harmful substances adds a multiplier effect to the damage instead of providing a product that could be safely and efficiently recycled.

The authors’ arguments are very effective due to the wide spectrum of environmental views they are able to present due to their backgrounds. The mini biographies that each author provides are an insight into their deeper motivations and backgrounds. Within each focus of the book, the reader can find a part on the smaller biologic level as well as the total picture of a product. The spectrum that each argument covers provides a fuller argument as compared to a sole focus on policy or science. Also, the authors’ positive report is obvious from their writings together. It is important that independently and collectively the authors’ have been successful in order to relay their experiences and resulting viewpoints.

I am now curious about this overall “mono” effect that is synonymous with environmental degradation and economic progress. As Meyer describes in The End of the Wild, we are entering a world of mono-species. Now, McDonough and Braungart tell us that we are mono-cropping and mono-construction. Why in a world of progress are we losing diversity—something that makes this world so beautiful? I think this should be a major aspect of the new design policy that the authors are proposing. Diversity is a major key to sustainability I believe.

Is Redesigning Products Completely Possible?

The authors promise that economic growth is not inherently bad, and what is needed to remedy the consumption problem is not increased efficiency but rather a complete redesigning of products. According to the authors, if items are designed with their future use in mind, they can be reused and recycled without any downgrading of the material. They say that eventually this can lead to a technical life cycle in which products are returned into the consumption chain fully and waste is eliminated. They also state that it is very possible to design these items to be “nutritious” to the surrounding environment rather than harmful, and without any negative “off-gassing.”
I definitely feel that they are on track. Designing items to be broken down again after use should not seem like an overly-complicated task that is beyond us. Obviously furniture is nowhere near of the same complexity as other items, but that is one example of how things can be built and disassembled. All that needs to be done is to design items in a way so that they are not permanently bounded together. The one thing I am skeptical about, however, is the promise that one day we can design items which are perfectly nutritious to the environment and pose no ill effects. I certainly think it is possible to eliminate many of these questionable chemicals and replace them with benign alternatives. However, it seems to me that a substantial portion of our technology is dependent on too many different components to be able to phase out all the harmful parts. Just a quick look inside a car, an aircraft, or a computer, can show how intricate these machines are. Whether or not it is possible to find a safe replacement for all parts I would doubt.
This is not to say I know a lot about any of these things, because I do not. Perhaps the concepts are beyond me and that their arrival is beyond my lifetime. I cannot be sure of this, but just from my own observations, the complexity of our world means that it will be either impossible to phase out every harmful substance, or it will take an enormous amount of time.

The Science of First Impressions

These two websites both present counter arguments to the climate change debate, but that is where similarities end. Friends of Science seems to be geared towards a third grade audience, which oddly makes it seem more credible, if I had never heard of this before. The level of sophistication in the "Climate skeptic" website makes it seem as subversive as it is. The website is written with a sense of humor and an underlying knowledge of the climate debate. I think the competition comes from an intellectual debate need to one-up the other voices on this subject. Outright, stated bias often occurs, but the more vitriolic critiques take advantage of honesty in order to bring out prejudice in public opinion, on both sides of the debate.

Honestly the entire argument seems so no the point to me, it seems so completely silly to negate climate change and its effects with the information and access to that information available today. I see the competition within the debate on the causes of climate change as helpful to addressing real and lasting resolutions and changes to be made to human behavior on this planet. The need to be flexible to scientific discovery, while maintaining a high standard for ourselves is important too. In Political Ecology of Food and Agriculture, Prof. Nicholson quoted to us, "We need strong ideals, weakly held" as a manner of remaining an academic who is still receptive to new information from the scientific community. Competition sometimes encourages people resist the flow of new information into action because of the feeling that one team needs to beat the other. If you evaluate these websites by drawing out their arguments, following their sources, and generally ever reading the news, it seems like a pretty easy way to make a decision on how you feel about climate change. Maybe reading the news is difficult for some people because of the ubiquitous internet access to the 24-hour news-cycle these days, or because of the multiple sources with completely polar funding agendas. Oh wait, I forgot, those things make it EASIER to access the news. Ohkay. I guess it must just be apathy after all.

Winning the Fight Against Each Other

In one of our earlier class discussion, we talked about the cause of U.S. ineffectiveness towards environmental issues being the fact that we can’t even agree on whether problems exist. This constant disagreement between groups of people is what causes such fierce competition. In the realm of politics, the debate isn’t centered around the most effective progressive solution but rather squabbling between groups to prove their legitimacy. The competition arises so quickly because in our fast-paced world, the goal for these opposing groups is to get their voice the loudest so it is heard by the most people.

I found it difficult to make sense of both the Grist and the Friends of Science (FOS) websites. The homepage of each website is an attempt to bombard the viewer with their individual claims and proof of their integrity. This is, to me, a key problem in the climate change debate. There is a multitude of conflicting information presented to the public. From what I could tell of the websites, all the things being said were “true” facts but were completely opposite. It seems like any author can twist a fact to fit their agenda, but then how can the public decipher for themselves what to believe?

I found the Grist website overall more effective. I appreciated that all of his claims were put up on the homepage with the possibility to explore further. One of my fellow bloggers mentioned that the FOS website appeared too simple. On top of that comment, I would say that the FOS website looked more like an infomercial than an information website. I appreciated the feeling I got that Grist was simply trying to lay out the facts—whether that was reality or his effort to portray that idea.

Believers vs. Skeptics

There is fierce competition around the science of climate change for a few reasons. The first reason is politics; more specifically, the partisan U.S. Congress has not ratified any type of Protocol that would support the fight against climate change. This is mainly due to the political nature climate change has taken since Al Gore promoted action around climate change. Unfortunately, climate change has become a Democratic issue and therefore Republican Senators will not even touch this issue. The second reason is denial on the part of these skeptics about climate change. Some say that this denial happens because these skeptics do not want to face the fact that they will have to change their lifestyle. The third reason is the lack of information released to the public because many governments, namely the United States, do not want to alarm the public with climate change statistics. This is truly unfortunate because this is how fearing either for or against climate change begins. Misinformation can be a powerful tool and can lead to naïve arguments against climate change.

In terms of making sense of and evaluating the scientific claims these two differing websites assert the viewer must go into both of these websites with critical and yet open-minds. This is important because we have to act as analyses of this problem because there is no clear answer to many of these questions. Learning as much as possible from credible sources is the only valid way of differentiating all the accurate information from all the inaccurate information. These credible sources would be resources such as scientific journals, government documents, NASA and other organizations and literary sources along those lines.

Personally, I liked the Grist website the best because it seemed more credible. There were advertisements on the page and there was more discussion of politics on this website than on the friends of science website. The thought process behind advertisements being a positive sign is companies felt confident enough with the message of the website to advertise their company on this webpage. Also, politics is an important part of climate change no matter how much it is hindering the action around climate change. On the friends of science website, I read the myth/fact page and it seemed as though they were attacking believers in climate change, whereas Grist worded their website as if they were defending themselves from attacks a skeptic might have when discussing climate change.

Two Perspectives on Climate Change Issues

When I compare the argument between the Friend of Science (FOS) website and Grist's one, there are two extreme perspectives about climate change issues. The first perspective is to advocate a sense of danger for climate changes which is supported by FOS. Their approach for climate change is based on literature research in order to proof on the issue of climate change. In the first page of FOS website, they say there are any original scientific researches, but its research based on an extensive literature research. And they organize some information about particular climate change discussion, and provide straight forward questions and responses. Also, they visualize issues well. In their homepage, they use multi-media information like video and radio very well.

On the other hand, Grist's article, ‘How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic' starts climate change discussion from a doubtful attitude. Also, this article provides optimistic perspective for the climate change. Climate change is natural argument and climate change is not bad arguments are examples of their topics and attitudes toward climate change. The article based on the technical scientific discussion, and their proofs provides based on past data of climate or statistics, but they say it’s too short span to measure change of climate, and the climate change would be a natural thing.
There are two extreme perspectives on climate change arguments. Both of them have very strong supports back in their arguments. The main difference between them is a method of proof for an argument. FOS is based on literature research, and Grist is based on scientific method in order prove.

I would say both of claims make sense, and have appropriate proofs which support it's argument well, however, I would like to say FOS's argument is more convincing than the other because their argument creates a sense of danger for my mind when I read though the myth/fact page. Moreover, when I read through Grist’s argument, part of the Grist's article includes consolation tendency in terms of climate change issue. It might be too optimistic, when they say "climate change can't be stopped". I want to see at least a positive attitude toward issues in order to combat with it. Therefore, I prefer to support FOS’s argument.

A View on Views and A Comparison of Websites

Personally, I would think that there is so much fierce competition in the science of global climate change because the end results of the two main theories on climate change are so radically different. While I am not going to claim that I have science to back up my opinion, I just think that the competition is caused by psychological factors. Either people in this scenario are completely right or completely wrong. There is no middle ground, and no one wants to be wrong. This could lead people to staunchly defend their opinions more so than under normal circumstances. Furthermore, the scope of the problem is simply enormous, and with the two outcomes so different, people may have a hard time accepting one reality over another. People may not want to accept that the world they know will be completely different, while others may not want to accept that their theory on warming is incorrect. Personally, I believe that there is warming, but I’m just laying out both sides to offer a potential explanation.
How we evaluate the claims these websites make is simply by seeing how they approach the problem, how they present the issues, and how they cite their information. To illustrate this approach to evaluation, I’ll walk through the example of how I came to believe the website “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is more convincing. Yes, I will come out again and say that I am biased towards believing in Global Warming, but there were other things that factored into my opinion.
The “How To” website approached Global Climate Change for the problem that it is, enormously complex. Upon opening the website, the viewer is greeted with a seemingly endless array of objections and counterpoints. It appears to me they have taken the time to thoroughly go over the numerous particularities of the debate. The FOS website has a mere 6 claims. With the infinitely complex and dynamic nature of the environment, 6 claims does not seem like a lot. Furthermore, the response in the “How To” website are significantly longer, addressing caveats and nuances. Once again, it reflects the nature (no pun!) of the problem it is approaching. The FOS website has very brief, curt arguments.
Additionally, on some of the responses on the “How To” site, a lengthy list of sources is provided (no consensus). The FOS site only provides graphs with very little interpretative aids, and few citations. If the claims were legitimate, perhaps there would be more illustration of the facts.
Finally, although this is based on zero factual information, the FOS site appears too sure of itself, presenting the other side as almost demonic (especially with the quotes on the top of the page). The “How To” website says flat out that it will not take itself too seriously, and that appeals to me.

The Catskills

When I was in high school, I would hike around the New York Catskills Mountains. There was one hiking trail that was my favorite because it led to a waterfall on the top of a mountain. The cliff was about 50-75 feet high and depending on the time of year the water pressure would vary. The landscape was enchanting because it was impressive to see something so beautiful that humans had no part in making. Also, I think the allure of it was caused by the fact that I never saw waterfalls in my suburban town.

It was also the combination of a lot of factors. The sun would shine through the trees which gave a golden hue to everything it touched. The water basin was clear and cool. I would drink from the stream. This was probably the most pure water I’ve ever tasted in nature because this water came from the top of a mountain in the Catskills. This in itself was a great experience because I felt connected to the natural world. At that moment, I felt like an equal to the natural world, it was unlike the usual feeling of being a parasite to the beauty the world possesses.

Once I climbed up to where the waterfall began and it was even more spectacular than I could have imagined. I was able to see everything around me and there is something humbling about looking at a large landscape. In the moment you look around you realize how small you truly are compared to the world you dominate and take for granted.

We should concern ourselves to a certain degree with saving nature. The extent to which we should concern ourselves is only to repair what we have destroyed; otherwise it would be unnatural to fix it. For instance, a forest fire started by a person should immediately be put out, but a naturally occurring one should not. As humans, we should not take it upon ourselves to play “god”, but we should be aware of our effects, positive or negative, on the environment.

The ocean, the sand, and me

When I was a sophomore in high school, a friend invited me to go on a sea kayaking trip with her family. It was an amazing experience, a group of ten people going out in the practically untouched islands of the Bahamas for a week with whatever they were paddling for themselves. Having never done anything like this before, I had to learn quickly: how to paddle effectively, what my task in the group was at any given moment, and how to avoid sunstroke. The water was every color blue that you could possibly imagine. We saw a lizard that was bigger than a small dog. I managed to climb to the highest point of the Bahamas, which consequently was not all that high.

During that trip though, my two fondest moments with nature were very peaceful. The first night, I chose to sleep on the beach. With nothing but my sleeping bag and pad, I feel asleep looking up at the stars, which shone so bright. Sunk into the sand as my bed. I felt as if I was truly within nature. The second moment came when I got my first chance to kayak in the one-person kayak. It was just me, working towards this unseen island just beyond the horizon, battling the waves alone, and feeling the water splash in my face. I loved every moment of my experience in the Bahamas.

Consequently, the last island we arrived at was covered in trash. Not only did it annoy me, it was horrible for the surrounding environment. Who knows what had already washed into the ocean or been detrimental to the island wildlife? “Saving nature” is essential to the continuation of human’s wellbeing and the world’s. I want to keep the world a beautiful place to explore but there is also a more dangerous problem that can arise. Ecosystems are fragile, and rely on a cycle to continue. McKibben, in Eaarth, makes the statement that ecosystems have already been forced to change and pushing them further can create more permanent damage. The truth is that we don’t know the full effects of an ecosystem crumbling. Ecosystems have so many complex interactions within themselves and outside. We need to save nature, it would be stupid not to.

Biodiversity and People

Scuba diving would be the most thrilling/ magical/ enchanting engagement with non-human world experience for me. It was such a beautiful world under the sea, and I was very amazed the affluence of biological diversity in the sea when I first time scuba diving experience at Puket Island, Thailand. There were countless colouful fishes, beautiful coral reef, and turtles. Also, Diving in everytime, I had an opportunity to meet a variety of see creatures. This was so excited because I did not know what kind of creature I will meet in next time. It was a vey different world which I have never experienced on the land. This experience and view awake me biodiversity.

I agree that the second half question because human's activity always consists on non-human existence. The reason why we should concern about ourselves in terms of "saving nature" becasue humans are the only creaure either destroy or protect the earth by their activities. In our life, many productions originally come from the grace of the living biodiversity. For instance, our food, clothing, and apartment cannot have without nature. In addition, the oxygen which we need to take in is made by plants, and our clean water have been purifield by microorganisms. Biodiversity is a part of our life rather than just something we have.

Dogs and Nature

The most thrilling moment I had with the non-human world took place some years ago when I was camping, but it did not involve any animal life that I had encountered camping. Rather, it involved my uncle’s dog and his father-in-law’s dog. I woke up early one morning to just take a walk, because everyone else was asleep, including my uncle’s dog. When I stepped out of the tent, however, I encountered his father-in-law’s dog, growling, showing its teeth, and drooling. I did not know what to do, and just stood there, motionless. In an instant, my uncle’s dog, which had been asleep, leaped out of the tent, confronted the other dog. It barked and charged the other dog. All the while, I was just standing there. My uncle’s dog then walked back and forth across me, chased the other dog away, then came back and licked me. It was startling. So much had happened. For one, the situation was completely resolved by animals. I was a “passenger” to the whole thing. Second, it was extraordinary to see the interaction of the two dogs, and understand that there was more than simple aggressiveness. There was a substantial amount of communication going on, which I did not understand, but they did. Granted, dogs are not as smart as humans, but it showed me how complex their world can be.

Whether or not nature should be saved, I think, is a simple question. What does that mean? It is very vague, because the problem seems so hopelessly complex and enormous. Obviously, as the readings said, and as anyone can judge, not all the animal life will survive, so to hope that we can save every single species is out of the question. From here, however, there are no clear-cut solutions. The natural systems are so complex that we do not fully know what is going on, only that there are a lot of interconnected factors. So I would agree with one of the readings that we should study these systems more so, to prioritize what needs to be done. But to what extent can even the prioritized species survive if changing climate and reduced land for wildlife do not ensure a secure area? Sitting back, however, can accomplish little, because there is the massive potential to lose very valuable linkages in the system that can bring the whole work down. Not to sound selfish, but apart from all the beauty, humanity depends enormously on the complex linkages of actions and species in ecosystems, so to the extent that we can preserve these, we should, because our own way of living depends on them.

Peruvian Mountains- my pacha mama experience

When I was 18 going on 19 years old, my family went to Peru together in June before my birthday. Coming home after my first year of college was awful and trying, but the vacation was supposed to save us all from each other. And it did. It was the mountains, for five days, trekking to see Machu Pichu, with the sky and the time to look at the world around us. People would come and go on the trail, but you have to keep walking, just like life. The air was cleaner, the time was there, and we all separated and rejoined as felt natural. There were trees I had never seen before, but my mom, a landscape architect and artist, knew all of their latin names. Birds flew over us that the guide could identify, and monkeys turned up along our path up past the peaks of Salkantay mountain. I walked alongside my father and my sister for as long as we wanted. The whole trip healed me. After a year of the social trials and errors at university, I think I had really lost touch with the reasons I should care about the rest of the world because I had gotten lost in my own head and my own issues. The room for introspection that the 5 days hiking afforded me, and the motion of walking, tirelessly for days, and the very kind Peruvians who hosted us through the trip, just making it so easy to get lost in yourself, while physically guided by them. Peruvian mountains renewed my heart in a way that kept me physically dedicated to a world I had only had implicit faith in before.

Places like Machu Pichu exist because people like the Quechua in Peru felt a spiritual connection to the mountains and specifically sought to live on them instead of under them. Pacha Mama is the name of the benevolent goddess of the mountains' spirit. The Virgin Mary, when brought by Spanish conquistadors to Peru, was depicted as a Blue Triangle figure, another version of the Pacha Mama. Spirituality is not something I usually appreciate, but I have never felt as close to the rest of humanity as when I have been in mountains, with enough space to my self that I can appreciate the world. That connection has to exist for a reason. People need space. People need clean air, open sky, water to swim in, to drink, to spray. People need need need beyond their capacities to provide, "succeeding ourselves to death." Donella Meadows wrote an article celebrating this need for nature as a spiritually fulfilling thing too, however, no matter how you phrase it, if you tell the right person, emotional ties to the world around us, the natural world, will sound trite. It is important to save nature because we essentially all go back to that happy place in our heads. If we lost the battle to save nature, we have lost the battle to save our own sanity. Even when I say it, it sounds trite! But it is true. Put that on your environmentally-friendly Hallmark card.

S*** Heats Up in Uganda

http://allafrica.com/stories/201010120041.html

This example of biogas as a renewable resource option in Uganda demonstrates why environmental solutions are not just a first world issue. The bioslurry, the waste produced by the process, also is used as a fertilizer in the home's garden. Biogas has seen a large social, economic and environmental return when applied in this capacity. By applying a localized solution, the family is also able to gain autonomy in its household economy and spends less money paying for energy in general.

"The inherent differences between fossil and renewable energies suggest that in order to be sustainable, the shift to renewables be include a transition to a more localized economy," http://www.localenergy.org/background.htm . Sustainability is not just a solution available for the first world's homes. There is a need to teach sustainable, achievable processes and make them into universal knowledge- empowerment of individuals and individual households to take up environmental solutions for themselves. By disseminating information and examples like this, environmental solutions seem so much more broach-able. Furthermore, the kind of neighborly, cooperative action that the biogas solutions promote (ie. sharing dung between households) help form a community around the positive environmental steps that they can participate in. The movement of environmental action ultimately comes down to a movement of people hoping that the world survives for generations to come, so the interest of an individual in their fellow man or woman becomes the crux of the environmental movement. A shift towards localized energy means that people become less dependent on international institutions and global markets, and become freed up to consider their futures and the quality of life that they want for their children.

Is it the ultimate localization?

Each country or even each city has particular characteristics for environmental movement.

I always like to see those differences and how it effectively works in that region. In terms of regional differences, the U.S. and Japan have very different model regarding to localization because the size of land is the obvious difference between those two countries. Thus, today I would like to introduce a new Japanese localization method and a new environmental trend by taking advantages of small Japanese region.

Have you heard "plant factory"?

Plant factory is a new productive system which take place inside of the building and use an environmental control technology and automation technology. It means that the computer control plant's temparture, light, amount of CO2, and fertilizer, so plants do not get any extreme weather and season influences. In Japan, this productive system gradually become popular, and people hope to this farming as the new type of localization food. This system is good for especially bug cities like Tokyo because plant factory can farm even at small space.

This news article introduces the new Subway restaurant with plant factory at Marunouchi which is very famous business district, Tokyo

The concept of this shop is ''Tensa Tensho (Local Producton for Local Consumption)."

At the center of this restaurant, there is an installed small plant factory faculityfor growing food stuff from seeds. The Main farming is Lettuce in organic hydroponics. All lettuce for the dishes are grown in the shop, and it takes about three weeks to harvest, the store expects to have about 20 balls per week (approximately 100 servings), and they hope to increase more and more later.

I thought this is a very interesting article when we think about regional differencies. The U.S. does not have such kind of farming method because they have huge land, but Japan have to deal with it's very limited region especially for big cities, so plant factory would be very helpful for them. In order to accelerate localization products as well as reduce transportation cost, this might be one of good mehod to resolve environmental issue and limited land issue for small regional countries.

Suzlon Foundation

www.suzlon.com
www.suzlonfoundation.com

Suzlon Corporation is the third largest Wind Energy Company in the world. It has had a 100% annual growth rate since the start of the company in 2001. The majority of the company’s wind farms are in the desert of India (Northwest) and in rural areas due to the amount of land needed to create a successful Wind Energy Farm. The Corporation has come under social pressures to create a public relations office. I worked in this office during my abroad program in India. I saw first hand the positive affects this company has on poor villagers. This company has many different programs to empower these villagers, such as tree plantation, solar power lights, women self-help groups, animal vaccinations, computer literacy for teachers, education about personal health, deepening of ponds/rain water collection, and the list goes on. Basically, the corporation sends their Public relations office into these poor areas around the wind energy farms and have the employees in this office evaluate what needs to be done to help life these people out of poverty. These impoverished people are marginalized into a role in society and through these programs funded by Suzlon Corporation these villagers are able to have a better quality of life. This may sound like an ad for this company, but when I worked there I saw how genuine the employees were when it came to helping these impoverished people.

Magic or Just Good Science?

Science in Action: Bioinspiration - Hair Mats

My little sister was actually the first person to show me this video. After the oil spill, the school invited someone to come speak to their class about possible environmentally-friendly cleanup options. She then came back home and was excited to show it to everyone.

I had no idea that there was this grassroots movement that had successes with past oil spills and had began working in the Gulf. The idea of human hair may weird people out a little bit, but the innovation is incredible. Other than the transportation costs, the product relies on human hair, recycled hosiery, and bugs; there are no created products and no byproducts in theory. With all the benefits that it provides and its low environmental cost, it seems to have an extra positive impact.

I found this process so special because it completes the sustainability cycle. The decomposition process through compost is so cool. The idea that this is a complete cycle provides the hope that other product cycles can be made sustainable. Taking waste products, using them for good, and then decomposing it so that there is no waste product left seems like a little bit of magic (or just good science).

New York Times: Offshore Wind Power Line Wins Backing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&sq=google%20energy%20east%20coast&st=cse&scp=1

The article highlights how Google and another financial firm have decided to invest in an offshore wind energy network. The plan calls for an underwater cable to stretch from Northern New Jersey to Virginia, in a slight trench, connected to wind turbines about 15-20 miles offshore. The turbines would be barely visible to anyone onshore, and would produce the power of about five large nuclear power plants. Furthermore, because the turbines would stretch across a wide geographic area, the energy supply from them will not be confined to a small area and will thus be more predictable. Some say portions of it can start to be built by 2013. Being that this is an innovative project, it appears that its success will influence other like-minded projects in the future.

omnivore guilt

When I turned 11 years old, my parents told me that I could have any party that I wanted- I chose to have a dinner of 11 of my best friends where we ate only Ribs, pork ribs, from my favorite rib joint in Philadelphia, where I am from. The Rib Crib does spicy, mild, and chicken wings. The saucy has molasses and I am sure plenty of things I never wanted to know in it. The point being, from a young age I have loved meat.

Two summers ago I decided to develop my cooking skills so that I could prepare and cook my own dinners which contained meat. I tried to cook every organism with a thigh bone. I looked for meat that was from the District, Maryland and Virginia area. Local meat has been a part of my mother's mantra since I was a young girl because of the flavor that freshness brings. She wanted flavor, flavor, flavor, butter, salt, fresh, good-looking produce, and somewhere along the line I osmosis-ed the whole lesson. When I started learning about the environmental impact of food in college, and tried to tell her she had been doing the right thing this whole time, my mom laughed me off. She believed it, but hated the hackneyed lesson of climate change as an impetus to alter her eating style.

This was never a problem until this past summer, whereupon I decided to take meat out of my diet entirely. She did not understand, she didn't believe that meat raising was effecting enough environmental damage to stop eating it every night. Well, it was a battle for about 2 months, but not too serious, and eventually I proved her right by shrugging off the challenge. I do still eat some meat some times. I still definitely eat seafood, and relish it. However, the pervasive environmental guilt I feel about eating meat means that I never buy it for myself unless I purchase something without paying attention once in a blue moon. All of a sudden I'll find myself halfway through a turkey sandwich when I babysit a kid who is himself munching on chicken fingers. If the meat is free, then I'll take it. My purchasing power is what matters- I don't want to be involved in the customer demand feedback loop empowering retailers to buy more meat.

I go to the farmer's market once a week, but I also go to Giant. I consider my decision to bike or use public transport to access my food retailers an environmentally charged decision in that it limits my use of fuel to get my food. My mother worries that I am not getting enough iron so she mails me beans; honestly, I love lentils and will eat as many as she sends me, but I wish she could send me some ribs from the Rib Crib on Germantown Ave. instead.

Environmentally Eating

When I think about food, there are four things that come to my mind. Most importantly is if the food looks good. Second, the food needs to be accessible to me. My options are limited to what I can buy at the grocery stores that are close by, what I can travel to buy, or what is available to me on campus. Third, from the options I have, I try to pick well-rounded and organic options. I am lucky because my family has the means to purchase organic food even though it is more expensive. Fourth, the price of food is still small factor. There is the debate if I should use my meal swipes, or go purchase a meal, or just travel home to eat my already-bought food.

I do try to purchase local, organic food whenever possible. That does help to ensure a more environmental practice of agriculture, but that is not originally why I choose that food. I choose organic, local food because I believe it’s a healthier and more natural way to eat. The environmental benefit is honestly not my main motivation but an added bonus. I find it hard to take action against mass farms and global transport of food because it is so engrained into the agricultural market in the United States. If you want meat, there is commonly only meat produced in massive amounts. The same exists for rice, wheat, and corn. There is such a low supply of small farm meat that it can only supply those that are willing to seek it out and pay extra. In terms of fruit from around the world, my opinion is that it’s already made the journey to the store, it’s healthy, and I should buy it. Environmental concerns are not usually in the forefront of my mind when dealing with food.

With some thought, I decided that a chicken breast from TDR was the least environmentally friendly piece of food I ate in the past few days. I believe that the chicken breast took the most energy to reach my plate and then be cleaned. Starting from the beginning, huge chicken farms and slaughtering plants produce methane and use a lot of energy (most likely coal driven) in the process. The farm and slaughtering plant could also be in different places, so a transportation fossil fuel emission would potentially need to be factored in. After transportation to the Bon Appetit—the catering company in charge of TDR—warehouse, it would have to be refrigerated. The chicken would then be transported to TDR and refrigerated again. Ultimately, the chicken would be cooked on the grill and kept warm, constantly using energy until I take it. Then, the cleaning of the plate also uses energy and water. There seemed to me to be a copious amount of burning of fossil fuels and coal-generated energy use.

Nom Nom Nom....Mac and Cheese

The first thing I think about when I am purchasing food is the price. As a college student, I am not earning a lot of money to blow on expensive organic food. But, I am a smart shopper and when at all possible I try to buy cheap and organic (I know it’s an oxymoron). What I’ve found is Trader Joe’s is a great grocery store for a shopper like me. When I am choosing the food I will eat I tend to think in terms of health as well. I will try to get fruits, vegetables, protein, dairy, and carbs. I think I do a very good job of picking out healthy choices for myself. Honestly, it would drive me insane if I thought about all the environmental degradation involved in grocery stores. Yet, I try not to buy food wrapped in many layers of plastic and cardboard.

The interesting part about consumerism is the consumer drives the market. However, in the United States we forget that we have the power to choose what we want to pay for. For instance, we can chose from 50 different types of yogurt. Therefore, there is competition between these companies and these companies try to make a product that satisfies the demand. So, if we were to start buying more organic food and more environmentally friendly food. We have already seem a small change in the market, but for the majority of people buying organically is still too expensive.

I am just making an assumption, but I would guess the Kraft Mac and Cheese I ate would probably have the most impact. It seems like the unhealthiest out of all the food I’ve eaten because it has a processed cheese packet to go along with the macaroni. When making it you have to boil water and therefore I used gas energy to boil this water. The box is recyclable, so in terms of the environment that isn’t too bad. Yet, the cheese packet wrapping…I’m not exactly sure what it is, but I know that it is definitely not recyclable and probably the worst environmental impact out of all of these products. The food itself created an impact on the environment. The macaroni probably doesn’t have a huge effect, but the factory used energy to make it. The cheese probably is the worst out of the two food products. But, it tastes so good. Anyway, there are chemicals put into the cheese to make it into a powder these chemicals probably have by-products that need to be disposed of somehow. The cheese packet has the worst impact on the environment because it is most likely a toxic form of plastic and thus has an extremely long half-life. So, the packet from the mac and cheese I ate yesterday will most likely be in a dump when my great grand children are alive.

Invisible Energies Behind of Food

1. When I decide what kind of food I buy, I prefer to have organic food and local production food becuase I thought it would be healthier and environmentally good. However, when I buy food at the glocery store, I would not afford to buy those food every time, so I often choose cheaper one. Price is always matter for me. If I afford to buy organic one, I would buy it. However, regarding to buying fruits and vegetables, mostly I buy those at the Farmers Market which near by my resident because at there I can buy food directly from farmers, and I believe this would be environmentally much less energy compared to buying food at the store. Thus, I would like to say I have environmental consideration, but this concerns often comes after the price. My another concern is health. Good balance of food leads healther body and results of good health, so I often concern balance of food, if I feel I do not eat enough vegetables, I try to take in vegetables.
2. As I mentioned in the first quesion, I often go to Farmers Market to buy food, then I usually cook food for my self with fresh food, so I could control and exactly know what I take in to my body. Also, I try to have food with less energy. Yesterday, I ate spinachi & bean salada and apple cider at cafe, I often think that the process of my order needs much cost and energy because it has more process to come to me. This is the way how people gain money, but I feel inefficiency of this system. This week's reading "Something Under the Sun", the author says the lack of human ingenuity is the part of the answer regarding to environmental change. It is important to concern development and technology to better off our life, but utilizing our positive human ingenuity, people might need to concern more about fundamental things such as people's health and food.

Thoughts on Meatballs

When making my food choices at the grocery store, I take into account a number of factors, although I must admit the issue of environmentalism does not at all come across my mind. First and foremost, I chose food depending on what I prefer. To eat something, I have to like it. Usually, the other most critical factors are health and price. I am not overly concerned with health, but I make sure I get food items from some different food groups. The sodium content, cholesterol, and fat content are things that I scan for quickly in the nutritional facts. With respect to price, I try to find the item that goes along best with my taste and health preferences, but one that is the cheapest. As a college student, I really must focus on stretching every dollar, so if I spot a deal with something I wish to purchase, I will go for it.

Of the food I have recently eaten, I would probably say that my meatballs have had the greatest environmental impact. The meat mixture I use is comprised of three different meats, a portion of which comes from Canada, and the other portion, the United States. This means that there were high transportation costs, aside from all the other costs of raising the meat (pork, veal, beef)which one of the readings noted uses more energy than those products distribute. Aside from the meat itself, the meatball also has cheese, seasoning, bread crumbs, salt, pepper, eggs, oil, and some milk. To get all of these products to one place definitely contributed some type of environmental damage through transportation. All these different ingredients require an expenditure of energy to create, especially the animal-related products, and the fact that they are all concentrated into a ball that fits into the palm of my hand shows how one small piece of food can require a great deal of energy, which in turn can harm the environment. Furthermore, I cooked the meatballs using a gas stove, which is not the most friendly fuel for the environment. All the oil that is left over from cooking is simply disposed of, which also raises the environmental cost because energy was used to create it, and it was not used to its fullest extent.

Technology: TBD

As a person living in the United States, I consider technology to be my ipod or computer, but it can also be thought of as anything that cannot be found in the natural world. Now, some people might be up in arms about this statement, but it is completely valid. For instance, when agricultural plows were first developed this was considered technology. Technology is relative to the time and the development of the country. For this reason, it is foolish to assume technology can or will save us. First of all, technology allowed us to prosper and thus leads to the degradation of the environment. Before technology ruled our lifestyles, life was simple, but fulfilling. People worked harder and this meant we knew the amount of work something took to create. With technology, we see buildings being constructed everyday because the old ones will not fit the human capacity demanded. Yet, we do not see where these materials come from or the way in which they are transported to the construction site. This notion of technology saving the world seems like a ploy created by big business to keep “business as usual”.

Technology, in general, is terrific and has allowed the United States and other developed countries to prosper. In terms of the environment, technology is not beneficial. Technology makes our lives easier and therefore we glamorize it. Yet, it is the reason why environmental degradation has sped up in recent years. For many, technology seems like the answer because it would be the logical choice to the problem. Technology helps us solve many of our problems in other parts of our lives, so then the question becomes why this would be any different from anything else. It is different solely because it is what allows for the problem to begin in the first place. In another argument, no one would use the problem as a solution, yet this glamorization of technology has brought many people to this very conclusion.

Many people have come to the conclusion that technology will save us, but it is impossible to predict the unknown. Who knows if it will? It may or it may not, but personally, I am not waiting for that cure-all piece of technology. Also, it is interesting that humans are putting all of their faith into something that will fails us from time to time. Readily, we forget the negative aspects of technology because it takes the pressure off of humans to fix our way of life.

Technology Alone Cannot Save Us

Technology alone cannot be the answer to the Earth’s present struggles. I find the Cornucopian belief that technology will progress enough to fix our major problems to be shallow. I personally have a difficulty in just sitting back and waiting for these life-changing innovations to pop up. And, if they do happen to pop up out of nowhere, then I don’t believe that they will rapidly integrate themselves into world policy because there will be too many obstacles. My disbelief is two-fold: technology is an aid but not an answer and implementation of technology is too difficult.

My mom used to always tell me that with every action there comes a reaction. I believe that this holds true for everything…including technology. Each new technological innovation also brings with it a negative by-product. With the burning of fossil fuels, there comes the depletion of stratospheric ozone. This is something that is very obvious to us right now, but at the time of the Industrial Revolution was minute if existent at all. Nuclear power creates a toxic waste, wind and water turbines kill the local wildlife, and electric energy ultimately leads back to coal burning for the most part. With these new technologies that we are developing, how will we know the exact long-term effects? What if something that we considered helpful is later discovered to have created a whole other environmental problem? The ecosystems around the globe are very fragile. A slight change of the long-term can amount to serious damage.

Also, I don’t believe that once a beneficial technology is created it will be implemented to the extent it demands to have any sort of dramatic effect. There are so many innovations around the world, and most of them remain with untapped potential. I understand the process of weeding our the less efficient and poor technologies, but I don’t ever see the process being completed by promoting one special technology to be implemented worldwide. As we’ve talked about in class, worldwide changes are difficult because opposition will exist until the environmental option becomes economically viable but that won’t happen until countries alter the structure of their economy. It is a vicious cycle that prevents the progression of green innovations from truly impacting the world market. I admit that it is grim, but I don’t see that changing rapidly.

In environmental terms, my impression is that in order for technology to “save us” it means that technology will support any lifestyle that humans want to live. I do not believe this is a possibility. Technology can only aid us in helping to resolve the environmental issues that we have created. The world has a chance to take advantage of the benefits of technology, because it is certainly not all negative. Ultimately, I place the responsibility in the world population. This is a positive; there is possibility for resolution. Without action from us, technology is merely there and for the most part inactive. Technology cannot be the catalyst that begins environmental progress; the world population needs to be the catalyst.

One Small Step for Mankind, but a Potential to be a Moderate Step

I think it would be premature to say that technology will save us. It is already clear how enormously complex the world is, with ecosystems so interconnected that a minor change in one area will affect a quality in another area. It is becoming clear how enormously complex the solutions need to be. Theories ranging from sustainable development, slowing population growth, to management of resources all prove that whatever the solution is, it will be just as complex as the ecosystems that are saved. Technology is just one component. It will only be one part of the solution (or problem).
It is true that technologies of the past and present, and most definitely the future, have and will continue to damage the environment, but this damage is a reflection of our own lack of foresight. Our industrialization did not take into account of the social impacts that the new technologies would inflict. While some would argue that technology is not neutral (saying that a nuclear power plant is not the same as a solar panel), they are missing the point that those technologies were conceived of in the human mind, and are a reflection of what we think. The capabilities bestowed upon them are capabilities that we as humanity chose to bestow upon them. They are not inherently bad or good. Humanity could develop much more far-reaching environmentally friendly technology, or technology that can resuscitate devastated environments, but that is left to humanity. Taking into account the earlier mentioned complexity, it can be said now that technology may play a part in saving us. The keys here are may and part. It is up to humans to decide what technology can do, and considering the complexity, whatever we develop will have to fit into a much larger framework of better resource management, alteration of habits, and education.
As for stratospheric ozone depletion, one must be cautious about drawing conclusions. CFC’s and other materials that damaged the ozone were part of technologies that did not consider their far-reaching impacts. It could be easy to say that we must reduce technology because we reduced CFC’s and helped lessen the damage to the ozone. However, that would label an entire class of objects (which have done many beneficial things) as inherently bad. To coordinate the meetings for the summits, world leaders no doubt relied on technologies which allowed them to communicate faster and travel. Without those technologies, such global coordination would be impossible.

Technology's False Positives

Technology is such a seductive option for the salvation of humanity from the terrifying world of environmental disaster-apocalypse that surely awaits us all in the future. I think the real appeal really just comes from the idea that with a little bit of science that you or I do not necessarily understand, we could Revolutionize Something. There are technological fixes out there for small scale problems, and the most successful and least disruptive of these seem to attempt mimicry of nature's systems. People need technological literacy on a global scale in order to see the self-restriction of technological industry. If Subsaharan Africans who faced mass starvation as a result of the 1970s Green Revolution funded by the IMF and World Bank had increased access to affordable technology, we could perhaps see a better rounded approach to the greening of agriculture as it effects global carbon emissions and the empowerment of local people.

Bill McKibben talks about the role of the internet in bringing together the global community, with the expansion of the internet's connection to more diverse peoples from ethnic and economic class issues it could be supposed that first world and third world might collide more creatively in terms of technological development. In this way, yes, perhaps technology could "save" us. However, the trend is ever towards extremes. As much as our communities are expanded, our access to each other as human beings increased, some of this inevitably moves us away from our contact on the -face-to-face level. When everything is from a distance I wonder how connected people feel to their own backyards.

Technology in terms of robots and environmental tech like what we discussed last class I am always skeptical of; how far has any of that kind of thinking brought us? Metal trees to replace real trees for carbon output sound make me sad. On an elemental level that is how I feel. The rising global population concerns me more for the CO2 levels than maximized efficiency trees. We need, rather, a return to older ways I would say. Good old fashioned education and proactive work. Sex and environmental education, on a global level. Education education education holds the height of technological hope for me personally. Only education and action can save us.

Technology and Environment

I would like to take the first part question: will technology save us? Why, or why not? and meaning of technology in terms of environment.

I would say technology will be a helpful development tool or investment to improve our environment in the long run. The first thing I came up with when I heard technology in environment was Kiznet's curve that we talked about in the second week of class. When people just started developing technology, they destroyed environmental quality more rather than improve it, and this happened because people did not know how to use technology well. However, at the particular point, they eventually could improve quality of environment more because of technology development, regulations or rules taken by government, and changing values and norms toward environment issues. The changing of norms and regulations would come first to connect technology development , but technology development is a part of factor of improvment of environment situation.
I believe that technology development will improve more to help us because technology would never go back. There are many countries which are still underdeveloped, and those countries could learn the developmet path which developed countries already experienced, but this means in positive way, learning from past failures. From developed countries's experience, underdevelop countries can take more greener actions for environment movement by technology development which is already developed by developed countries. In order to take the right path, the policy or regulation would be a key factor to motivate people to go greener.
In recent years, many environmental policies/ regulations and norms/ concept published, and technology often uses in order to achive these goals. For example, Corporation Social Responsibility(CSR) is the concept which private firms or corporations should not aim only own interest, but also need to achieve social responsibirities such as protection of environmental issues. This concept imposes on firms to improve the cause of environmental destruction such as reduction of CO2 emissions , and many firms utilize technology to achieve this responsibilities. In addition to that, eco business appeared like renewable energy and productions, those are impossible to achieve without technology develoment. Therefore, I believe that technology will work in positive, and achieve great improvement to environmental situation.

Clever but impractical

The US gives itself so much credit sometimes that it is easy to forget that these days, not only are we Not First at some things, we are not even in the top 5. Environmental care is one of these things. Furthermore, China certainly has no room to brag, I breathed in Beijing for 5 months, I know. When Friedman quotes Liu saying climate change “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.” she is not joking. People everywhere are dying of climate change and pollution in China. In reality, the country is saving itself an enormous (as opposed to just a really really large) national healthcare bill in about 10 years by making a real effort now to green its methods of growth. If China really wanted to deter the acceleration of climate change, the government would enforce pollution penalties, it would cap factory emissions and many other things. I would be interested to hear where the scientific labs used in the developments of these green products are dumping their waste. The Chinese do not recycle- the plastic mines Friedman discusses are other people's garbage landed on the PRC. Finding even one recycling can in Beijing was not only a hassle, but near impossible. Even if there is one recycling can in a neighborhood, I highly doubt that the thing is ever used correctly or conscientiously. This article is right, the Chinese do use greening to create jobs, something that the US badly needs right now. But that doesn't make China environmentally pristine.

The US could do from taking some practical wisdom from China- be practical, accept that which makes you better able to supply for your people and your nation's future. Stability, harmony and ingenuity are quick ways to an easy buck, why would you mess yourself up by getting in your own way? OH THAT'S RIGHT- Democracy. Governance is there for a reason, but in this country somehow that has been interpreted to mean that petty politics are the order of the day. The willfully maintained ignorance of global change will come to find these individuals one day and the best action we can take at this point is the local action that every one of our classes seems to come down to; you cannot count on the powers that be to make decisions that best serve you or the rest of the world. You have to be conscious every step of the day, and once you make environmentally friendly habits- like recycling, writing your congressman, or informing yourself, friends and family about the destruction your way of life could be wreaking on this world- it becomes easier. Ehri said in class the other day that in Japan recycling is a thoughtless process with maybe up to 11 bins to put your trash in. If the people of Japan can chose between 11 bins for recycling, we should be able to, too! The practical implementation of recycling programs needs nothing beyond the initiative of a few anxious people. Authority figures have been anticipating the ruckus about to made over their recycling for ages. It's time to validate those anticipations by aggravating them a bit. In the US nothing gets done until people decide to do something about it- in China there are so many people that if the government did not head up industry and employ people they would still be having farmer's revolutions against their landlords. Such is the nature of these nations.

We're Only Outsmarting Ourselves

I don’t believe that there is a “best” way to address climate change. Action is action. There are so many approaches that are possible, each with its merits. With our global situation at present, it is just necessary to take action; we can’t afford to be picky right now. And, as with any complex problem, it will not be one solution but a combination of many that truly attacks the problem. I also believe that the U.S. cannot discount the fact that other nations are making impacts and we are not. It is easy to scapegoat our obstacles to the government, but one of my classmates made the point that our representatives are essentially supposed to be representations of our beliefs. So, are the representatives not properly portraying our wants, is the public not concerned enough, or a little bit of both?

The global economy is based upon competition. So, it is understandable that this article would bring out this obvious competition between China and the U.S. However, I viewed this comparison as a chance for progress instead of the end result of an ultimate winner and loser. First, there are not just two parties involved in this article. Friedman mentions the European Union, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea as also having legislature put in place to deal with electronics recycling. This is important when talking about Biddle’s business because those are the places that recycle enough to make his work viable. Behind my house right now, there are electronics sitting in the back alley, because it is just hard to get rid of them. Also, Friedman gives the U.S. a lot of credit for our spirit of innovation, something that China lacks. But the trick is that innovation is only a part of the process; the other part is implementation. China is good at implementing ideas and tweaking them to make them most cost effective. In essence, the U.S. and China could work together…life is not always a race.

I’ve seen this recurring theme lately in environmental politics: if it’s not directly visible, then it doesn’t exist. Friedman criticizes American politicians, as he should, for debating whether climate change exists. For the Chinese, there is no debate. “People see, eat, and breathe pollution every day”, according to Liu in the article. The United States cannot wait until the changes are this obvious, it will be too late. Right now it is easy for Americans to ignore these problems, because they can go through their days without being directly, immediately affected. Climate change is real; it cannot be ignored. If it is, we will end up in a horrible situation where each day the climate hurts us significantly.

Coorporation or Competition

In general, I agree on more green things related technological innovation, movements/attitude, and policies would give us plus effects. Since 1950s Industrial Revolution, people very much moved toward industrialization, modernization, and after 1980- 90s we could connect with others more closely due to development of the network such as an internat connection which resulted in accelerating the globalized world. I think those factors made our environment situation worse; meanwhile, because we had such huge innovations and technologies, now we can turn into those factors for making our environmental situation better. I believe this idea is much toward to Market Liberals, and realize that there are possibilities of negative externalities such as market failure. However, I would like to see from positive way, and believe people are clever.

Fist, I would like to mention that solving climate chage can make new markets and new investments such as green jobs. The second article "D.C. Invests in Green Collar Jobs" written by Bracken Hendricks says that solving climate changes can find jobs and opportunity in the emerging green economy, and this makes sense to me because now many universitis have Environmental studies, there is Environmental related movies like "An Inconvinient Truth", and I actually see people who are working as public cleanup man at my neighbors often compared to last year. Therefore, I understand why Hendricks says "Green means jobs", and results vitalization of economy.

However, in terms of race between the U.S. and other countries, I have a different way of perspectives/views. I think each country need to focus on it's environmental issues because each country have different types of environmental concerns and hurdles. For instance, many people knows China's air pollution is really bad compared to others, also desertification is serious issue in China, so China is better to challenge developing some technologies related their concerns to make better situation. Here, the U.S. would also contribute the issue of cosumernism (this issue is toward cultural aspects though..) or making policies on recycling and develop some technologies related to this. Of course, the global matters such as global warming and ozon depletion and many other issues we should work on togeather, but it could each country have specific technological innovations on own special area and later trade each other to make both profits. This would be a future green system for people ias a member of an international community. Creating Coorporation relationships rather than compete each other to live in society would be the best way to avoid fighting over the resources and make sustainable society in the near future I believe.

Go For a New Industry!

I think the article makes an absolutely fantastic point. Behind every challenge there is money to be made. Especially on the heels of such a severe recession, people are more concerned with growth than they usually are. To transform climate change into a business, growth, and jobs-building opportunity would allow environmental goals to be easily sold to a broad swath of the U.S. public. Concerning whether or not it is appropriate to phrase it as a race, at this point it seems that anything that gets this environmental-friendliness moving is appropriate. The stagnation involved on this issue is tremendous, and will only grow as the extraordinarily partisan climate shows no true signs of abating. If friendly business competition drives forward innovation, then why not make it into a race? Economists will point out that competition brings out better solutions because both sides are trying to make their products more efficient for consumers. After decades of too little being done, I think complaining would miss the point. Sometimes, to get where you need to be, you need to take some sidesteps.
Just a few years ago, U.S. automakers were in a horrible position as better cars, especially from Japan, rolled off the assembly lines. Who would purchase a gas-guzzling, overly expensive U.S. truck when at the same time they could purchase an inexpensive hybrid that can go fifty miles on a gallon? While the U.S. auto industry is far from recovered and far from a completely new state, no one can say that it remains the same. Far from it, one can now see more efficient, more inexpensive vehicles coming out. Although the Chevy Volt is pretty expensive, the concept of the Volt going to market a few years ago would seem laughable. Then you had oil hover around 150 dollars a barrel, a recession, and bankruptcy as competition squeezed U.S. automakers. After adapting, they are on much better footing.
In terms of whether or not the argument for green manufacturing and technology as the elixir to climate problems is accurate, I would only say that it is only one issue. I do not think the author came out and said that it is the perfect medicine; I simply believe he was making the point that it is ridiculous that the United States has not transformed this into an economic issue because the benefits reaped can be enormous. This point is true. But strictly looking at the idea of technology as the true solution, it misses the point. If a habit is causing harm, then the habit needs to be changed or kicked. It can be an integral part of halting the damage, potentially reversing some of it, and creating growth, but other ideas also need to be considered, such as how a nation disposes of its waste, and how consumers understand costs. Otherwise, one will only focus on one narrow sector of a broader problem. This is not saying that technology is a problem, because it is not. But if one only focuses on the technical aspect when there are so many other layers, then there is no hope of reducing a very severe problem.

The Next Frontier?

Friedman seems far too pessimistic when it comes to US growth. Granted it is unfortunate the legislative and executive branches of the government are entangled with the oil/coal companies and therefore are less willing to make changes regarding green jobs and clean energy. Yet, I think it is unfair of Friedman to give the United States such a negative role in this article because in the DC area alone there are hundreds of organizations that cater to the environment. Just because our government is bureaucratic and not a dictatorship this doesn’t mean that we are not making progress. It is slower progress that will be debated in Congress, but this is our system. Also, as Americans, we are able to adapt quickly to new legislature. Of course, it is a positive thing that Freidman is making noising and complaining about this because this is how we are able to effectively make change through legislature. Many Americans forget Congress is a group of representatives. Theoretically, these representatives are looking out for the best interest of their state. Currently, we are in a time of great discontent with Congress and this is clearly reflected in Friedman’s article.

The discussion of action on climate change as a race is a completely legitimate concept. At least it makes sense as an American concept because this is as old as our country. When we were first developing, we were conquering the new frontier, this being the West. Another example of this American desire to explore and conquer the unknown is in the 1960s with the Final Frontier. His argument is clearly being drawn from the Cold War and how we were not technically in a war or race with Russia. Yet, there was a clear winner and loser after the United States landed on the moon. The issue of climate change is inevitably political because of what transpired with the USSR and the US. Therefore, we must let it play out in the political system no matter how annoying and utterly time consuming it maybe. These days we are faced with another unknown: the effects of climate change. If we are a solely looking at technology in this discussion it is plausible to assume this can be considered a race to see what country can develop the best technology. Also, it can be seem as a metaphor as well because we are racing against the clock to try to reverse the damage we have inflicted on the natural world.

As an advocate for renewable energy, I completely agree with the fact that we need to increase our production of “green” manufacturing as a means to decrease our environmental impact. But, we should not discount all other ways to decrease our impact. It is important to not have one solution to the issue of climate change and instead have a 360 degree view of how to solve it. Yet, cutting down on the CO2 emissions will be a positive step for our planet.

Paul Revere will never ride for environmentalism

All my co-bloggers and I have reached a similar conclusion on Maniates’ argument: the change that is being asked of people now is not enough. I was surprised by how individualized Maniates’ focus on climatic instability was. On the holiday known for community and joint effort, why focus on the individual? Focusing on the individual also helped Maniates’ point, because it was so easy to see through his examples that individual efforts to be “environmental” will not lead to stability. Ultimately, there needs to be a joint, global solution. So, on Thanksgiving, the American public can hopefully realize that having a community is great…but the community needs to act.

In the land of the “quick fix” mentality, Maniates is asking the American public to do more and to expect more from others. He makes it painfully clear the “technological tweaking” will not save our world. In fact, Maniates suggests a complete overhaul of American lifestyle and infrastructure. To those who may feel like that was dramatic…you’re wrong. I was interested that Maniates ultimately suggested political action as the main way to alter climate instability. Politics is exactly what holds back much of the environmental change people are trying to push for. It is our greatest weakness right now, but if altered could become our greatest asset.

Paul Revere will never ride for environmentalism. Maniates makes the claim that past world crises have been solved by a leader in the forefront. Climate change is not like any crisis the world has experienced. The three examples that Maniates uses are all different from climate change because they had very easily seen conflicts. It was possible to see progress quickly, easier to act directly, and when improvements were made they were visible. Climate change involves slow change, unpredictable events, and no visible success for years or decades. Therefore, we cannot attack the problem of climate change like we have other crises in the past like Maniates suggests. We need a new approach; it can still be heroic and revolutionary. There is no waiting around for a leader to emerge and solve the issue…that leader is not coming.

Are you an Enviromentalist?

Wk 4 Blog Post:
This piece of reading reminds me "Are you an enviromentalist "discussion which we talked in our last class.

I bring my lunch box and water bottle, take public transportation, and recycle papers and cups, yet I still do not feel like an environmentalist because this is just part of my life style. These behavior thought to be in the natural order for me. All individual behavior would depend on its own nature sense as well as its cultural and social past environmental experiences.

Moreover, the problem is the scale of enviromental issues; it's enoumously huge and complicated so it's really hard to recognize by people. Our behaviors are always involved with our environmental issues, but we hardly see how much consequences are. It's really hard to tell just one behavior gives how much damage on our environment. And the problem is people have very different sets of value toward environment, so it is imporatnt to determine the certain level of environmental behavior to awake people. Individual choice always matters on our environmental issues, but it's still hard to see damages through individual behavior. The assumption setting that effort in large units such as country or local goverment is also important, but first of all, efforts to improve the level of consciousness will be the first step to to grow environmental awareness of individuals.

Where is our Paul Revere?

When I read Michael Maniates article I immediately fell in love with what he said. We need drastic steps to create any type of change. He backed up his argument with examples from the past, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Franklin Roosevelt and Paul Revere. We need a strong leader or individual who feels passionately about saving the environment that they are willing to sacrifice any kind of normal life. This takes a unique personality and one which we have yet to see on the environmental scene. This type of article always makes me feel ready to go out and save the world. Yet, I think it is important to acknowledge that these small steps that are suggested by environmental authors and the EPA are a healthy start. If nothing less we are slowing down the process of environmental degradation. So, for now these small steps are all the citizens can do until a true advocate for the environment begins to lead the masses.

A leader will not spring up over night, but slowly environmentally conscious people will begin to get fed up with these passive leaders. When there is the most discontent among these people with the way our leaders are handling the environment this is when we will look to someone completely separate of the government to tell us what to do. Maniates brings up a great point that Americans are the best at change and adapting to change. This is what makes our government the hegemony, yet the people in power are not allowing us to make the necessary changes to our daily lives.

One quote that was truly striking was, “Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment.” This was in reference to the Al Gore Live Earth concert. I remember watching this concert and thinking something similar. He had brought together so many celebrities and musical groups that it seemed a little trite just to ask the world to recycle. With so much power in Gore’s hands at that moment he didn’t use it properly. Of course, it was great in that it brought awareness to the issue. Yet, it would have been more effective to bring awareness and also change.

Maniates’s argument was bold and refreshing because many authors try to smooth over the environmental issues that this generation is confronted with. He did nothing of the sort and instead he explained that we are not doing enough and there the time for easy solutions is behind us. This article’s argument was valid. I believe we are in need of changes that will not occur without a leader willing to make those changes happen. He was not being an alarmist; rather he was being an environmental realist. Maniates’s argument for more change and quickly is what every environmentalist wants, but no one has stepped up to fulfill the role of leader. Therefore, this is where environmentalists, like Maniates, begin to feel angered and disillusioned by the government.

Going Green: a Matter of Money

"Thanksgiving nicely focuses our attention on things of lasting importance: family, friends, community, a rich harvest. None of these blessings come without cost or sacrifice."

This sentimental interpretation of Thanksgiving is what we as Americans would like to associate with our national holiday, but it denies the reality of the American Holiday Spirit: money spending. We buy a turkey, get a deep frier, we watch football, and the next day we rush the Malls of America- looking for the best deals for Christmas. There are many variations of how we spend Thanksgiving all over the country, indeed the diversity that every American family brings to their table is a point of pride for many. However, the big failure of Maniates' article is to address the role of corporations and business in changing the ethic of American's attitudes towards greening. Time and time again we have seen that Americans do not react to the top-down mandates of politicians as effectively as the impetus of spending money.

Look at Maniates' examples of inspiration: Paul Revere, a man who did not want to be taxed unfairly by the government for his silver work. Roosevelt opposed fascism and created jobs for a nation in unemployment crisis. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the Civil Rights Movement calling for the integration of buses, businesses, schools, public works, all financially consolidating operations for institutions. No, these were not easy changes, and No, the change to move towards environmentalism is not an easy change either. Americans need to be called upon for a greater role in the end of environmental degradation, its true. However, without the change towards environmentalism in business ethics we will see very little real change in American behaviors.

Alternately, I would like to also take a look at when this article came out, in November of 2007. It's true that since that point we have seen an acceleration of publications alerting the public as to the true sources and effects of environmental degradation. Since 2007, we have seen some of the largest environmental disasters in human history. This article in and of itself is not enough as an answer to this seemingly overwhelming conundrum. "The glorification of easy" is not such a bad first step if we see it in conjunction with a change in the purchasing decisions on the part of Americans. If it became easier to buy a turkey for Thanksgiving that had not been injected with hormones that are environmentally harmful, or cranberry sauce derived from all locally grown ingredients, these are all relatively easy resolutions of environmentalism on the part of Americans. If awareness is the next step to change purchasing decisions, the environmental movement would do well to provide more effective answers that may also be easy as well. By dedicating more of Americans' attention to their environmental impact, we would see a deepening interest in environmental health. If we force corporations to have environmental objectives, and environmental consciousness in their processes- these are where real changes with real efficacy can be seen.

Thanksgiving comes down to the American rhetoric of Consumerism- let's not kid ourselves. In order to go green you have to find the greenbacks to do it. Replacing Easy with Cheap would not be such a bad thing. By demonstrating the environmental price of your environmentally-damaging "cheap" option, changes could be better effective and just as easy as promised. We live in a Recession, where many families struggle to feel the benefits of a rich harvest, with rising unemployment, and a low country-wide morale. Making green profitable is going to be the easiest way to encourage Americans to have frank talk about ways for confront the planetary emergency before us.