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.