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...