This One's A Keeper.

This course is perhaps one of the most enjoyable for me this semester. It is in this course that I am able to test my assumptions of environmental politics and the debate surrounding climate change. At times it is frustrating trying to wrap my head around much of the debate and science of the issues. For me, the most interesting parts of the course were learning about different theories as they relate to environmentalism and the different approaches different actors utilize. That is, how nations differ in their approach than do international organizations or even grass roots advocacy.

In the beginning, I was entirely fatalistic about this course and how anything could change. It was depressing to learn about how just by living and the way we do we are destroying the environment. But I really enjoyed tracing our steps in history to how we got to this point, and attempting to think different about the problems. The last few weeks were particularly enlightening in this regard and now I am much more conscious of environmental efforts in my daily life. This is a difficult course to teach and covers a wide variety of topics but I believe Professor Nichols did a commendable job compacting much of the rhetoric and literature into applicable and learnable lessons. The speakers we saw were particularly valuable to making real world connections to the material.If there is one indicator at what I will take away from this course, it is the books I keep. Typically at the end of each semester students sell back the books they deem useless. But many of the books in this course I will choose to keep and refer back to in my future endeavors.

New Perspectives and Solutions

Despite the often depressing and hopeless subject matter, this class was my favorite of the semester. I had taken a few environmental classes before, but most of them focused on development (which is my concentration in SIS). After becoming interested in the environmental impacts of development, I decided to take this class to gain a greater understanding of the environmental issues that the globe is facing. What I did not really grasp before this class as the sheer scale and urgency of the environmental problems. I knew that climate change was occurring and that it would effect everyone, but I was not aware of the devastation is could cause.

Besides the facts of what is really happening in our environment, I am taking away a good deal of perspectives and viewpoints on the true causes and solutions to our environmental problems. I feel like I can view the discussion from multiple sides and I know where different actors and scholars are coming from (for example, comparing Eaarth and Cradle to Cradle). I would love to see a society like Bill McKibben proposed, but I can’t see enough people mobilizing quickly enough for it to be truly effective. Yet, at the same time, I am wary of the supposed power of technology as a cure-all. I am still unsure of the best way to move forward, in the face of the monumental challenge at hand. However, despite my uncertainty, I take solace in many of the small-scale actions that I have seen and we have discussed in class that are slowly working to preserve the environment. As a soon-to-be graduate with no definite plans yet, I am eager to leave the security of AU and do something of significance. I know that it will be in the field of development, but I have become increasingly interested in the intersection of environment and development. I hope that I can have a career in this field, and I am sure I will use the knowledge I have acquired in this class.

Linking Environmental Politics to Development

This course has greatly broadened my scope of knowledge on environmental regulations, international conferences, the politics surrounding various issues. I entered this class with a defined interest in environmentalism and sustainability, but I knew nothing about the different definitions of those two words, the contrasting perspectives, and criticisms of different approaches to handling the environmental crisis that strikes our planet.
My focus in SIS is International Development, but that does not at all make this course irrelevant to my studies. I have learned about the linkages between environmental degradation and development issues such as environmental displacement, issues with food aid, and how consumerism in affluent countries hurts developing countries. Reading literature by scholars like Aldo Leopold, Bill McKibben, Michael Maniates, and others, ha given me vast insight into the realm of environmental politics, and provided me with the right tools to analyze how this all relates to developing economies. Since I chose to work on a group project throughout the semester, I have spent a lot of time looking in to ways that activism spurs social change to positively impact the environment. My experience showed me the challenges one faces in activist movements to make lasting changes on a college campus, which I also had the opportunity to hear more about from Bill McKibben and Lt. Dan Choi on Saturday at Power Shift. I drew many parallels to my experience and the global climate change conferences and legislation developments we discuss in class. In both situations, (although mine on a much smaller scale), multiple parties are involved and affected by the proposed change I wanted, so that entails many steps and different people to consider. Finding out that I could not achieve my goal due one simple contract was quite disappointing, but also woke up me up to the reality. Contracts act as binding agreements between two agents, and are necessary for this capitalist society to function—another common theme with my experience and the experience that global actors play in efforts to reduce climate change.

I will take all of these experiences with me in my (anticipated) career in international development and activism.

Apologizes for Sounding Hopeles

There are certainly a lot of things that I will take from this course. Even though I am winding down my college career, this is the first purely environmental course that I have taken. I have picked up some new information on the various subject and topic areas we have discussed. But what I have taken away the most is a way of thinking, a mindset that considers the many different aspects of the environment and environmental thinking. This all probably all sounds a bit cliché, but the exposure to environmental thinking has made these issues much more visible to me.

I don’t intend to become utterly devoted to a radical environmental worldview or shift my career toward environmentalism (although if I can find a job in environmentalism now, I’ll take it). My concentration and my area of greatest interest remain development. But this course has taken a lot of what I learned in numerous development courses, and allowed me to further understand this material within an environmental framework. My thoughts and beliefs in development have become better formed from these materials.

At the same time, my greater knowledge of environmental issues of today is leaving me with a bit of exasperation. Throughout the course, so many of the biggest problems we face environmentally have been discussed, as have some of the potential solutions. I personally, struggle to understand the optimism for our future in some situations. Bill McKibben must be idiotically optimistic if he believes the solutions proposed to the apocalyptic future are possible or even enough. From a global view, the reality of reversing human impact seems hopeless, and it is something I make no attempt to think I can solve. Global efforts may be required, but I will take solace in the local efforts and local mindset. These smaller pictures can have hope. Apologizes for making it seem all I take from the class is to give up.

Responsible Technology

I found the book “Cradle to Cradle” to be a refreshing approach to the environmental problems at hand. While the authors took a clearly very technology-centered perspective, it was one that I found responsible. We have frequently discussed in class the dangers of growth-centered societies and assuming that technology and innovation will solve all of our problems. And while I typically find myself agreeing with that perspective, “Cradle to Cradle” promotes responsible technology that not only eliminates harm to the environment, but also nourishes it. I think part of the reason that the book really struck home to me was that the authors did recognize that there is something wrong with the economic system within which the world functions. Corporations must move beyond standard measures of efficiency and work towards “eco-effectiveness”. Essentially this means that not just factories need to be eco-efficient, but the entire process of creating and disposing of goods needs to be environmentally aware. I really do think McDonough and Braungart’s ideas are creative and insightful, and I would love to see the world that they envisioned.

However moving in this direction will be slow, and will take a lot of convincing on the parts of business owners. I think the fact that McDonough is reconstructing Ford’s River Rouge factory is a big step, because if other corporations can see how effective their strategy is, it could flourish. Until we convince business owners and consumers that working towards a healthy environment is in their best interest, large-scale change will not occur.

Reducing reliance on "Reduce, Reuse Recycle"

McDonough and Braungart’s book Cradle to Cradle approaches sustainable living from a unique angle. They have disposed of the “reduce, reuse, recycle” mantra, and pointed out that it is far from the solution that we need for sustainable living. Reading this book, I was very surprised to learn of many of the processes and dangerous materials that are involved in the production of even the most innocuous products. It is fascinating to learn of some of the chemicals and metals that seem superfluous, yet have found their way into all sorts of everyday items. It would have been interesting to hear from McDonough and Braungart’s perspective the history of how these materials became involved in so many of our products.

The alternative production system that these authors suggest, a shift away from “cradle-to-grave” toward a “cradle-to-cradle” system, is in line with the radical shift that other environmentalists have suggested is necessary for a new global political and economic system. McDonough and Braungart call for a new approach to consumption may be necessary, but it seems almost market liberal in its reliance on technology as the solution for all environmental ills. The right technology may make a significant difference to humanities sustainability, but other issues like population growth and land practices must be considered as well.

The future of the environmental movement will require a shift from “reduce, recycle, reuse” toward the “cradle-to-cradle” approach suggested in this book. This requires a radical shift in system, one that will not be easy. However, this approach must begin with a push from somewhere.

Efficiency in the "Olden Days"

In Cradle to Cradle, authors William McDonough and Michael Braungart explore pretty much every type of consumer product imaginable, how it is made, and how the mind frame of "efficiency" has affected its production. The authors are against this idea of efficient production because they think it ignores the true ways that production could prove sustainable, and does not "reach deep enough" (62). Eco-efficiency tries to make the best of the mess we have already created, work with a tangled, badly designed system, and reduce waste instead of just creating a whole new system that wouldn't create any waste at all. This is what we need to do, the authors express, in order to live and work in a world that acknowledges the entire linking relationship of all things. But capitalism does not allow for this. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever reach a system like this because companies care only about producing goods quickly and cheaply--and that's their definition of efficiency. For many companies, eco-efficiency isn't even something they will consider because it constricts them to regulations and limits them to how much waste they can produce.
The authors also discuss our consumer culture of waste. Waste has become embedded in our daily lives to a point that it is completely unavoidable to live a zero-waste life (unless maybe we go transcendentalist and live outside for the rest of time). Most of the products we use are comprised of parts that come from many different spheres of the globe and are extracted from nonrenewable sources. I found a lot of similarities from this reading and the video "The Story of Suff," which examines our shopping culture as a driver behind "perceived obsolescence," which the authors also discuss in Cradle to Cradle. Products today are designed not to last long so that we feel we need to throw them away and buy more. This contagious mind set is dangerous and must, somehow, be expelled if we want to continue living on this planet.
One particular story in the book I found interesting was the discussion of prior leather shoe production. Conventional leather shoes, they say, are "monstrous hybrids" (99) comprised of too many different biological and technical materials. In the past, leather shoes were tanned with vegetable chemicals and the wastes posed no real problem becuse the shoe could biodegrade after use. But this required a lot of time to produce, and has therefore been replaced with a cheaper, quicker mode: chromium tanning. But this is emits dangerous toxins (often in undeveloped regions, pointing to the unequal disparities within the system), and leather shoes can no longer biodegrade. So why don't we go back to the old design? Because capitalism does not idealize it.

After reading this, I am completely at a loss. What can I do, then, if there is an ethical issue behind literally every product I use in my daily life? Perhaps well-educated architects could come up with a new system to remedy the situation, but will the world ever adopt it and let it replace the old one? Doubtful. I'm curious to see what others have to say about this.

The Lorax: An Ending for Social Change

The Onceler's not right
He cannot be
He is a terrible man
He'll cut down this tree

There is a better option
It is a concoction
Of People, Ideas and Positive Oction

I'll go near and far
But I won't go by car
I'll cross that mountain range
I'll adopt social change

I'll tell this story of the evil of thned
Of a fat little man who became king of greed
Now all that is left is this one tiny seed.

Oh and I'll give the capitalists anthrax
Long live the Lorax!

Lorax

Yo can someone post our Lorax ending? I forget who has it...

Green Aviation

Saw this cool article on The New York Times.

also theres a really cool graphic on the second link at the end.

Air Traffic System Update Encountered Turbulence
By JAD MOUAWAD
Imagine an air traffic system where planes would no longer have to wait in long rush-hour lines before taking off, or have to circle the skies before landing. In this world, planes would be able to fly more direct routes and land along smoother glide paths.

Those are the changes the Federal Aviation Administration has been promising for years through an ambitious program to modernize the nation’s air traffic system, and replace radars on the ground with satellite technology. The problem is that this new system, called NextGen, will cost an estimated $30 billion to $42 billion to complete. So far, the airlines have been reluctant to put up their half of the money for a system that will not be operational for at least a decade.

But NextGen, which stands for the Next Generation Air Transportation System, received a boost on Friday with House passage of a $59.7 billion bill that finances the F.A.A. over the next four years, providing much-needed stability to the agency’s flagship program. Since 2007, the F.A.A. bill had been repeatedly stalled and its budget temporarily extended 18 times.

The bill, which was approved 223 to 196, largely along party lines, also cuts overall spending on aviation by $4 billion and includes a provision that would curb the right of airline employees to unionize. The bill from the Republican-dominated House must still be reconciled with a vastly different version that the Senate, controlled by Democrats, approved in February. The White House has said it will veto a final bill that includes the labor provision.

And Representative Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, assailed the deep cuts in the F.A.A. budget, which, he noted, came a week after two airliners landed at Washington National Airport without being able to contact the single air traffic controller on duty.

Modernizing the nation’s current air traffic system, which is based on technology invented during World War II, is universally seen as critical to coping with the congested airspace over the United States and to accommodate growing traffic. In its latest forecast, the F.A.A. estimated that United States airlines would carry 1.3 billion passengers in 2031, up from about 700 million in 2011.

Just like GPS for cars, satellite navigation gives pilots their exact location at any given time. Air traffic controllers would not have to wait 30 seconds for the next sweep of their radar screen to know the locations of planes. Radar’s limits means that controllers must now keep planes three miles apart when they approach airports. This limits the number of planes that can land each hour and contributes to the longer lines for takeoff.

“Today’s airspace is woefully antiquated,” said Steve Fulton, who helped pioneer satellite-guided navigation with Alaska Airlines in the 1990s and now works for GE Aviation.

Airlines burn an extra 10 percent of fuel today, he said, as they circle complicated approach routes or are put on a holding pattern by controllers juggling several flights.

“Instead of a chaotic and unplanned and unpredictable system, NextGen would provide precise synchronization,” he said.

Because of the surge in traffic in recent decades, the current system is often operating at the limits of its capacity. Robert W. Mann Jr., an aviation industry expert in Port Washington, N.Y., estimated that delays and airport congestion cost the industry as much as $12 billion a year in lost time and extra fuel costs.

The United States has also been lagging other countries that are already moving into this digital navigation age, including Australia, Canada, China, and several European countries like Sweden.

Yet airlines, which continue to be low in cash, have been reluctant to commit before they get a clearer sense on how the F.A.A. plans to transition to this new technology.

“Basically, it comes down to economics,” Mr. Mann said. “This is an industry that is not operationally driven. It is financially driven. And unfortunately, the airlines have learned to be very circumspect.”

Experts said the repeated delays in financing over the last few years have contributed to NextGen’s slow pace. The F.A.A. also has a history of being unable to complete large-scale investment programs on time and on budget.

In a report last month, the Department of Transportation’s inspector general said that another of the F.A.A.’s major technological programs, called En Route Automation Modernization, was four years behind schedule and could end up costing as much as $500 million more than its initial budget of $2.1 billion. The program, one of the building blocks of NextGen, is intended to track airliners at cruising altitude. It has suffered software glitches, including tagging flight numbers to the wrong planes, at its initial testing centers in Seattle and Salt Lake City.

“Yes, we have not been perfect in the past in technological rollouts,” said Michael P. Huerta, the F.A.A.’s deputy administrator. “But this one is different.”

Of NextGen, he added, “We are beyond this being a research and planning project and we are very much in implementations.”

The airlines are broadly supportive of the F.A.A.’s goals to make the system more efficient, said Sharon Pinkerton, the senior vice president for legislative and regulatory policy at the Air Transport Association, the industry’s main trade group. But the F.A.A. needs to establish some clearer benchmarks on how it plans to move forward, she said.

“Airlines would like to ensure that the F.A.A. is able to demonstrate they can deliver the promised benefits of NextGen, especially from projects in which airlines have already equipped planes,” said Ms. Pinkerton, a former F.A.A. assistant administrator for aviation policy, planning and environment.

Alaska Airlines, for instance, has been using a satellite-guidance tool called R.N.P., or Required Navigation Performance, that allows its planes to take off and land along more direct routes than traditional approaches, even in bad weather with low visibility.

Southwest Airlines has invested $150 million to equip most of its 600 Boeing 737s with this technology.

The F.A.A. said it has established more than 900 procedures and routes for planes equipped with the satellite technology at about 200 airports. But carriers complain that many of them are simply overlaid on the old radar-based approaches, which makes them far less effective. As a result, the benefits to the airlines have been diluted.

“These new aircraft have extraordinary capabilities that we can’t use because we have older planes crowding the airspace and because we don’t have the required navigation capabilities,” said David Cush, the chief executive of Virgin America, which has a younger fleet equipped with satellite technology.

Southwest, for instance, uses the technology at only 11 airports, including Los Angeles and Raleigh-Durham.

Mike Van de Ven, Southwest’s chief operating officer, said the F.A.A. should give landing priority to planes with the latest satellite navigation tools onboard, instead of on a first-come-first serve basis, as is the case today.

“If you have made the investment in the equipage to allow your plane to be more efficient,” Mr. Van de Ven said, “we believe you ought to get preferential treatment.”

Steve Dickson, senior vice president for flight operations at Delta Air Lines, said the airlines had a long history of investing in technologies the F.A.A. required, but that never paid off.

“It’s fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” he said.

“Right now, based on our track record, the benefits accrue to the late adopters. We need to change that paradigm if we want to move forward.”

http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/optimized_descents/

Empty Rhetoric?

As I watched Obama’s speech last Wednesday, I was excited. His discussion of cutting America’s oil dependence rang true to everything we had been talking about in class. However, after the initial excitement wore off, I started to wonder how feasible his statements really were. While it would be great if we cut back on the amount of oil imported each day and worked towards making energy efficient technologies more available, it seems like an unlikely goal unless political will on both sides grows. One of the articles discussed the Republicans reactions to Obama’s speech, calling it “same old, same old”. Even Obama admitted that countless politicians have vowed to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil, what makes Obama so sure that his administration can do that? Considering the current political gridlock, it seems unlikely that both sides will ever come to an agreement about a policy framework for Obama’s proposal. I fear that his speech will just turn into empty rhetoric because action towards his goal will be hard to sustain.

I also wonder if Obama’s suggestions are enough. His speech was still overwhelmingly centered on economic growth through clean energy markets. However, as we have been discussing in class, growth might be the wrong thing to focus on. Bill McKibben wrote that we should be focused on maintaining the huge wealth that we already possess. While this is a huge deviation from mainstream thought and economics, it might be a necessary change if we are going to weather the storm of climate change.

All Talk No Game?

On Wednesday I was surprised to see some of my friends who attend Georgetown University to post pictures of President Obama making a speech on their campus. I was even more intrigued by the words written behind him "Winning the Future: American Energy". Now just the title demonstrates the same old rhetoric of creating change for 'future' generations. This speech clearly came at an opportune time for the President

With the Middle East in crisis and gas prices rising sharply because of it, the President needed to address and mitigate fears related to energy policy as they affect the every day lives of Americans. The President needed to connect the events in the Middle East to the American people in some tangible way. The way he went about doing that was focusing primarily on automobiles and the oil industry. Additionally, this has political overtones for his mounting reelection campaign. The President took this opportune moment to deliver a two-birds-with-one-stone speech.

Yet his rhetoric alone cannot change energy policy or the way Americans think about the energy policy. Further relating his message to the American people, the President invoked the economy and a nice jobs report. While the President provides a hopeful message on the future of the environment, his rhetoric is not clearly backed up with concrete action. He seemed to understand the idea of institution change; Stating the nation "has known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Presidents and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. ... We've also run into the same political gridlock and inertia that's held us back for decades. That has to change." It remains to be seen whether anything actually will change

A Popular Argument, but NOT a Sustainable One

Obama’s speech touches on several of the important energy issues that we have discussed in light of responding to climate change. However, he is framing his changes in energy policy in terms of immediate political security, and not the long term environmental security that many concerned about climate change would be hoping to hear.

The immediate response to reading any coverage of the speech from an environmental advocate is extreme disappointment at the limited commitments the administration is taking. Before reading the speech, I had seen a number of news articles with headlines concerning Obama cutting foreign oil by 1/3 in 15 years. My immediate reaction was that this commitment is very underwhelming. While it may seem like a practical commitment in the light of recent concerns over foreign oil and looking at the reality of America’s addiction, this is not what is needed with the environmental concerns of climate change looming or already affecting us. From a security perspective, Obama is quite right that the United States should cut down on foreign oil, but this commitment must come along side overall oil consumption cuts.

Despite this less than encouraging start, it is refreshing that Obama does realize the reality of the situation ahead. He discusses the rising consumption of countries like China and India meaning that there is not going to be long-term declines in the price of oil. Similarly, he acknowledges there will be no quick fixes to the current energy situation.

Where Obama misses the mark, other than his focus on cutting only foreign oil, are some of his alternatives. The first two alternatives he discusses, natural gas and biofuels, are not sustainable either. While they most likely have a role in our future, he discusses them as the solution rather than means to steady the ship while we develop better alternatives. The attention he pays to efficiency is a solution worth noting. In both transportation and electricity, improving efficiency are probably the most attainable and cost-effective solutions we have. Still, Obama brushed off the long-term concerns for the environment in favor of protecting national security and the wallets of Americans; a popular strategy, but probably not a sustainable one.

Coby who?

In the debate about climate change, there are many passionate view points. The blogosphere is a key space to promote ideas and to engage in discussions relating to this very controversial topic. Many sides of the debate have taken to the Internet to promote what they think. The Friends of Science website and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic series are two instances of these tools. Both provide very detailed analysis while taking different views.

Friends of Science is a more traditional web based organization. Their 'About Us' section clearly details how they see the climate change debate and provides information on key issues. It is more of a traditional website in that it has clearly demarcated sections and headings. I think it is the more user-friendly of the two. It has a pleasant background and easy to use interface. Additionally, there seems to be more transparency when the website clearly states where they get their money from and who is on their staff- a team of scientists with respectable backgrounds. A nifty layout map tells the visitor which articles are easy, hard or most difficult on technical reading. Clearly, the Friends of Science website has the support of a much more established organization.

On the other hand we have How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic. This actually an article series rather than the traditional website that Friends of Science employs. There are detailed articles relating a number of subjects that are central to the climate change debate. However, I found it to be the less convincing of the two based on pure aesthetics alone. I am confident both have very reliable data (while at the same time attempting to poke holes in the other side's argument). However, it is much less clear what the purpose is and even who it is. Coby Beck appears to be the only writer and his About Me is less than convincing on his Climate Change credentials. While I am all for empowering voices not often heard through the internet, I believe it is imperative that those voices should also be the most educated. I'm sure he is passionate about his work and we probably sure the same views. But his posts do little to convince me of his argument.

People will believe whatever SOUNDS smart

These two websites supply interesting contrasts regarding the climate debate. While “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is very clearly concerned with spreading information on the reality of climate change, “Friends of the Science” supplies an alternative view, giving evidence that contradicts that from climate scientists. These two websites together form very good overviews of the key arguments from both sides of the climate debate.

Challenging one side on the quality of its scientific evidence, while blindly supporting the evidence provided by the other is the typical response of those involved in the climate debate. While I am obviously partial to one side of the climate debate, I attempted to evaluate the material on both of these websites as neutrally as possible.

What interested me was not the bizarre or questionable scientific evidence of “Friends of Science”, but the way that they framed many of their arguments compared to the Grist website. Grist, in an effort to effectively convert climate skeptics and make them reconsider their stance, has tried to be as plain spoken and clear concerning these issues as possible. He has stated everything in “layman’s terms,” while supplying graphs and citations that elaborate on issues more scientifically. One setback may even be that he is too vernacular with his analysis, especially when he is referring people to Wikipedia for a good article on a particular subject.

The authors of “Friends of Science” have taken a wholly different approach. Quite a lot of their reasoning are overly scientific-sounding with the probable intention of confusing the readers into believing what they say is true. I think specifically of two of their “Insights.” The first insight that the earth is cooling is based on a graph that does not support their claim. While they show that CO2 has increased rapidly and temperature has been variable, there is a noticeable trend of steadily increasing temperature. They distract readers from this by writing in a very convoluted way that sounds scientific, but actually does make much sense. One example: “Surface temperature data is contaminated by the effects of urban development… The high magnetic flux reduces cloud cover and causes warming.”

Their second instance of confusing the readers is in their second insight that the sun causes global warming. While they accuse Al Gore of reverse causality, they are willing culprits themselves. They show evidence proving a connection between solar irradiance and rising temperatures, something that most climate scientists would not dispute, but use it as a reason to deny global warming. The attempts of the “Friends of Science” to confuse separate them from the plainspoken information supplied by Grist’s website.

Mixed Data Causes Confusion

By taking two different sides of an argument, these websites show important dialogue about the causes and implications of climate change. The first, Friends of Science was very interesting. While this website did not deny that climate change is occurring, they posited that it was not caused by humans, but by the Sun. By displaying graphs and charts (that honestly were difficult to interpret on my own) they appear to have evidence that supports this hypothesis. Even more, they give the bios of the scientists on their advisory board, giving them more credibility. While I have no idea if their claims are at all true or how sound their science is, any average web-browser would probably believe what this website has to say. With a clear agenda of proving that climate change is not caused by human activity, Friends of Science provides data and information in logical and respectful manner.

The “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website is also very interesting. It is certainly a little less professional looking than the Friends of Science page because many of the topics and categories are clearly poking fun at climate change skeptics. However, once you get past this, they refute practically any question you could think of to deny climate change as a fact. Not only does this website aim to prove that climate change exists; it also suggests that human activity is a major cause. I think that because I firmly believe that climate change is a human-caused phenomenon, that this website is more convincing. It is difficult for me to be objective about something that I have accepted as true. However, both websites use convincing scientific proof and graphs and charts, which are always helpful when pushing a scientific agenda.

Making sense of these scientific claims is very difficult for me. While I have always believed that climate change is occurring at the hands of humans, the Friends of Science website had proof that this is not the case. Because I do not have a scientific background, I do not have the skills to properly analyze the data that both websites provided. This is one of the major problems, because anyone can throw up a graph and make the average person believe their point of view. However, properly interpreting data is crucial, and there is always the chance that certain data was interpreted to skew results. Essentially, people have to trust the integrity of scientists and hope that their data is interpreted truthfully and in a way that shows the entire picture.

The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind

Interview with William on the Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-7-2009/william-kamkwamba

TED Talk with William:

http://www.ted.com/talks/william_kamkwamba_how_i_harnessed_the_wind.html

The story of William Kamkwamba is certainly inspirational. Growing up in Malawi, his family was largely dependent on agricultural for income. When he was 14, there was a severe drought and his family had to pull him out of school because they could not afford it. So, William spent time in the library reading books about physics, and in particular, windmills. Despite the fact that he could barely read English, he learned that windmills could pump water and generate electricity. He believed that he could build a windmill and in turn, provide water for his family’s crops. Using diagrams and scraps of metal that he could find, he constructed a rudimentary windmill that provided electricity for his house and irrigation for a garden.

Despite the fact that William’s invention was not based on environmental concern, but was a survival mechanism, this story still provides hope for sustainable development in some of the poorest countries. By harnessing the clean energy of wind, William was able to generate electricity and irrigation, basic things that can improve the lives of rural farmers around the world. The fact that this windmill was built entirely out of scrap metal, at practically no cost, means that William’s model can be replicated in communities all over the world. The environmental problems of the developing world are much different from the environmental problems of the developed world. By tying in environment with the development process, at a community level, small initiatives can be taken to lessen the environmental impact of development. These technologies are not necessarily expensive, which means that it only takes some dedicated people to replicate at a larger level.

Green Urbanization an Oxymoron?

In an age of rapid urbanization and population growth, we must ask how the environmental impact of these two world factors can be curved through technological innovations. One article I found on the subject talks about making green building a corporate responsibility in New Jersey. You can read the article "DEP Environmental Stewardship Program Grows to More than 500 Participants," from the Environmental News Network at this site: http://www.enn.com/business/article/42395.
The article talks about a program in New Jersey to tackle sustainable building through "environmental stewardship." This term itself gives me hope because it shows that some architects and city-planners have recognized the need to make sustainability a large part of their work. Green building means installing solar panels to use for electricity, water conservation, material-use reduction programs, and other processes listed under the DEP's 21 categories of the stewardship program. As part of the initiative, the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) sends inspectors to building sites with a series of questions for the contractors and methods of assessing the extent of the building's environmental consciousness and sustainability.
I think actions like this are definitely effective because they set standards and regulations to places where it matters, like urbanization and building construction--two human actions that directly hurt the environment. However, there are always ways around regulations and therefore we must ask questions about how exactly the DEP's requirements are regulated and carried out. Also, some would say that trying to make urbanization more eco-friendly and green-focused is irrelevant because we should focus more on limiting growth in cities and limiting human actions that directly hurt the environment. So is green urbanization an oxymoron? I think it's a step in the right direction. It's accepting that cities have to expand in order to meet growing population needs, but changing the way in which they expand and trying to make it less environmentally detrimental. Yes we absolutely do need to focus on the roots of the problem, but this one innovation certainly gives me hope.

Arab Revolts Helping the Environment

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/business/global/28oil.html?ref=middleeast

This is one of the few classes where I have managed to escape discussing the extraordinary events unfolding in the MIddle East, but true to form it seems as if environmental politics is not immune from what is transpiring there. Primarily because the MIddle East is such an important player in oil politics, which in turn affects our class on environmental politics, the current situation that is leading to a rise in gas prices may effectively change consumption patterns in our every day lives. As the price of gas continues to climb due to the turmoil in the MIddle East, no where closer to home will that be felt than at the gas pump. This is a highly effective way to reduce the amount of cars on the road and makes people question when to drive or buy gasoline. Not only does it affect the individual, but it also affects the price of other commodities and items that rely on gasoline to either be transported or produced. Essentially, as oil prices rise so too will the prices of other goods and that will directly affect the way people consume.

For however effective a response to the global dependency on gas that rising gas prices may be, it is no more a sustainable as it is a replicable solution. While it is incredible that popular and organic movements are expressing the popular will to overthrow US-client states that were dependent on oil, such movements can only last until a new government comes to power, and will be exploited for its natural wealth. Certainly we have seen these movements spread across the region and while the large petroleum producing states have so far remained stable (no doubt due to the amount of money it can throw at its citizens to placate them), there is the possibility and room for these movements to topple friendly oil regimes. In that case, the pain at the pump might dramatically change the way in which people consume and run their lives.

Seeing these movements occur in real time gives me great hope. However, it is not hope for the environment. These revolutions give me hope for social justice movements and true home grown democracies, but much less so for the environment. These revolutions provide a taste of what is to come when the region finally dries up. Unfortunately for the time being, it is too hard to say in what ways the new popular governments will deal with oil companies. If they maintain strict nationalization measures, the price of oil could rise to new proportions that makes it unsavory for SUV driving consumers. Or, if countries enact foreign friendly policies that exploit their national wealth, we could see dependence rise to new heights.

Water Warriors: Restoring Traditional Earthen Dams for Rainwater Harvesting and Groundwater Replenishment in Rajasthan, India

http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/video/rajasthan/index.html

The link includes a video of a response to environmental degradation in a small rural town in Rajasthan, India. Commercial logging and the development of new well technologies led to villagers ignoring their traditional source of water, johads, and created an environment that led to water shortage and environmental degradation.

The involvement of a local NGO helped return people’s attention to their johads as a source of water. The return of johads revived the water-deprived area. This effort along with work to replant the village forest restored the community. Agriculture was diversified, livestock herds recovered, and wildlife returned to the area.

This environmental solution was effective because the solution was something that people in the community remembered and understood had worked for hundreds of year. This traditional method acted as an innovation that revitalized the community. The use of traditional technology as a way of solving environmental problems is certainly replicable in other contexts. It may be difficult to adopt traditional methods in communities that are already too far beyond their traditions, like in much of the United States.

This means is not cannot be the only solution to global environmental problems. There are some places where it is not a practical option. However, knowing that there are solutions that are so simple makes me is a good sign for the future of humans working to better live in our environment.

This website, www.ecotippingpoints.org, has a bunch of very interesting and innovative solutions to environmental problems all over the world.

Food Awareness

When making choices about the food I eat, I keep a number of factors in mind. I have long considered becoming a vegetarian because of the environmental and health impacts of eating meat. However, many of my favorite foods involve meat, and I just can’t give them up. Despite this, I make an effort to purchase meat that has been grass-fed (when I can afford it). I also make sure that I read the ingredients of the food that I buy. Something can appear to be completely healthy, but the ingredient list might be full of things I can’t even pronounce. I want to actually know what all the ingredients are in my food, and not base my eating habits just on calorie or fat contents. Eating locally is also something that I try to follow through on. Whenever I can, I buy my fruits and vegetables from farmers markets. However, it is also important to buy in-season foods (which can be limiting) because local foods can be grown in hot-houses that are also not good for the environment. One aspect of being conscious about the food I eat that I find difficult to actually follow through on is the human impact of my food. Having interned at a labor rights organization, I realized that many individuals working in the agricultural sector have far from decent working conditions. I really would like to be able to say that my food has been farmed or processed in fair working conditions, but I have found that to be quite difficult. I can buy Fair Trade certified chocolate or tea, but very few products can even carry a Fair Trade label.

Of the food that I have eaten in the past day, the most environmentally harmful would have to be the Purdue chicken that I had for dinner last night. Buying organic, or GM-free meat is quite expensive, so I usually stick the least expensive options. I am pretty sure that Purdue does not raise its chickens in an environmentally sustainable way. Based on what I saw in the movie Food, Inc., I can only imagine the impact that my dinner had on not just the environment, but also the humans involved in the raising of these chickens.

Always Recycle

It is an interesting task to think about the impact eating has on the environment. Often, we are so caught up in the mouth watering aspect of eating, rather than the polluting aspect of eating (and I'm not talking about the excretion bit). As a college student, I try to buy my groceries as often as possible, rather than paying for each individual meal. While this is primarily financial, i believe it also has more bang for my buck. I do partake in the 'simple acts' of shopping to help the environment, ie. using cloth bags instead of plastic bags, etc. I also try to limit the amount of meat I buy, and generally try to use farmer's markets or locally produced vegetables, although sometimes that is not always possible. Thinking back over the past 2 days on what I have consumed, I would have to say that definitely alcohol is having the biggest environmental impact as that is primarily all I have consumed. I definitely try to consume local beers ie. dog fish head. and most important of all, to always recycle.

Budget / Time Constraints and Environmental Impact

Ideally, my food choices involve some degree of environmental and health considerations. However, these are limited by context and my own tastes. With both the environment and healthy eating habits in mind, I have cut red meat and pork from my diet for over two years. The decision to do this was probably equally about the environment as about healthy eating. These two animals (cows and pigs) require a large amount of land to live and produce their food. They are not viable for the energy output they produce. Neither are particularly healthy, other than the protein they provide, which I get from other sources.

Despite the relative ease I was able to cut out these products from my diet, I have not been able quit poultry or seafood. While I try to eat them sparingly, and I made efforts to stop eating them all together, I have been unsuccessful so far.
I am limited by my budget and the context I find myself in. As a college student with barely enough money for rent, I cannot afford the option of local, organic produce consistently. These options are not readily available at the local Giant anyway, and the opportunity to get to the farmer’s market is not always available for me.

Additionally, when I look at my recent eating habits, my job forces me into eating habits that are not always healthy or environmentally-friendly. I work in Friendship Heights and to avoid spending eight dollars or more for dinner every day, I often bring a meal. These meals are often leftovers or frozen meals, which require a microwave to cook. I try to avoid using the microwave as often as possible, however to heat up these little meals there is not another option available. The energy required to heat up a frozen dinner in two minutes requires a disproportionate amount of electricity, which I know is more likely than not coming from fossil fuels. It does not help either that these meals are packaged and wrapped and packaged again in plastics that will never go away.

Ethical Eating

The topic of food and agriculture sparks a lot of discussion for me particularly because I am taking Nicholson's other class called "The Political Economy of Food and Agriculture." The class explores the issues surround food and agriculture production and the environmental and political issues associated with it. Lately we have talks a lot about commodity chains and thinking about the "miles" our food has traveled to get to our tables. Before taking the class, I thought about such issues and tried to eat locally, but since our class discussions I've started to consider all facets of food production. When I walk down the supermarket isles and see boxes of frozen spring rolls, jars of marshmallow fluff, and packages of instant Asian noodles, I can't help but think of the different kinds of production that went into bringing the food from the fields to the shelves. The ingredients in the spring rolls could have come from all over, been shipped by trucks to the same packaging facility, mass-produced into spring rolls by machine, then packaged into the plastic-coated paper box that is cardboard. All of these actions have a greater affect on the environment than the average consumer can even begin to imagine. In terms of food issues, people mostly associate environmental degradation with meat production. But while this certainly claims many of the problems, eating a kiwi in DC in the middle of February isn't exactly eco-friendly. The kiwi probably came from some far away country like Peru or the Caribbean, so the transportation it went through to get to DC emitted thousands of molecules of C02 into the atmosphere.
In the past few days, I've been the opposite of an environmentally-friendly eater. Since I regularly babysit, and the family offers me dinner and keeps a full-stocked pantry I usually find myself eating anything that's there and snack-able just because it's free and so readily available for me. This usually means frozen pizza, avocados, and the occasional Raisinette. I know that eating an avocado in February is just as bad as eating a kiwi, but it's healthy and it's free so I take it. I think a lot of college students have this mentality, that no matter how bad something is for us or the environment, the cheap food is the easiest to get, so that's what we typically eat. I would love to eat an entirely organic diet, but that's extremely expensive and difficult in the winter. Just not an option at this point in my life.
For lunch today I splurged a little and went to Baja Fresh, a fast-food Mexican eatery that spoons out guacamole with every order and also has a salsa bar. I ate a tostata with tomatoes, onions, corn, beans, chicken, cheese, and many other Mexican flavors. I'm pretty sure this meal had the greatest environmental impact because of the variety of vegetables that probably came from far away. I don't even want to think about the chicken. Beverages also have serious environmental impacts because of all the chemicals and sugar-substances that are added. I took a fruit juice at lunch that was packed with citric acid, sucralose, and other chemicals that have to be taken from other substances (parts of citric acid come from oils produced from corn) that involve heavy processing and thus tack-on food miles to what I drank.
In short, it's really hard to eat well while also limiting our environmental impact. If one really only ate locally and didn't eat any processed, packaged foods, his diet would lack variation and certain vitamins. Especially here in DC in February, where local produce isn't the greatest. How can we avoid eating packaged food or food that has been shipped over international borders when these options are so readily available to us?

Subsidies...Fast!

After reading the article, I would definitely say that I support the Obama administration’s attempts to get rid of tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies. However, these policies alone will probably not be enough to challenge America’s dependence on fossil fuels. The oil and coal industries have a huge lobbying force, and they are going to react strongly to any policies that do not favor them. However, these policies are necessary because America’s dependence on fossil fuels needs to end.

It was surprising to me that there was even a debate among environmentalists about the effectiveness of subsidies for clean energy. I would have assumed that environmentalists firmly support such subsidy proposals because it provides an incentive for individuals to invest in such technologies. However, this is not always the case and many environmentalists think that all types of energy need to compete on a level playing field. While this is an admirable proposition, I can’t see newer, more eco-friendly energy forms having the power to compete against the massive oil and coal industries.

The article quotes Dr. Kreutzer saying “We know that petroleum and coal survive just fine in places where there are no subsidies. I don’t know if that’s true for wind and solar now, but someday it will be, when the price comes down.” However, from what we have learned thus far in class, we don’t really have the time to wait for that “someday” when prices decline. If we want to act in time to at least lessen the impact of climate change, action needs to be taken now. People respond to incentives, and if we really want to see a change in the energy that Americas utilize, subsidies and tax incentives for the right technologies may be the most practical and effective way to do that.

Maybe Obama's Just as Confused as Us

After reading this NYT article, I am left completely confused with the Obama administration's efforts to reduce our ecological impact from energy use. The policies seem to contradict themselves. As Washington lobbyists say, the industry actually subsidies the government, not the other way around, because of all the control the industry holds in the political realm and daily life. Obama says he wants to rid us of fossil fuels, but his policies say otherwise. He gives billions of dollars in subsidies to coal, nuclear, and other fuel sources that have proved incredibly detrimental to the environment; yet he has also openly supported solar power and funded research into such alternative energy sources. He claims to support research in alternative energy forms, but yet has givent 50 billion to constructing nuclear power plants. We must ask then, what is Obama's overall plan?

In this year's Sate of the Union address, Obama stated that he aims to double the amount of "cleaner" technology produced by 2035--but I have to say that 25 years from now is much too late. If the fossil fuel industry is subsidized practically 90$ billion per day, as the article suggests, and a vast amount of statistics show us the alarming rate in which fossil fuel emission enter the atmosphere per day, how can we imagine what it will look line in 25 years?? At this rate, the world we be in even more of a mess by 2035 than it is now. Therefore, Obama must become more clear in his policies and change around the projects he supports. The article raises the question of should the govt completely stop funding all forms of energy production, even if that means slowing production of alternative, cleaner sources? I'd have to say that policies MUST become stricter and limit day-by-day carbon emissions, and yes, more funding must absolutely go into research and production of alternative, cleaner energy forms. Much research and knowledge of such forms already exists, but lack political support and funding (as I have discussed in previous posts).
If the administration enacted serious limits on carbon emissions, such as limits in how often one could drive a car,or developing environmental incentives for city-dwellers to use public transportation, perhaps the environmental degradation we are currently imposing would decrease as more attention turns to producing solar, wind, or biomass energy.

Subsidize This...!!

The way our capitalist economy operates necessarily includes subsidies in order for companies to effectively survive in global competition. America is the preeminent world power, due in large part to our innovation while geo-strategically positioned in a region that is resource-poor for the oil sector. In order to utilize oil in other regions of the world, companies must receive subsidies from the federal government in order to properly compete. The price tag of 4 billion dollars not only supports the industry, but also keeps America in a position to maintain hegemony.

Ecologically speaking, this may not turn out to be the best thing for the planet. Of course the energy industry does its part through corporate social responsibility to give back to communities and in some cases invest in our planet's energy future. Subsidies all help do this. As the article clearly articulates, subsidies have remained a constant in the political sphere for decades. In my opinion, subsidies need to reform to match the times. While cutting all subsidies might seem extreme, perhaps if the government restructured them that allowed for these companies to invest and develop so called 'Green' technology, that might provide further incentive.

At the same time, the Obama administration can shift some of those funds to other social programs that are currently in deficit.

Subsidies for our Future, Not Oil

It is surprising to see some of the stances of environmental groups concerning these subsidies. The leaders of the Global Environmental Fund and Earth Track both stand against subsidies in all their forms. From Douglas Koplow, founder of Earth Track, comes the opinion that “the country is better off on having a neutral playing field for all forms of energy.” These two organizations seem to be holding onto the market liberal idea of environmentalism that people will switch to more environmentally friendly energy sources when they are on a level playing field and shown to be more cost-effective. I do not have the same rosy view of this situation. “Green” energy is substantially far behind in terms of technology, earning power, and influence from the fossil fuel companies. Even without subsidies, these fossil fuel corporations would still hold a substantial advantage. Further, I am surprised by the laid back approach of the environment groups presented in this article. While I do not necessarily buy the Bill McKibben end is imminent approach, allowing the market (without subsidies) to decide to shift toward more environmentally sustainable energy sources is leaving things too late.

I stand by the opinions Michael Levi who sees the need to support the new energy technologies from the dominance of fossil fuels. Subsidies in their present format do not work to this end. They should be scraped as they presently exist.

However, rather than aiding the “green” technology sector against the fossil fuel companies, subsidies should be offered to integrate these two groups. I am not supportive of the profit-mongering executives at Exxon and the like, but pragmatically, these companies have the greatest potential to develop green technology. Subsidies and tax breaks should exist to promote oil and other fossil fuel companies toward innovating and developing new “green” energy. These companies have capital to burn, and as fossil fuels begin to dry up and people begin become more inclined to use renewable energy, these companies have the most to gain from cornering these emerging markets.

Energy is energy, and profit is profit, so giving incentives to Chevron and Exxon to develop the future wind turbines and solar panels will ensure that we have energy and they have profit.

More Harm Than It is Worth?

Again and again the role of technology is among the most debated and divisive in the environmental conversation. As we have already discussed, many environmentalists and environmental models, notably the I=PAT equation, frame technology as one of the factors leading to environmental degradation. The opposing opinion is captured in the mastery view, as explained by Paul Wapner in his article “Humility in a Climate Age”. The mastery worldview sees technology as a tool of humans in their efforts to work around the laws of nature. The relevance of these ideas have been legitimized of late, as many environmentalists have started supporting technological fixes for the environment, such as nuclear power and carbon sequestration.

Those against the cornucopian idea that humans, through technology, can solve all of our own problems do not challenge humanity’s ability to invent. Over the past century, technological advancement has continued unabated, at a rate that has surprised even some in the science community. Moore’s law for the improvement in superconductors has consistently been correct at anticipating the exponential growth in this technology. The computing power and memory capacity of computers today were unimaginable five years ago, and will almost certainly seem insignificant five years from now.

No, the problem with technology is not that we as humans will not be able to continue producing technologies, or that we will not be able to continue producing “green technologies”. Human capacity to continue technological development is evident. The problem we face is that technology to limit environmental change will face tremendous challenges to develop at the same rate as technology that will exacerbate the impact of humans on the environment. In “Why the future doesn’t need us,” Bill Joy introduces a scary point about human technology; he says “as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones” (Joy 9). This problem can be replicated for environmental technology. The human capacity to create technology destructive to the environment is far better than to do so for technology to limit human impacts. This complication calls for government oversight encouraging green technology, while at the same time discouraging new technologies that lead us further astray.

Technology: Assessing the Key Relationships

With the growing production of technological innovations in the 21st century, we cannot avoid the environmental ramifications involved. On the subject of Ozone depletion, technology has the biggest hand in this process. The act of driving, burning fossil fuels in power plants and factories, emits harmful gases into the atmosphere such as CFCs, CO2, methane, and others. These gases are eating away at the Ozone, which rests in the stratosphere and acts as a layer of protection from the sun's rays overheating the planet. With technological innovations only increasing and more products entering the planet, the threat on the Earth is palpable and extreme.

However, I do believe that we can find a great deal of hope for the environment in the field of technology. Environmental engineers are currently researching ways to develop fuel-efficient cars through the use of biomass,ethanol, hydrogen, and other alternative sources. Skilled, green-minded architects and designers have presented a number of production changes that could decrease the strain that the technologies we use put on the environment. They have also published ideas that can save deteriorating biomes in certain regions. Since we have the knowledge and technology to develop such innovations, the government must pump MORE money into these programs. I believe technology can use as a positive mode for environmental conservation--if we use it properly and moderate it. The key issue here is the relationship among these three key ingredients: people, policy, and technology. This relationship gets its fuel from that one little thing that makes this world work: money! This diagram illustrates the argument I am trying to make, about how actions to help slow climate change and reduce our "ecological footprint," the lack of funding and social drivers for it stem back to economics. Since we lack the economic contribution to start projects like the "Rising Currents," (presented at the MOMA last spring, see: http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2010/09/21/rising-currents-transformation-through-creative-collaboration#description) innovative ideas such as these will never grab the spotlight in the technological realm. Advertising has made most Americans fail to see the the side of technology different from the side that spits out iPhones, BluRay players, and gas-guzzling Jeeps at an alarming rate. We constantly hear of new inventions or "more" technologically-advanced enhancements to our older inventions that we can't really learn about how can technology can be used alternatively and actually save the environment. Unless of course, our government funds it and make sit more present in the lives of consumers.


So, yes, I do think that technology has been the primary factor in environmental degradation and climate change, but it is not pure evil. We can change technology from a negative ingredient to a positive one, it just takes funding and political drive.

FInding Middle Ground

Technology really has two sides in the discussion on environmental conservation. Paul Wapner, in his article “Humility in a Climate Age” address these contrasting viewpoints. Past environmentalism has stressed human harmonization with the environment, and realizing that we must learn to coexist with the environment around us. However, Wapner also addresses the rise of a “new environmentalism” that sees the solution of our problems in technology and the mastery of the environment. While these can both be considered extremes, these two viewpoints see very interesting solutions. The side that promotes more technology certainly makes a good point. We have reached a point where we have completely altered our environment, and it is unrealistic to believe that people will be willing to completely change their lifestyles. The only way to salvage our environment is through more technology and consumption that is good for our environment. As Wapner said, “many environmentalists are now admitting that global capitalism, incessant technological innovation, endless consumption, and pervasive anthropocentrism are here to stay” (2). This is an unsurprising reaction to the environmental problem because it lies in the realm of the current global economy. Instead of looking for out-of-the-box solutions that will be difficult to get people on board with, these environmentalists are looking to do something that can be applied to the masses

On the other hand, some environmentalists see this increasing use of technology and reliance on consumption as a problem. Technology, they believe, has caused this much environmental degradation in the first place, why should we continue to rely on it? Instead, societies need to learn how to exist alongside the environment, instead of mastering it.

The real question is, who is right in this debate? While it is difficult to completely reject technology, we need to be careful of the types of technologies that are being disseminated. Many of these technologies just require and encourage more consumption, just of a different manner than what we are typically accustomed to. If we really want to effect change, it is important to reevaluate our consumption habits and how they are impacting our environment. We also need to look at all of these new green technologies and decide which ones are making the most impact, and which are just encouraging more consumption.

The Cause of our Problems

It is often a truism that what is out of sight, is out of mind. That is especially true when applied to environmentalism and the role technology plays. One has to commend the job advertisers and marketers do when they portray new 'Green' technologies that are meant to be our savior. People are quick to forget that it is technology that is putting the planet in peril; does the industrial revolution ring any bells? Sure the term 'industrial' might imply coal mines, polluting trains, factories and machines, but the long term results is what affects us the most. Today, many people believe that technology has overcome those gross polluting realities. We only need to look to some of the worst environmental disasters that were not caused by Mother Nature but occurred in the past 30 years ie. Chernobyl, BP oil spill this past summer, to see the affect technology has still.

On the other hand, there can be very real solutions in technology, but It is a catch-22. Often the output is much smaller than the cost of research and development. Take the new Chevy Volt for example, meant to be the harbinger of the next generation of clean automobiles (oxymoron?). While it is certainly much 'cleaner' and 'green' than its rivals, the cost of producing and developing the car greatly outweighs the benefit. Take the example of lettuce in Bill McKibben's book Maybe One. The amount of energy used to produce, transport and sell a head of lettuce greatly outweighs the caloric benefit. Perhaps the Luddites got it right after all by destroying the source of our environmental degradation...

Time is Running Out

This article by Homer-Dixon discusses the increasing anticipations of depleting energy sources. He draws on the possibility of mining in alternative areas like those in China that have no yet been explored for such purposes, and while this could be positive for our energy supply, it would be seriously detrimental to China's environment. There's also the issue of uneven energy inputs for the energy output that comes from drilling in different given areas. This problem threatens the economic growth that we have prided ourselves over for the past few decades. However, I think that maybe a short pause in industrialization and economic innovation wouldn't hurt.

The list of environmental harm that comes from coal, petroleum, and other mining is extensible. First of all, mining can have adverse effect on surrounded surface ground water, which can result in overly high concentrations of arsenic, sulfuric acid, or mercury. The runoff from these sinks contaminates surrounding vegetation and farm lands. One solution for this that should be more widely performed is the refillings of the mind aft it has been blasted through, in order to reduce water leakage and chemical contamination. Federal laws enforce this practice, but I think it must be better regulated and supervised to ensure the mining companies do it efficiently. Second, mountain-top removal, most commonly associated with coal mining in the Appalachians, has undoubtedly contributed to loss of biodiversity that mitigation practices cannot successfully address. Environmental scientists have proved that the action of blasting through the mountain tops expels large particles of dust and fly-rock into the air, which may contain sulfur compounds--a serious threat to human health.

These practices need to be better regulated, or perhaps slowed down.What Homer-Dixon fails to address in his article is the new technological advances for alternative energy sources. He only discusses the increasing deterioration of our current energy sources, but we all know those aren't renewable and are running out. What the world needs most now is a new beginning, a fresh start with sustainable innovations that we have the technology to produce.

Economic Growth: A Means to THE End?

Economic growth is a very dangerous idea in our current global society. The desire for greater economic growth is engrained in how countries and people operate today. Economic growth is seen as the cure for all of the world’s ills, such as poverty, debt and limited freedoms as mentioned by Homer-Dixon. Economic growth is argued as the solution to any of our planets environmental problems by market liberals. This idea, Homer-Dixon argues, is erroneous and dangerous to the future of our planet.

Market liberals’ reliance on economic growth as the means to repairing environmental damage is based in the assumptions of the environmental Kuznets curve and growth leading to innovation. Market liberals use the “greening” of Western economies as the proof of these assumptions. Homer-Dixon is arguing against the limited idea of economic growth leading to endless innovation and improvement. New technologies in natural resource extraction have not seen improved yields. Rather the decreasing yields per energy input, shown by Homer-Dixon, create a sense that the earth’s natural resources are diminishing.

The environmental Kuznet’s curve is a model that market liberals hold dear. The idea that continued economic growth will lead to decreases in emissions is something they strongly advocate. This model is severely faulted. For starters, it is based on an economic model that does not even hold true for inequality measures, its original intention. Secondly, it is the population of the richest, most developed countries that produce significantly more emissions per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Homer-Dixon is arguing against the market liberal approach. At the same time he is expressing the attachment that society has with this growth-focused approach.

Nick

Social Greens vs. Market Liberals

Thomas Homer-Dixon appears to be torn between the views of market liberals and social greens. He very clearly acknowledges that economic growth is critical to improving the lives of people around the world, a very market liberal perspective. However, he also recognizes that our current methods of economic growth are not at all sustainable. We are running out of natural resources and our fossil fuel based global economy cannot survive in the future without grave consequences for humanity. While he explains the current rut that we are in, he offers no solutions, ending the article by saying “This contradiction is humankind's biggest challenge this century, but as long as conventional wisdom holds that growth can continue forever, it's a challenge we can't possibly address.”

I would have to agree with Homer-Dixon in that the “conventional wisdom” that economic growth will eventually reduce environmental degradation is problematic. However, this market liberal viewpoint is backed up by the Kuznet’s curve and also by academics like Julian Simon who see things like population growth as a positive because it puts more people on the planet to innovate. In essence, the market liberals believe that we can innovate and grow our way out of environmental degradation. Personally, I see this as the wrong way of looking at things. We have already altered our Earth and it currently takes more and more energy to extract the resources we require to keep the global economy running smoothly. At the same time, there are vast amounts of inequality within and between countries. With the rich living lives of overconsumption, and the poorest struggling to survive from day-to-day. This is a mess that we cannot just innovate ourselves out of. What is necessary, and what Homer-Dixon appears to advocate for, is a change in thinking towards a social green viewpoint. As Clapp and Dauvergne explain, social greens believe that we must retreat from the globalized economy and work towards “local, self-reliant, small-scale economics” (16). This is probably the best way to address the current environmental problem. However, without a huge paradigm shift in the way the global economy is thought about, it will never occur. This is probably of the largest challenges we are currently facing; changing the way that people interact with the economy and their environment.

To Expand, Airports May Need Radical Alterations, Report Says

The projected increase of 50 million air travelers per year in the next two decades shocked me as troubling, as well as the ecological impact associated with the project.


By PATRICK McGEEHAN
The New York region’s two largest airports, already choked with crowds and delays, may need to be radically reconfigured so they can make way for vitally needed additional runways that would help accommodate a projected increase of almost 50 million air travelers per year within two or three decades, according to a new study.

The study, from the Regional Plan Association, calls for as much as $15 billion to be spent at Kennedy and Newark Liberty International Airports. At Newark, all three terminals would have to be at least partially razed, then rebuilt; at Kennedy, part of Jamaica Bay might have to be filled to create space for one or more new runways.

The proposed expansions would amount to the most ambitious reshaping of any of the region’s major airports in several decades. They would require significant changes in the region’s airspace, a modernization of the system for controlling air traffic and at least one act of Congress.

If the proposals are accepted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates Kennedy, Newark and La Guardia Airports, they would surely encounter stiff resistance from local and national advocates for the environment, the report admits. They would also have to survive the political tug of war between the governors of New York and New Jersey, who jointly control the Port Authority.

The report, which was financed in part by the Port Authority, was scheduled to be presented at a daylong conference on the future of the airports in Manhattan on Thursday.

Christopher Ward, the executive director of the Port Authority, was scheduled to attend the conference and was expected to discuss the report as fodder for planning. Asked for comment, a spokesman for Mr. Ward said only that “we look forward to examining this study.”

The study considered a spectrum of options that stretched to the fantastic: a new airport on an island in New York Bay. But the cost was deemed to be “exorbitant.”

Elected officials and business leaders have discussed airport expansion for years, but have been reluctant to broach the idea publicly to avoid stirring up opposition too soon, said Kathryn S. Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City. But, Ms. Wylde added, “It’s become very clear that our economic future depends on investment both in the technology and facilities upgrades and runway expansion at the regional airports.”

For years, the local airspace has been too clogged to consider adding any more traffic. Indeed, federal regulators have placed limits on the number of flights each hour to and from the region’s airports. But the federal government is planning to upgrade the nation’s air traffic control system with a program known as NextGen that will allow more planes to squeeze into the region, said Jeffrey M. Zupan, a transportation analyst who is one of the report’s authors.

Once the first phase of NextGen is in operation, the Port Authority should seek to have the caps on flights lifted and begin making room for new runways and gates to accommodate the increasing traffic, the report says. It estimates that traffic at the three airports will increase steadily from about 104 million passengers annually last year to 150 million passengers within 20 to 30 years. Mr. Zupan said that the airports currently cannot handle more than about 110 million passengers a year.

The Port Authority has been grappling with how to alleviate congestion at its major airports; in 2007, it acquired a long-term lease on Stewart International Airport near Newburgh, N.Y., with the purpose of making it the region’s fourth major airport. That goal has yet to be realized, and the new plan suggests that the Port Authority’s money and efforts would be better spent at Kennedy and Newark.

The question of the Port Authority’s mission arose again this month when New Jersey’s governor, Chris Christie, asked for $1.8 billion to build and repair roads and bridges in North Jersey. New York’s senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, demanded that the Port Authority refuse that request, because, he said, the agency should devote its resources to grand plans that would benefit the economy of the entire region.

The cost estimates are preliminary and vary widely depending on which of several options for expanding Kennedy would be chosen, according to the report. The authors laid out seven proposals for adding runway space at Kennedy, some of which would require filling in more of the bay than others.

At Newark, they concluded, the only feasible way to expand would be to add a runway between the existing terminals and the two main runways in use there now. Doing that would require the demolition of all of Terminal B and parts of Terminals A and C, Mr. Zupan said.

Rebuilding the terminals in Newark could cost as much as $5 billion, which could raise the total cost of the expansion to $15 billion, the report says. But it estimates that not expanding the airports could cost the region $16 billion a year in lost airfare, as well as up to 125,000 jobs and $6 billion in annual wages.

At Kennedy, expansion could cost anywhere from $1 billion to $3.5 billion, depending on whether one or two runways are added and how they are configured, the report says. It lays out seven possible configurations at Kennedy, some of which involve reorienting the flight path into and out of the airport. Doing so would bring those flights into closer conflict with planes going to and from La Guardia, which the Federal Aviation Administration might find unacceptable, Mr. Zupan said.

Among the alternatives, he said, would be to fill in part of Jamaica Bay and construct a new runway parallel to the existing runway used by the giant trans-Atlantic passenger jets. Getting approval for that option would entail not only overcoming opposition from environmental groups but also changing the federal law that created the Gateway National Recreation Area, which explicitly prohibits expanding the airport into the bay.

A section of the bay known as Grassy Bay contains a deep trench that was dug during construction at the airport in the 1950s, the report says. That trench has some negative effects on the surrounding bay, which might be ameliorated if it were filled in during the construction of a runway, Mr. Zupan said.

But John Waldman, a professor of biology at Queens College, said he was skeptical about that trade-off and imagined it would not occur without a “fierce battle.” While he said that filling the trench to level the bottom of the bay probably would be beneficial, he said he could not see the benefits outweighing the cost of encroaching on one of the “ecological jewels” of the region.

“I don’t see that as a clear trade of equal value,” Professor Waldman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/nyregion/27airports.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

Wrong, but Right

The problems presented by Maniates should be of serious concern for any environment-conscious, informed American. The environmental situation is dire, and the proposed solutions from the government and leading environmentalists are well short of necessary, even without anticipating future growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Maniates is right in arguing that there must be a dramatic change in the environmental movement and in discussing the consequences of continuing to do the bare minimum.

However, the author is not considering the reality of environmental discourse in the United States when he is demanding the real deal from politicians and environmentalists. To begin with, there is a huge amount of disagreement in the United States about the very existence of climate change. This argument even extends to the country’s political elite, such as Senator Inhofe, minority leader of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who uses the committee’s webpage to denounce what he calls Climategate.

Taking a firm stance on climate change, and treating Americans like adults by revealing the true dangers of continued environmental neglect will not result in the automatic shift that Maniates says is necessary. Politicians like Inhofe are waiting to attack these environmental concerns as conspiracy, and he has plenty of support among Americans. Any approach that is looking to fundamentally change our American systems will have to deal with these non-believers

- Nick Dreher

Small is Nothing

In Summer 2009, President Obama spearheaded a promise made by the G8 to cut 80% of their carbon emissions by 2050.  The pact is broad in its scope, ambitious in its promises, but most of all, it is attainable given the right course of action. Cutting carbon emissions by 80% while still running vital industries such as mining and high-tech production requires that the two largest sources of carbon emissions in our country - electricity and automobile - are not halved or quartered. They must be eliminated.

A proper long-term plan to cut emissions will sacrifice short-term solutions with glaring holes, including focuses on raising fuel economy and developing (relatively) low-scale power solutions (I'm looking at you, wind/hydro/solar/geotherm). These steps will be akin to continually halving the distance between your current point and your destination - you will never reach your goal. Instead, development must be focused on implementing long-term, near-zero carbon sources. In the case of automobiles, we have real technology that is not yet ready for a massive scale. In the case of energy, we have a readily available zero carbon solution that has been in use for over 40 years in America, is abundant, safe and reliable, and has already been incorporated into other major nations' energy budgets. We must go nuclear.

Maniates presents the problem but does little to offer a solution of how to solve it. To see a well thought out analysis of how to attack the problem by an engineer (as well as a strangely similar analysis of the fatal flaw in our current energy analysis), look to the July-August edition of Scientific American.