The book Cradle to Cradle's main premise is that the natural world has processes that are truly sustainable. Even the 'wastes' are used for other purposes. This is in contrast with industrial society, in which we take something, use it, and throw it 'away.'

A wonderful example that they used was the cherry tree. Some may call it wasteful that it produces many cherries that never grow into trees. However, every cherry finds some other biological purpose, whether it is as food for an animal, or if it decomposes and fertilizes the soil.

Humanity unfortunately mixes biological and technological products together so that they can not decompose properly, nor can they be reused. Furthermore, recycling does not preserve the integrity of the material. The authors refer to it as downcycling because the quality is diluted through mixing. In reality, they say, a recycled bottle may become nothing more than a speed bump because that is all the downcycled material is capable of doing.

The authors say that we need to find materials that can be used many times in many different forms without being diluted. We need to think of all the consequences of our products. We need to preserve the ability of our products to biodegrade. Although this is an ambitious goal that may seem unattainable, they have proven with their book that it is possible. They do this by printing their book on such materials and clearly enumerating the reasons why. They show that their vision of the future is possible, and it is important that we listen to them and start to think of our products and lives as cradle to cradle, instead of cradle to grave.

Discussion Question 9

Cradle-to-Cradle was a fascinating read. Its main premise seemed to be that we need to rethink the way we are talking about environmental issues, reframing our conversations from doing less harm through improved efficiency of existing "bad" industrial systems to creating good through new "cradle-to-cradle" systems. This would involve eliminating the concept of waste altogether, because products would be designed to be upcycled into equally useful products as the ones they came from. Instead of creating lower quality, degraded products that contain toxic substances as we currently do by recycling, a cradle-to-cradle system would model itself after the natural environment. McDonough and Braungart provide romantic examples of modeling our modes of production after cherry trees and ant colonies, essentially closed loop cycles that not only sustain themselves, but also provide benefits to their surrounding environments.

I found these concepts to be wonderfully appealing. To imagine purchasing products that I knew would actually benefit the earth, not simply do less harm to it, was an exciting prospect. And, given many of the examples the authors have themselves created, such as the Ford plant and eco-effective upholstery, it seems possible in many instances. Certainly, it is an ideal to strive for. But the text left me with many unanswered questions. It seemed to suggest that such a system need not recreate the products we use, but instead reinvent the way they are created-- won't there be cases in which this isn't possible, when there is no eco-effective option for creating a product consumers perceive as equal in value to the product it replaces? And what are we to do with the current versions of products that contain toxic substances and cannot be upcycled in their current state? How will we dispose of them when their life cycle is complete? Finally, as the human population continues to grow, new inputs will be a necessity to produce even eco-effective products, won't they? What should be done in that case? None of these questions for me invalidates the usefulness of an argument for "cradle-to-cradle" products and eco-effective solutions, but they do reinforce the notion that there is no single environmental paradigm that can address all of the issues we currently face.

Ariel's Blog Post

The main premise I derived from Cradle to Cradle is the notion captured within the book’s title. That is, the idea that consumption in America is highly viewed as a “cradle-to-grave” process, where we regard objects as having a linear lifetime and falsely perceive these objects as simply “going away” after we throw them in the trash. The authors suggest that this notion is highly flawed and does little to nourish the Earth. Instead, they suggest promoting a societal view of consumption that is based on a “cradle-to-cradle” system of values. Items would not be perceived as having a linear life span, and items would not be thrown away. These items would not even be recycled, or “down-cycled” as the authors suggest is the case. Instead, items would give birth to new items and would be a means of providing beneficial substances to the planet’s natural systems.

For example, the authors propose packaging that, as opposed to be thrown away or “down-cycled,” is simply thrown on the ground. It would be made of a biodegradable material that is not only safe for the soil, but provides for it. They suggest similar innovations in terms of the soles of shoes, carpeting, and the material of which furniture is made.

I do agree with the authors. I feel our society needs to seriously reconsider not only how it produces and consumes, but also how it looks at production and consumption. In order to help heal the damage we have already caused and to prevent further damage, American society needs to not only become “less bad” but to also revolutionize the entire system of production and consumption, so that linear production in which plastics, harmful toxins, and unnecessary packaging are not norms, but are instead entirely absurd.

The book cradle to cradle is telling us that we need to change the way that our industrial system works. We need to have a system that resembles the natural world and replenishes itself. In the beginning of the book he gives the example of the titanic. A gigantic cruise ship that at the time was thought to be indestructible. It was sunk by an iceberg (nature). He is stating that it is a matter of design in our industry we need to redesign it. We need to model it off of natural systems like the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle and so on. Yes i do agree with the points made in this book, obviously our industry needs to change because it's current methods are not going to last. I think he is on the right track but i think it is going to take more than just changing our industries it is still going to be a matter of cutting back on consumption. It is hard to imagine the factories working in a natural manner because the items that factories produce are far from natural. One specific example that comes to my mind is a car. In the book they mention making a car that gives off positive emissions which i think is an amazing idea but i guess i am just pessimistic in thinking that it is possible. There is one example of an idea that i have which i think the authors of this book would enjoy hearing about. Muhammad Yunus is a noble peace prize winner and a social entrepreneur in bangladesh. He spent a lot of time developing a yogurt that could be affordable and extremely good for the younger children to eat in order to improve children's nutrition. However he has also stated that he wants to go further and create a yogurt which everything is edible, even the packaging that the yogurt is in. I think that is an extremely creative idea which I hope to see one day. It also is one that leaves behind no waste from the product. Of course production of the yogurt would need to be taken into consideration but overall i think the idea of being able to package foods in which the packaging is edible as well would be a natural system in which the authors discuss.

Discussion Question 8

I found neither of these websites to be very convincing. First, neither is what I would consider a reliable source on climate change. The "Friends of Science" site at least presents itself as more of a scholarly source than the Grist site does, listing a panel of PhD holding members who have published scholarly works about the science behind climate change, while the Grist site is set up more like a blog and does not identify the personal credentials of the authors as readily. Still, both sites simply overwhelm the reader with facts, data, and graphs that come from various government and watchdog organizations. Put simply, when comparing these two sites, it is difficult to come to any conclusion because each side of the debate has counter-evidence to "disprove" the other side's argument. Who I am to distinguish who is telling the "truth"? For the most part, I don't understand the science behind either side's figures, so I'm left feeling like there is simply no consensus or truth to be found.

However, I understand why there is such fierce debate about climate change. If the phenomenon is real and is human-driven (for the record, this is what I believe), it is the most dire environmental problem facing the world as a whole. According to the science on this side of the debate, the state of the world as we know it is changing rapidly for the worse, and we are no longer guaranteed of the planet's ability to support growing future generations. On the other side of the debate, any solution to this problem is extremely costly. It would involve overhauling our current system, which depends so heavily on fossil fuel use, one of the main sources of human carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Certainly, it makes sense to be wary of making such a large sacrifice that could have its own unintended economic and environmental consequences if the phenomenon of global warming isn't real. While I personally believe global warming is caused by humans and is a threat to the health of the planet, I understand why such fierce debate continues about the validity of these claims.

The debate about whether or not "climate change" exists is something i always grew up with. My Father is a huge skeptic of the idea and i always had to listen to him mock people who were pulling towards methods of "being green" and conserving energy etc.

The reasons that he is so critical about accepting climate change and believing what people say have to do with party affiliation. But also the ideas that we have to cut back on fossil fuel use which is what our economy runs on. Without it we would not be able to produce produce produce at the rate in which we do. It would take extravagant amounts of effort on everyone's part in order to make our economy run on means that did not come from fossil fuels. That is mainly why i believe people like my father refuse to even consider the idea that it is negatively affecting our earth in the manner that it does. That is also why i particularly liked the "How to talk to a climate skeptic" more because of every day life it was much more useful for me! I also enjoyed how every answer was laid out very scientifically and to the point, there were graphs and simple statements that I definitely could use to argue points. It also gave a HUGE variety of topics in which you could look at global warming from. Instead of the same drilled in points of green house gases, warming up and the end. It covered lots of different angles and maybe at one of the angles it could change a person's perspective. So Yes I think that this website is more convincing

Climate Change

There is so much competition centered about the science of climate change for many reasons. The first of these reasons is economics. Validation of climate change means that there will need to be modifications to the current economic system. In an economy that prioritizes growth above all else, this makes climate change seem anti-capitalist to many people. What must happen is a re-prioritization of our goals. Rather than prioritizing more production, we need to prioritize well-being for humans and for the planet.

In addition, people fear climate change's validity because it indicates that we have done something wrong. We don't want to be told that what we are doing is harmful and must be stopped, so we like to pretend that everything is OK. It's time to open our eyes to the science behind global warming and climate change and it is time for us to make a change in our lifestyles.

Evaluating the science is important for understanding the consequences of our actions. We need to look for hard evidence, facts, correlations (while understanding that a correlation is not necessarily a causation), relationships between data, and our impacts on those data. Both of the sites that we looked at this week try to use the scientific data to bolster their arguments. This is important, because arguing without science is unsubstantial.

To evaluate their claims, we need to read what they say. The "Friends of Science" website mostly says that what is happening now is standard for the planet's history, while the "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" describes the ways that things have been changing. I find the "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" website to be more convincing, perhaps because I am already of the persuasion that global warming is factual.

Ariel's Blog Post

In a world where one can crunch numbers and create graphs “supporting” almost anything, the study of climate change becomes increasingly riddled with massive amounts of (often contradictory) scientific “evidence.” For those of us, like myself, without much skill in the realm of scientific knowledge, it can get confusing to tell fact apart from fiction. When confronted with two sources (such as those presented to us in this blog question), that both appear legitimate but provide contradictory information, it is easy to get lost in the shuffle of “scientific” debate. In addition, in a society where political action may be taken or is in the process of becoming policy, some individuals begin to view their freedom as being compromised in the name of eco-friendly policies. This arguably results in fierce competition and competing interests around the science of climate change.

Admittedly, I’m not one for science. I most likely will never have the skill to intelligently enter into a heated scientific debate. However, climate change and environmental issues still stir me, even if I’m unable to scientifically grasp the exact nature of the problem. Why is this so? Because I realize that everything has some sort of a consequence. I don’t believe that anything just happens without causing something else, either positive or negative, to happen as a result. Thus, regardless of the scientific debate, it remains clear to me that our intense consumption and reliance on fossil fuel must be having some consequence. For me, my desire to reduce climate change and cultivate a more positive impact on the environment doesn’t need to be rooted in specific scientific information. Regardless of how fancy a chart you can make, it’s hard to miss the thick black smoke billowing out of the tailpipe a car.

I had a really hard time with this assignment because there are many times when i have had a thrilling experience with the natural world. For example just walking to school, my favorite season is fall because of the smell, colors and overall feeling. There are those perfect days when you are outside the temperature feels exactly how you want it to and everything is just making sense. So I feel a connection to the non-human world almost everyday. But there is one particular activity that i think really allows you to appreciate nature at it's finest and that is camping. My family has gone camping since i was a little girl and it is an activity that i still do today on my own. However there is one particular trip that was especially challenging and invasive in terms of experiencing the world around us. A huge group of about 10 of my family members decided to take a 4 day trip camping on the boundary waters in MN. This involved canoeing for 3 miles, hiking for 1 mile and canoeing for another mile before reaching out camp site. The canoeing was tough, the hiking was even more tough and the last mile was bliss. But all of these activity really allowed me to see the natural state of things. When i was resting in the canoe as we floated along I could lay back and look at the sky and everything in it. when we were hiking my uncle would stop us periodically and have us look at little things like beaver homes and certain birds. Also at the camp site my cousins took me to a cliff that we could jump off of into the water. It was an overall amazing experience that really allowed me to see all the advantages of having a natural area. Saving nature is definitely something we should concern ourselves with not only because it is beautiful but because it does a lot to ground an individual. People can get caught up in the busy hustle of everyday life but taking time to sit back and merely look outside can really refresh you. I think at least. However not only from a personal perspective but a survival aspect as well. Frankly we need this earth and all of the natural ecosystems, inhabitants, resources in it to keep going. I think there are hundreds of different perspectives that you could look at it and still find a reason to keep nature healthy and prosperous.

Discussion Question 7

The most enchanting experience I've had with the non-human world occurred during my trip to Machu Picchu two summers ago.  Although Machu Picchu is a remnant of a past human civilization, the Incas, it was still a moving experience in terms of the nature I was surrounded by during my time there.  I was moved by the imposing mountains that surrounded this landmark, which the Incas worshipped as gods. In fact, Machu Picchu means "old mountain," one of two mountains, the other Huayna Picchu, meaning "young mountain," that demarcate the bounds of this ancient settlement. In these mountains and the surrounding nature, the Incas found shapes of pumas, condors, and serpents, their most holy and common animals, and I imagined what this place must have been like when the Incas inhabited it.  I took many pictures of the diverse wildlife still common at Machu Picchu, including lizards, birds, and even wild chinchillas. Llamas roamed free throughout the grounds.  I took a little adventure down the side of one of the hills, enjoying the flora and fauna away from any other tourists visiting the site.  The mountainside was silent and still, and I looked out over the same earth the Incas had seen hundreds of years ago with a sense of awe.  It made me feel very small in the world, and it made the world seem so ancient and powerful.  I thought about how, after the site was abandoned hundreds of years ago, it was swallowed up by the jungle, covered in vines and greenery, its stones and terraces made a part of the earth again.  In short, there has been no experience so moving for me as my visit to Machu Picchu, a trip I recommend to all.

Huayna Picchu

Machu Picchu

The Shape of a Condor Between Two Mountains

Lizard

Llama

Wild Chinchilla

Saving nature is certainly something we should concern ourselves with.  My personal motivation is purely a love of nature.  I would hate to not be able to experience the awe of the majesties provided by the earth.  There are so many gorgeous, tranquil, moving sites I have yet to experience-- the icebergs of Patagonia, tropical rainforests including the Amazon, the Himalayan mountains, etc.  For me, it would be a tragedy for these sites to either disappear or be degraded.  But there are other, more "practical," reasons for preserving nature as well.  We need it to survive.  It provides us with so many resources, so many medical treatments.  It provides the biodiversity in ecosystems that makes this planet unique from all the others that have so far been discovered.  Our climate hangs in a delicate balance, and we need to preserve forests, icebergs, and mountain ice caps to maintain the health of the planet we wish to continue inhabiting.  Conservation, therefore, is a task well worth taking up.

Matthew's Post

The most enchanting experience I've had with the non-human world happened at a church camp that I used to go to. One of the things we did every year was sit alone in the woods and think. To be surrounded by nature, listening to the ocean, was a very unique experience. I felt separate from everybody else in my group, focused on where I was and what was I my general vicinity.

Saving nature is very important. I feel like a lot of the arguments made for preserving forests, for example, are economic. People say we need to preserve them so there will be wood to use in the future. I think differently. I think that ethically, we need to preserve Earth because it is not a planet for humans, it is a planet for all life. When we abuse the planet, we are robbing it and other plants and animals of what is theirs. Preserving nature is important because it is not ours to destroy. Rather than using the natural world, we should experience it an enjoy it.

Ariel's Blog Post

I spent a long time trying to choose the most thrilling, magical, and enchanting encounter I’ve had with the non-human world. I finally decided upon this encounter:

A few years ago, my family decided to go on a cruise to Alaska. Our trip was almost at its close, and my family was excited to have a full day at sea so we could finally sleep in late. However, the ship’s captain came over the loudspeaker at 5 AM, saying that we would enter Tracy Arm Fjord in about an hour. He was alerting us that there is a beautiful glacier there, and that it would be worth all crowding onto the ship’s deck to see it.

Reluctantly, I got dressed and went outside with my family. As we were a large cruise ship, we made a nerve-wracking trip between two mountains. Suddenly, we were in a fairly wide fjord. In front of us was a small island. A naturalist came over the loudspeaker to explain that a man lives on this island, secluded from the rest of the world. He tries to live very simply, making his way into town only twice a year to buy some needed goods. He spends the rest of his time attempting to live in a sustainable manner on this small island.

We continued on, and approached a massive glacier. It is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. A photograph (although below) truly does not do it justice. The naturalist again came on the loudspeaker to discuss the glacier with us. The land mass on which the glacier was located was a dark brown. However, closer to the glacier, this land mass turned light brown. The naturalist explained that this color difference was a result of the fact that the glacier is melting.

This naturally leads me into a discussion of whether or not we should concern ourselves with “saving nature.” I chose this example in part because it depicts two ends of the spectrum: this secluded, beautiful fjord and our massive cruise ship (complete with an iceberg-crusher built into its bow). This made me question whether or not it is best to be a preservationist. One the one hand, would I care about climate change if I hadn’t seen this glacier? To a certain extent, yes. On the other hand, I would not have a full appreciation of the issue. So I suppose my answer is yes. Of course I want to save nature. On the other hand, I question what exactly that means, and how we can actually empower individuals to do that in a logical manner— or at least without a massive iceberg crusher.

COWRIE

http://www.offshorewindfarms.co.uk/Pages/COWRIE/

This site explains the environmental precautions being taken with a wind farm currently being created off the coast of the United Kingdom, in several locations. The prospect of this farm is exciting to me because it will help to offset the UK's energy needs, but there is of course concern about its other impacts. The wind farm project is being monitored by COWRIE (Collaborative Offshore Windfarm Research into the Environment), taking into consideration migratory bird patterns, natural wildlife, and other environmental concerns, which is very important. I think that such a grand scale endeavor is an important step in the right direction, and that making sure it has the smallest environmental impact is crucial.

Poly face farm - Joanna

Hi Class,

When hearing about this assignment I knew right away that the place that I first wanted to recognize was polyface farm. I first heard about this place while reading Michael Pollans’s “Omnivore’s Dilemma”. This might be a farm that many of you have already heard about because this book is fairly popular, but nonetheless I would like to share it just in case you have not. First of all one really cool thing is that it is so close to us! This farm is located in the Shenandoah valley and what I like so much about it is that is it not just any farm it is a non-industrial sustainable farm! They use every animal not just for food but for their natural abilities. The cows graze in fields on grass and are not pumped with corn and other dead cows. They also clear the pasture for chickens to be able to feed in the same lot. The chickens are not cooped up in crates; they roam the fields and are able to get fresh sprouts. Natural manure is created from pigs and cows and so on. They utilize natural practices and grass fed animals as a big part of their concept. Overall I think that their farming methods are efficient, reliable, healthy and sustainable. That is why I want to take the time to not Polyface farm as my agricultural success story!

http://www.polyfacefarms.com/principles.aspx

Ariel's Blog Post

Last year, I was watching a television special that focused on the topic of interesting homes. One of the “homes” they featured was actually a tight-knit community of individuals living in New Mexico. The homes in which these individuals lived were called “earthships.” To be honest, I do not remember too much specifically about these homes. I remember that the television special discussed that these “earthships” were constructed using recycled materials, especially tires and aluminum cans. In fact, the original idea for these homes came about when the architect was looking for a way to put to use massive amounts of empty aluminum cans. In addition, these “earthships” are both self-sustaining and self-regulating. Two website links related to this topic are provided below. The first discusses seven examples of “Handmade Eco-Friendly Homes,” of which an “earthship” in New Mexico is one example. The second link specifically discusses “earthships.” I am extremely glad that the second website is now so extensive and informative. Last year when I researched the “earthship” after watching the television show mentioned above, there was quite little information online about it.

http://earthfirst.com/7-amazing-handmade-eco-friendly-homes/

http://earthship.com/begin-here

Discussion Question 5

As a vegetarian, environmental impact factors into every food choice I make. This isn't necessarily true for every vegetarian, as there are many reasons to choose to forego meat in one's diet, but for me, the main concern is lowering my impact on the earth. This is the main consideration I make about food on a daily basis, but after seven years of not eating meat (and on-and-off not eating fish- currently off, and hopefully permanently) it's second nature to me. I don't have to make a conscious effort to sacrifice meat anymore because it's all I know. So recently I've been trying to take a new step toward greening my food choices. I try to eat locally as much as possible, but I've found that it's extremely difficult to know where your food comes from on a college campus. Nothing is labeled like at the grocery store, and the people serving food at TDR, the Tav, and other eateries on campus tend to have no idea themselves. Another consideration I could make would be to eat only foods that are currently in season in America (for example, no grapes from Chile in the winter) but it is similarly very difficult to know this or choose this from the limited options on campus.


I honestly have no idea what item that I've eaten in the past fews days had the greatest environmental impact. I would imagine that the banana I had with peanut butter and toast yesterday for breakfast incurred a large carbon footprint due to transportation costs, since most bananas are grown in tropical regions, specifically Central and South America. Perhaps it's the more processed food items, such as the tortilla my burrito was wrapped in for dinner last night, since processed foods require more energy and resources to produce. 


It is becoming increasingly more apparent to me how important it is to know where your food comes from, since I recognize how big an impact food consumption can have on the environment, but also how difficult it is to find this out on a college campus. I hope that when I move off campus next year and reduce my meal plan and buy and prepare more of my own meals I can make more conscious decisions to eat local and unprocessed foods. 

My Food Choices

When I make food choices, the first thing I think about is whether or not the item is made with animal products, and then whether it is healthy and sanitary. I usually don't take into consideration whether it was grown sustainably Although I like fair trade and organic products when they are available, I don't always go out of my way to buy them. I prefer them, but if I cannot find one easily, I generally go for a familiar, not necessarily sustainable product. I think that from an environmental perspective, I'm doing all right, but I need to think about what I eat more. It is important to eat locally grown food and eat from places that practice sustainable agriculture, but this concern often gets lost among all the other dietary constraints and concerns that I have.

Over the past two days, I have eaten peanut butter, pita bread, french fries, pasta, soup, pizza, salad, and chips. I drank water, Coke, and a "Naked Juice." Out of the drinks, the coke probably has the most negative effect on the planet. The "Naked" company prioritizes sustainability, so they probably fall between coke and water on the sustainability spectrum.

With the food I ate, it is more difficult to determine. The peanut butter is a cheap brand that has probably been shipped all over the place (it was made in Arkansas, purchased in Oregon and shipped to DC, so we can assume its got at least several thousand miles of history). The soup and pasta were pre-packaged, and I'm guessing their history is similar to that of the peanut butter. The pita bread came from Baltimore, so that is fairly local. The salad (low on the food chain!) was advertised as sustainable, local, and natural, so hopefully those are accurate portrayals. I never saw labeling for the pizza or fries, so it is difficult to determine precisely how sustainable those were.

When I think about all these foods, it seems to me that the biggest problem I encounter is localized eating. I just don’t do it enough. The pita bread wasn't purposefully purchased because it was local. I picked it because it was cheap and wheat. I don't need to make a dietary change, so much as I need to make a change in where my food comes from. If I indulge in globalization and purchase food from slashed-and-burned rainforest in Brazil, and positive choice I make in organic food or crop-rotation practices are counteracted by deforestation and transportation.

Groceries - Joanna

As I am reflecting back onto my last grocery experience I am trying to piece together what I was thinking about when I was picking the food that I wanted. A big factor was money, I avoided many what I consider “luxury” items because they were expensive and I knew that I could get by without them. An example would be, chips, salsas, the brand name products, cookies and so on. They were all food items that didn’t really create a whole meal but were more snack esq. The next thing I remember worrying about was not getting too much because I was only feeding one person. One thing I HATE to do is throw food out, fruits go bad so quickly and vegetables can be hard to use up at all once. As a student I try to make my meals all the time however it is hard because for the most part I have to make meals that can be eaten then sit in the fridge for a few days.

Anyways the point of this reflection is that not once did I consider, hey maybe this isn’t good for the environment or hmm I wonder what the production process of this came from. Granted there are many items these days that say organic or local farmer, which is amazing, but I tend to let my small budget make the decisions for me. I liked to consider myself an eater that is not particularly horrible for the environment, I don’t eat meat (meat factories) and I really don’t buy things that I know I will not finish or get to before it needs to get thrown out. But when I think about my last meal, leftover rice and chickpeas, canned carrots, wheat things, coke.. all of it comes from some kind of manufacturer and company that most likely pollutes the environment in some way. I would assume that the coke I drank is the most detrimental, being a huge manufacturing company that utilizes mass amounts of transportation in order to ship its products out and always comes in plastic bottles that while recyclable are never actually in the recycling bin…

Next shopping trip will surely be a long one.

Ariel's Blog Post

There are many considerations I take into account when eating. These considerations are very dependent upon my schedule that day. If I only have a few minutes to eat when busy, I’ll generally grab some sort of quick, pre-packaged food. If I have a busy day and have a bit of time the night before, I’ll cook or prepare something beforehand to have ready the next day. Considerations other than time that I take into account when eating include nutrition, as I generally try to eat healthfully.

The concept of taking “environmental considerations in mind” when selecting foods is, to be honest, not something I had really thought of before. In the past, I have attempted to cut down on the amount of packaging associated with my food. However, this has proved very difficult for me. Regardless of whether I am grabbing a quick meal or making a recipe form scratch, I am always astonished at the amount of packaging that surrounds the food items we buy. Some of this packaging is obvious— halloween candy for example is individually wrapped and then placed in a plastic bag. However, packaging also comes into play in terms of a homemade sandwich. True, the sandwich itself might only be wrapped in a small piece of aluminum foil once created. But, the lettuce in that sandwich was once in a plastic bag, the cheese and meat were once wrapped in paper and then placed in a plastic bag, and the condiments were all straight out of a heavy plastic bottle. Think not only of this packaging, but also of the amount of energy it takes to produce this packaging.

There is a Buddhist philosophical practice that relates to this notion of thinking of the energy behind the packaging. Buddhists believe in principles of interdependence and emptiness of self. Many of them, thus, before eating, engage in a special ritual: They “trace” the food they are about to eat back to its “roots.” So, a plate of spaghetti gets traced back to, essentially, the sun (as pasta comes from wheat and wheat grows thanks to the sun). Being a Buddhist, I sometimes do this ritual myself. It makes me painfully aware of the complexities that surround modern food. We no longer trace the pasta back to the sun so easily. Instead, we trace it back to the trucks that brought it to the store, to the oil that made those trucks run, to the factory in which it was produced, to the trees used to manufacture the box, and to the energy used by machines to get all the pasta looking perfectly symmetrical.

Of the food items I’ve consumed in the past few days, I would have to say that the one that caused the greatest environmental impact is a bottle of soda. I determined this based on several things. The soda bottle is made from plastic, which in turn contains oil and requires energy to produce. The label on the soda bottle is a similar story. The labeled bottle would then be shipped, which also requires oil, to the store from which I bought it. The bottle remained refrigerated in that store until I bought it, requiring much energy. Finally, the main consideration I made in determining that this bottle of soda was harmful to the environment was the notion that it not only was exhaustive to produce but also impossible to do anything with afterwards! Recycling plastic is much more difficult and economically wasteful than is recycling aluminum. In addition, plastic is not biodegradable. Thus, not only was my soda a pain to produce, it will remain a pain for quite a long time.

Technology - Joanna

I have always been a firm believer in technology; I find it fascinating and exhilarating to hear about all of these new ideas and creations. It blows my mind sometimes when I hear about the kinds of things that have been thought of and created. Why wouldn’t I believe that technology will save our planet, it brought us the cars, foods and merchandise that have allowed me to live such a comfortable life without any effort. If it did this much for me, why wouldn’t it be able to do the same for our earth! However that is the paradox of technology, while it is so amazing and fulfilling it is equally detrimental. For every solution there is a new set of problems that comes with it that lead me to believe that maybe life would be better if we just went back to simple, peasant everyone has their own small gardens and farm times.

So I have come to believe that as much as technology is sublime and godlike it will not save us. However I also think that it has to because it is just not possible to turn back the clock and become the living off the land type people again. I would fear the effects of an angry population that was told they could not buy the new hummer or explorer. Technology will not save us, but it will be able to reduce our footprint, it is ultimately a change in consumer habits that will save us. Technology is not going to be able to be a quick fix for our spills and that is clearly evident today. The oil spills in the gulf still sit today, just rotting the oceans. Technology saving us would be clean energy, clean cars or some form of transportation and ultimately clean consumer actions.

Lessons from Ozone Depletion

The idea that technology will save us is comforting, but it is false. I'm speaking from a Neo-Malthusian perspective, and I truly believe that there are limits to population and resource use and that we will not be able to avoid them forever. If technology could save us, that would mean that it would have to allow us to grow past our limits indefinitely. That is simply not possible.

That is not to say that I think technology is bad. I think it can do great things to improve our lives, and it can be modified to reduce its environmental impact. But no matter what we do, technology will impact the planet through energy use, resource use, or pollution. There is unfortunately no way to stop this. Even "green" technology isn't free of its impact. This means that to be truly sustainable, we need to look beyond technological innovation.

I have previously used ozone depletion as an example in a posting because it is so explicitly a demonstration of the failure of technology. The CFCs and ozone depleting substances were being used because of technology, and no improvements in technology were changing it. The only thing that has been able to prevent their use is international agreements with binding force. The belief that technology will rescue us from our limits is too cornucopian in nature, and the only way to survive on this planet is to respect our environmental limits. As our experience with ozone depletion shows us, unregulated technological expansion can hurt the planet, and institutionalism seems to be one of the best remedies.

Discussion Question 4

I love technology. Mostly, it makes our lives easier and more convenient-- I don't have to walk everywhere I go because I can drive; I don't have to write a letter and send it through the mail to contact someone who lives more than a few blocks away because I can call or email them; nor do I have to brave the summer heat and the winter cold because I have air-conditioning and heating. And it's not just these big, life-changing technologies that I'm a fan of.  I love my laptop, which I use to entertain myself constantly, and I often feel as though I couldn't live without my phone because without it I feel so disconnected from the outside world. I am, in the best sense of the word, addicted to technology and its conveniences, as are so many others who live a similar lifestyle. 


But I feel so guilty about my addiction. What I have been lucky to realize (because so many don't) is that technology isn't just a positive force in our lives: every new technology that is created to solve an old problem brings with it new problems. Cars are really convenient, but they use obscene amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels and they emit obscene amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The general infrastructure of energy and power that supports my lifestyle is pumping toxins into the environment, but it sure is nice to have a well-lit dorm room and a working refrigerator. So to the people who espouse that technology is going to save us from the environmental disaster we have created, I say think about it. It's technology that got us here in the first place. It's technology that has allowed us to inflict so much damage on the environment on such a large scale. Without mechanization and industrialization, there's no way we could ever have achieved such large ecological footprints as we have today. "Green" technologies sometimes have the right idea, but even there we face the same dilemma as before--that is, new green technologies solving old environmental issues but creating new ones. For example, many environmentalists support the development of biofuels and bio-diesels made from agricultural products like corn and soybeans to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But this increases demand for those products so much so that farmers are clear-cutting large swaths of forest in, for example, the Brazilian Amazon, to plant soybean crops and earn a profit. Here, in trying to reduce carbon emissions through a new green technology, we are risking causing the loss of enough trees to reduce the planet's ability to suck up the carbon we're already emitting. 


So no, technology won't save us from this environmental nightmare, and it risks making things worse than they already are. 

Ariel's Post

I agree that technology has the potential to help alleviate (although by no means be a “magic solution” to) our environmental crisis. I support efforts to find more eco-friendly solutions for everything from obsessive fossil fuel usage to less and more biodegradable product-packaging solutions. However, with our society’s addiction to consumption, I wonder whether or not technology will ultimately help our crisis or worsen it. We may be attempting to build wind farms, but aren’t we also attempting to own a cooler cell phone every year and a new iPod every few Christmases and a better digital camera every once in a while?

I guess my concern lies not in the fact that technology is increasing, but in the worry that we aren’t making the most of our intellectual capacity. I fear we are only using our technologically inclined minds to increase our consumption— exactly the kind of thing the I=PAT equation proposes we reduce. If you want to buy into the idea that technology will someday save us from the environmental crisis (and I’m not even personally saying that I buy into that), you have to wonder: What happens in the meantime? What happens when the technologically inclined society that might create a cleaner car is the very same technologically inclined society that produces a million pairs of $100 ripped jeans every five minutes and makes you falsely feel like your $1,000 laptop needs to be replaced every year?

I feel like this concern is mirrored in the issue of stratospheric ozone depletion. One of the main causes of ozone depletion was CFCs in consumer aerosol cans. If you buy into the idea: Yes, technology might save us, but it will also inevitably convince us of the “problems” we have and come up with “solutions” to make our lives “easier.” Because isn’t non-aerosol hairspray such a pain to apply? I mean really, having to push a button multiple times when you could just push it once?

We might not have known then what we were doing, but we know now. So, let’s fix it.

"Aren't We Clever?" Response

The U.S. certainly is at risk of losing a "green race" with China by failing to capitalize on the new market for green technology. We will indeed lose out on opportunities to stimulate the economy by creating green jobs if we do not start acting now. But even winning the race to create green jobs and technology would not be a sufficient solution for the many environmental problems we face today.


That is to say that I don't agree with the notion that the technological innovation is the best way to address climate change. Friedman's thinking is distinctly cornucopian: advances in technology will let us "do more with less," and such improvements in efficiency can mitigate climate change. I, on the other hand, prescribe to a more Neo-Malthusian school of thought (as has most likely become apparent through my blog posts and essay). I do not believe that technology can mitigate climate change on its own, and I do not view environmental issues through an economic or market lens. Instead, I see the answer in the I=PAT equation: we must reduce population, affluence, and our dependence on technological infrastructure severely before we will see any significant reduction of climate change. Certainly, improving the efficiency of our resource use is good for the environment (Biddle's above-ground mining is an excellent idea) and government regulation of producers (as in the example given of enacting producer-responsibility laws in which manufacturers are responsible for collecting and recycling their products) is a necessary step for reducing climate change. These are all good things. But they are simply not enough given the vast amounts of damage that have already been done. If we are to reverse climate change, we will have to do much, much more than improve our technology in some kind of green race with China. We will have to minimize consumption through greatly decreasing population, affluence, and our reliance on technology to counteract the climate change that has already occurred.

Green Race - Joanna

The first words that come to my mind when reading this article are regulation and government intervention. American Society has taken pride in its “freedoms” to let the markets control themselves and to not have government telling them what to do. I feel like this green race would be doing just that. Making a country greener requires government to implement laws that do not allow companies to work the way they want and people to live the way they want. For example I do not think the one child rule that is in effect in China would work in the United States. If someone told people that they were only allowed to have 1 child people would riot. However in China people feel like it is their duty to uphold laws like that. It is simply a difference in opinions towards the government.

I definitely think it makes sense to consider there to be a race between China and the US because they race in everything. Ever since China’s economy has boomed I think the US have felt threatened and are constantly competing. I also agree that technology is a big part of the future of “green” living and this goes back into the point I made above about telling people what to do. I do not think that one-day everyone in the world or even US will wake up and think I am going to be as energy efficient as I possibly can from now on. I will recycle, use less water, use less energy and so on. Therefore yes I place most of my faith in technology because I think the only way US people will become green is if they can maintain their easy lifestyles as well, being green takes work and focus. It is also the manufacturing industry that creates a lot of the pollution so refocusing our energies on making their industries better for the environment is a very important factor in a green world.

However I think that we need to refocus everything. It is not just technology that will save us but the entire cycle, reducing, reusing and recycling. Just merely being conscious of your actions what they do and all together invested in keeping the world alive.

Are Green Jobs the Answer?

Green jobs are, of course, important for sustainability. Better technology that can reduce human impact will always be an improvement over the status quo technology. In this respect, Friedman is correct that America is lagging behind other countries, such as China, in our progress. But that is not the whole story.

The assumption that green jobs will be the key to preventing climate change, which seems to be Friedman's main focus in his article, is not accurate. That does not mean that they are unimportant or that it is ok that America is stalling the effort to move towards green jobs. But we should not put all our faith in technology. Technology cannot solve an environmental problem in its entirety. It can merely delay the issue and postpone the limits of the planet. This is something that we need so we have more time to find the solution, but we should not confuse it for the solution itself.

As an example, in the 1970s, ozone depletion became recognized as a serious issue. There were no 'clean' CFCs that solved the problem. The only solution available was an international agreement. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (which entered into force on January 1, 1989) bound nations to make substantial changes in policy to ban CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. These substances are now under more control, and the levels of many of these substances are decreasing. Ozone levels are expected to stabilize by mid-century. This internationally binding agreement is what is ultimately required to achieve sustainability. While green jobs and competition between nations may help set us on the right track, we will need more to make a significant difference.

Source: ozone.unep.org

Ariel's Post

The argument presented in Friedman’s article offered a unique perspective. I had not previously thought of the solution to climate change as a race between nations. Instead, I had viewed climate change as a destructive force brought about by negative collective actions. Thus, I had always felt that climate change must be fought through collective actions— empowering individuals around the world to be more responsible with fossil fuel consumption, implementing cross-national agreements to install climate change goals, etc.

Friedman’s view as combating climate change as a race between nations is, therefore, a bit foreign to me. However, unlike McKibben (see Eaarth page 49), I can’t see much harm in viewing climate change in this manner. It’s a nice thought to think that individuals might bond together to alter their consumption patterns, or nations might meet to collectively produce an agreement that accomplishes something. However, those things don’t seem very probable. Because there isn’t a “world government” or “world president” holding nations accountable to their promises, who’s to say that a world climate change agreement would get (or has gotten) much done? Rather, when thinking about how international relations really works, it does make sense that nations often do things because they feel international pressure to do so. It makes good sense that the United States might need to install more “green jobs” and initiate more “green projects” to appear as if they are keeping up with China. And believe me, I’m the last person you’d expect to believe we have something to learn from China.

I do believe that green jobs and green projects are a good means through which to address climate change. While McKibben won’t agree with Friedman or myself here, I believe that such means, if used on a large scale and effectively managed, have the ability to help solve the climate crisis. However, I think that portraying “green jobs” and “green projects” as the entire solution to climate change is misleading. Issues of climate change are deeply embedded in our social patterns, especially in the United States. Installing “green jobs” and “green projects” is only half the battle. The other half is motivating individuals to make meaningful changes in their lives that better the environment.

"Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" Response

In his piece "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," Michael Maniates insists that we must, as individuals but even more so as a society, move past the "easy" environmental solutions espoused by politicians, activists, and even celebrity enthusiasts to institute "fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems." We must sacrifice much, much more than we do now if we are to really combat global climate change (as Maniates notes, some figures indicate that the U.S. would have to reduce its emissions by 80% in 30 years- 80%! 30 years! Personally, those figures astound and depress me in their immensity). I certainly agree that more must be done, that "easy" changes won't cut it in the face of the grave environmental threats humans are currently imposing on the earth. But I also feel that anyone who has read the literature on global climate change has read this. Maniates claims that environmental elites treat us like children, but I get the exact opposite sense from much of what I read. As I said, I find much of the environmental literature disheartening precisely because it points out just how much we must do, and it seems infeasible in a world where so many feel ambivalent toward environmental change. The problem, therefore, isn't that no one is calling attention to the vast overhaul necessary to not just slow the growth of environmental damage, but to stop it altogether. Instead, the problem is that consumers aren't responding to these messages. Whether it is because they don't care, choose not to believe what they read, or feel overwhelmed and then do nothing, they only respond to the "easy," convenient, cost-effective solutions.
Maniates also blames politicians for treating us like children. They do treat us like children, but I think not for the reasons Maniates proposes. First, the way our political system is set up does not incentivize taking long-term action that may in the short-run be costly. Overhauling our agricultural, transportation, and energy systems would cost billions of taxpayer dollars, so any politician looking to be re-elected in two, four, or six years has no motivation to pass such laws. Second, and equally important, is that we act like children. Maniates claims that we "understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices," that "we're ready for frank talk about how we best confront... the planetary emergency before us." I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe that most Americans would be willing to entertain the idea of giving up the "consumer culture" that characterizes our society today. Sure, many of us are willing to take the "easy" steps toward greening our lives by recycling and turning off the lights, but I believe that the majority of Americans today simply do not care enough about climate change to inconvenience themselves in terms of time, money, or resources in order to save the planet. 
In sum, I agree with Maniates that easy doesn't do it. But the problem isn't that no one is proposing the difficult solutions, it's that the public is not receptive of them.

Environmental Progress

In his piece "going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," Michael Maniates makes the excellent point that sustainability isn't easy. It takes more than flipping off the light switch when leaving the room to combat environmental harm. It is also true that our leaders should expect more from us and tell us ways that we can improve our environmental situation that are not necessarily easy. We have the ability to get motivated and mobilize, and nobody should tell us otherwise.

However, I believe that he misses a critical point. Some people do not wish to go out of their way or substantially change their lifestyle. For these people, it is the suggestion to recycle or drive less or carpool that prompts them to make any change at all. Without the easy solutions, some people would take nothing, rather than inconveniencing themselves.

Furthermore, even for the people who want to make substantial differences, they need to start somewhere. Progress towards environmental sustainability may not be as good as successful environmental sustainability, but it is still better than the status quo. And if enough people are making progress, that's even better, and before too long, they start to look for ways to make larger differences.

The only real flaw with providing 'easy' solutions to environmental problems is that many people may not distinguish between progress and success. After making progress, they may declare themselves successful and stop trying to make more changes. In this way, giving the easy solutions can clearly be a problem.

The remedy to this is for scientists and leaders to offer simple changes as well as provocative changes. This gives people ideas for change that they can choose from and find what they are comfortable doing. The people who only want to slightly modify their lifestyles (and only if it is convenient) will choose the easiest options. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the people who are always looking for a new way to help the planet will be presented with both easy and challenging ways to alter their lifestyles and they will do as many as they can. The areas between these two extremes will be filled with people who choose some combination of the above.

In the end, Maniates is correct that we need to realize that the challenge before us is large and will not be easy to solve. But that does not mean that making small changes will be ineffective. Any change, no matter how small, is a move in the right direction. Even if the move does not go as far is it needs to, it is better than staying put.

Joanna

I enjoyed Michael Maniates piece “Going green, easy doesn’t do it” as a refreshing piece on activism towards the environment. The comparison of taking the “giving” aspect of thanksgiving and gearing it towards the world is a crafty technique. I say this because it is commonly known how altruistic people become around the holiday time, Thanksgiving and Christmas especially. Maniates is quick to notice this and use it to the environmentalist advantage. However he also dictates how taking the “easy” route (which I will talk about further) is simply not acceptable at this point. We need action that will actually have an impact now.

I really want to look into the trend that even doing the little thing is helpful, which it is better than nothing don’t get me wrong but in this case it is simply not going to cut it. I am someone that’s always considered myself fairly conscious of my actions, turning off the lights, using certain light bulbs, bicycling instead of taking my car but I also realize that my actions could be more. I only do the bare-minimum because it is the easiest possible actions that I can take and still feel as though I am having a positive impact. Maniates is trying to reach these people who DO care and push them to stop being lazy (in my case) and reach cut back on their consumptions and literally GIVE back to the environment. Especially in the United States where our energy usage per person is the highest in the world. The United States could set the example and be the revolutionary people that Maniates states he knows we are and can be

Frankly I find this piece to be moving but also loaded with information and facts that for anyone who doubts could be convinced with.

Ariel's Post

The issue brought up by Maniates is something I touched on a bit in my last post. One can even say that I made the same error he brings up, by suggesting the best course of action lies in the little things in which people can engage.

Yet, I agree with Maniates— we are in need of radical change, and it won’t happen if we are led to believe that the solutions are easier than they really are. Still, we have to start somewhere. And I wonder if a true revolution, as wonderful as it is to imagine, is really feasible in the manner Maniates suggests. The kind of revolution Maniates is suggesting involves an intense amount of passion— the kind of passion that doesn’t just appear overnight, the kind of passion that results when people decide to dedicate their whole lives to something in which they truly believe.

But perhaps, and I’m guessing here, this kind of passion could be a product of the little things. I’m unconvinced (as is psychological evidence) that you can show someone a documentary, convincing as it might be, and have people walk out of it with a sudden, deep, meaningful dedication to its cause. But perhaps, if you show them such a documentary or present them with a convincing argument and then suggest some little things they could do, people might start small and realize how far they can go with a bit more dedication. And then a bit more. And so on.

But on the overall, I agree with Maniates. We do need to do more and become more involved, and it is bad to believe that little things can make all the difference when the problem is huge. It’s true; environmental scientists shouldn’t just “treat us like children” and give us small answers when problems require big solutions.

However, they also just can’t say “you should be angry and start a revolution!” and expect people to just believe it and fight for it with all their hearts. The movement Maniates suggests requires real dedication and real passion. You know, the kind of thing people need to really find within themselves.

The American Dream is Green

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


The most pressing challenge facing the global environment today is the widely accepted notion that more is better. According to most, all economic growth is good economic growth, and we constantly seek to expand our economy in the name of progress. The latest DOW, NASDAQ, and GDP figures are nearly impossible to escape in the daily news. For Americans, the main concern is how the economy is performing, not the equally important and inextricably linked concern of how our ever-increasing consumption will lead to global catastrophe if it is not curtailed. Admittedly, the "progress" with which we are so concerned does benefit humankind in an abundance of ways, but we often fail to recognize that this constant economic expansion actually diminishes our prospects for the future. Yes, economic growth helps to raise the world's underprivileged out of poverty, but we simply cannot continue to grow at this pace. According to figures published by the United Nations, the global economy would need to grow five to ten times larger in order to raise the standard of living of the world's poor to an acceptable level, yet already the so-called "developed" countries are overworking and over-stressing the world's limited resources and fragile ecosystems to the point that "the ability of the planet's ecosystems to support future generations can no longer be taken for granted" (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). If we are to save the environment, and thus ourselves, we MUST exercise a shift in mindset. The American dream can longer be to have one's own mini-mansion, two cars, and a vacation home. The American dream is (or at least should be) green. 


What that effectively means is that we should no longer strive to consume so much, nor should the ability to consume mark one's success. Instead, our goal should be to use less, to be more frugal, to not live in excess. That means not owning a car if public transportation is available, whether or not you can afford one. It means reducing the impact of your daily living by purchasing a home of a size appropriate to your family and making conscious decisions to buy only what you will eat, to eat locally, etc. Such a shift in thinking is the only way we can save ourselves from the environmental impacts of the gluttony that has pervaded the American mindset since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. More is not better. 


None of this is to say that Americans are the only culprits of such thinking, that we are the only ones inflicting ourselves upon the earth's ecosystems. In fact, people in most developed countries consume far beyond the limits of the earth to support all of the 6.8 billion people that live on it. And, increasingly, the Indian, Chinese, and Brazilian dreams are for more. Their goals, too, are economic growth. They, too, are seeking ways for every citizen to own his own car. The point is that we must ALL stop striving to "achieve" what so many Americans have: excess. Certainly, I am not arguing that the world's poor (or the world's poorer countries) should not be allowed to raise their standard of living. Instead, we should ALL be striving for someplace in the middle. Instead of Americans having an average ecological footprint around nine global hectares while Bangladeshis have an average footprint of one half a global hectare, we should all have an ecological footprint somewhere in between that might actually be sustainable in the long run. We would need five earths to support a population in which every person lived as the average American does today. We must each challenge ourselves to live communally within this one earth or face the reality that earth as we know it will cease to exist. 

Ariel's Blog Post

The first thing that struck me when reading the Stanley Fish piece was the title of the piece itself. It declared, “I am, Therefore I Pollute.” This articulates something very true. That is, no matter how much we try, we still have an impact on the environment. Even if we utilize the most strict (and from the point of view of many, “insane-tree-hugging”) measures of minimizing our ecological footprint, the footprint is still there. For those like Fish, this implies hopelessness. Because really, what’s the point if it’s going to happen regardless of whether you use 300 tissues a day or one handkerchief rinsed only once a year with environmentally friendly soap?

Fish’s struggling to be a “good environmentalist” is understandable. Our effects on the environment are often not physically seen by us. Literally, we flush our effects down the toilet. We throw them in the garbage bin. They are for someone else to take care of. Thus, it’s fairly easy to fall into the trap that Fish describes. It’s difficult to care, and even if you do, it’s difficult to translate it to your own life. It’s an understandable phenomenon in the modern American life. But, it’s a terribly unfortunate one.

So what does it mean to live in an “environmentally friendly” way in modern American society? I feel like we have gotten to the point where, for many, it’s become too difficult to simply go “cold turkey” on environmental mishaps. Many of us are such offenders that attempting to suddenly turn eco-friendly would result in severe stress, changing everything in our lives all at once. It might be so overwhelming that it could very well result in the individual completely and totally giving up on “the whole environmentally-friendly thing.” So, I feel like, for many, the best option is to start small. Pick a product or a habit that, for you, is clearly an offender.

Fish mentions tissues. Yet, even if one dedicates some to boycotting the more harmful variety of tissues, things can get complicated. For example, one of the most disturbing things about American society for me is the utter lack of information we have on the products available to us. Fish comments on this: “...we would have to give those items up and go in search of green alternatives. But we had already done that once before when it turned out that the manufacturer of the paper products we used to buy...engaged in research on animals. That’s when we found Kimberly-Clark. So it seems that the pure were not so pure after all, and who’s to say that the next corporation won’t have an ecological skeleton in its closet, too?”

I feel that this is a very true statement. At times, it’s overwhelming to attempt to be “environmentally friendly” because we have such a lack of information. Companies aren’t required to tell us their deep, dark secrets. Figuring all this out often proves to require an immense amount of research. It’s as if we almost need to wait until someone releases a ground-breaking report to know the truth.

But it doesn’t mean we should give up and die by death of tissue overdose. It means that we just need to keep taking small steps, like buying a product that is biodegradable. Enough of these small steps, when added together, can pressure the system. Companies would see an increased demand for products they produced in an eco-friendly manner. Sure, you might feel like Fish: you’re here, you’re going to pollute inevitably so you might as well live it up. But what Fish seems to neglect to realize is that your small sacrifice, when added with the small sacrifices of others like you and the larger sacrifices of those “insane-tree-huggers” might actually result in something really positive.

Response to Article, Question 2

Have a look at this piece that NY Times columnist Stanley Fish wrote a summer or two back. What do you make of his struggling to be a "good environmentalist?" What do you think it means to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?

I thoroughly enjoyed Stanley Fish’s article, “I am therefore I Pollute” because I know (myself included) so many people that continue to struggle with the new green movement and changing their lifestyles to fit the mold of what is “green”. One issue is making them believers of the movement and the other is actually putting in the extra effort to turn off televisions and spend the money for the reusable water bottle instead of 20 packs of water bottles (even though THAT is economically more efficient!).

Fish to me appears to be in a place where he is struggling not only to be more environmentally friendly but also to be okay with it. When his wife nags him to get the more environmentally friendly toilet paper he seems annoyed with having to change brands, same with the paper towels and last with his remodeled kitchen. His issue comes down to understanding why it is all such a big deal? He knows the basics, throwing paper towels away = bad because it equates to garbage in landfills. However I see the reasons for his hesitation to changing his lifestyle, it is similar to his issues with locally grown beef. He simply didn’t grow up eating it, just like he simply didn’t grow up having to use reusable rags or worry about disposing of napkins. Humans are creatures of habit and breaking or changing that habit can be very difficult. Maybe the generations that are now growing up as babies to the green movement will not have as much difficulty and maybe this is improvement, however it is important to remember that the current generation simply has to make these lifestyle changes or else that baby generation might not have the change to continue their lifestyles!

An environmentally friendly household to me is not one that is entirely run on solar panels (this would be nice but is quite costly) but one that separates their garbage, unplugs devices when not in use, uses fluorescent light bulbs, only takes a shower a day and is simply conscious of their activities. It is not easy to be environmentally friendly but once you get the hang of it, it just becomes routine. The first step is education and learned what even small steps you can do and then acting on that as well as being a teacher and educating the people around you. Modern-day US especially, I think compared to other non-developed or developing societies allows this transition to be quite easy. Most US residents have access to some kind of public transportation that is accessible, carpooling, and a variety of green products in nearby grocery stores. The US society is one of the worst in terms of energy usage because we are developed and the products that cause the most damage are the ones that also cause the most leisure (BIG cars, heat, electricity…). To Close I think that being a “good environmentalist” who lives in an “environmentally friendly way” is someone who makes some strides towards the effort of changing their previous actions and maybe once this has soaked into their lifestyle they will make even more efforts and become that crazy “environmentalist” who helps even more.