Me, My Dad, and the Battle Against Ridiculous Conservative Radio Stations

My father loves nature. He loves everything about the trees, the grass, and generally being outdoors. He also loves saving money. This includes turning off lights, using less water, less unnecessary heat and air conditioning, and simply does not like to waste. Yet, when he listens to obnoxious conservative radio stations (he's a moderate conservative stuck in a large family of ultra liberals)that still try to argue that there is little realistic action humans can do to fight global warming, my buttons get pushed. Although normally I prefer not to talk about Al Gore and global warming with my father, when his radio station started bashing Gore for all of the money that he is making from these campaigns, I thought it would be a good opportunity to go over the course's Thanksgiving homework. And so I began.

"Dad, you know this is crap, right?" -me

"Did you know that a whole group of local meteorologists just came out saying that global warming is not occuring? That it is just natural cycles of changes in weather patterns?" -Dad

"Dad, you're joking. I know you know that's a load of bull" -me

"I'm not saying anything one way or another. I'm just telling you the facts. The facts are that a whole group of local, well known meteorologists came out saying that global warming is not occurring. I just thought it was interesting, that's all.

"Wow..... (I go on long schpeil about End of the Wild statistics and current state of environment)

Fast forward to Politics:

"China owns us, you know. And that is not good for any of us. Including the environment. I don't know what you think is going to happen under Obama, but the reality is that the economy is in the toilet and government can't afford to get into more debt with all of these new green projects. --he said something about Hoover and the Great Depression, but I zoned out----

"(I go into schpiel about green collar jobs and how Obama isn't doing enough. Environment as way to reboost and redesign economic structures. We can fix this, it's easy--McDunough comes out---now is the time to demand big changes......

"Cheryl, I hope you're right, I really do. But it just doesn't seem realistic at this time. I see what you're saying, but the economic benefit will not show up until the longterm, at which time our debt would grow considerably.....9more on CHina and the economy and such.

At least I made some progress with my dad. He gets what I'm saying, sees my arguments, but I think it is too far-fetched for him to think that all of this is realistic, although when I told him that I would do much more than Obama if I had the opportunity, he seemed pretty interested. Overall good conversation, but not worth having again for at least a few years.

Thanksgiving Discussion with my Dad

So while I was driving up to Massachusetts with my Dad to go to my Grandparents for Thanksgiving (we did so much driving over break... i really increased my carbon footprint and I feel really guilty about it) dinner, so I decided to talk to him about the current state of the economy and how the environment can offer us a way out of recession. I thought it was important to talk about it in terms of economy because my Dad is a big business man and a market liberal who thinks the market will just take care of everything. We discussed Obama's ideas about the creation of green collar jobs, using the market as a tool for change and government policies. While my Dad isn't an environmentalist and loves his chain saw and cutting down trees in my back yard, he does believe that the market will change to accommodate environmental reform but he thinks that its going to be a lot harder to make this change happen quickly. He says there's enough doom's dayers out there, like me, to remind us that we need to take quick environmental action, that the change will eventually take place. My Dad's biggest concern is where is all the money going to come from to create these new green collar jobs and green industries. He doesn't like how the US is printing money to try and get us out of recession, since it just creates deflation. He wants a lot of Washington programs and lobbyist groups to be cut since they are a waste of money. It was an enlightening conversation and it's always interesting talking to him, because he relates everything back to the economy, which is something I'm starting to grasp. Overall I enjoyed my conversation and I know I'll get him to invest in these new green industries once they emerge, because no matter what they have to be our future.

Thanksgiving (of knowledge..,?)

So, I decided to talk to m sister. She has said to me that she feels she's a very involved person. she cares about politics, civil rights, human rights, laws, injustice, etc. She calls herself an activist. However, I have heard her say that while she feels adamant about almost every problem in the United States, she doesn't really feel or care much for the environment. She laughed when I asked her about it, and admitted with something like pride that the environment was the one thing she just didn't care about. Really, this happened.

I spoke with her for a while and I came to understand two things. Katie, my sister, didn't want to sacrifice. What turned her off about the environment was the idea that she, as a consumer, should have to sacrifice her comfort for some distant problem that isn't hurting her or anyone else for hundreds of years. I also came to understand that she had never considered the connections between the environment and other social problems. I tried to explain the environmentalism wasn't only about the earth, or animals. I admitted I myself am not truly affected by those sad dying polar bears.

I explained to her that human rights and environmental activism were the same thing, I tried to explain how every problem, every solution, is somehow connected to the environment, and she could not claim to care about one problem without first gaining an understanding of the environment, and the challenges we are facing today. I also told her that she was not alone in her fear of sacrifice, and invoked for her the argument of consumer verses citizen. I told her that if she herself did not want to change her ways perhaps she could instead demand that her government change its ways. Instead of giving up her comforts she could demand that these comforts become greener and more environmentally-effective.

I showed her Cradle to Cradle as an example of a better future, where we as humans do good instead of simply trying to do less bad. I also pointed out that this was a book she could read in the shower (Katie has read and ruined many a traditional paper-back book, in the shower). I felt this was a perfect way to demonstrate how green could not only be better for the environment but also better for her. She was impressed.

After explaining to Katie the ways the environment affected all those issues she did care about, and showing her the ways she could care about the environment, and enact change without having to sacrifice the life she has grown accustomed to I felt better. I hoped she had at least begun to understand the far reaching implications of environmental apathy. However she came up with a new reason to ignore the environment. She pointed out that if the government started to control what we consumed based on its environmental income then it was really playing big brother. She told me she worried environmental laws and policy could mean that the human rights and liberties, the very core of her activism, could be endangered.

I was frustrated, she was poking holes in my argument just so she had an excuse not to care. WHY couldn't she just admit that she was being lazy and silly and should change her ways; should care. Still, I stayed calm and tried to understand. I suggested that instead of denying people their liberties, or denying them the basic goods and services which they want, the government should be required to find new and better ways to provide these things. That way everyone wins, I assured her it was possible, pointed out the shower-ready book once again. Still, she didn't seem convinced. What I realized was that people won't care; will find reasons not to care, until they see the effects themselves. Perhaps if she was more afraid of environmental degradation she would stop making excuses? All I know is, I had run out of patience and arguments, she would feel the way she wanted to.

I tried professor! But I'm just not sure I changed her mind!
-Tess

Thanksgivng Discussion

This assignment was hard for me. Growing up among educated parents in the liberal city of San Francisco, it was hard to find much resistance about the growing need to find better solutions to the environment. With so much of California industries and culture is centered around the forests of Northern California as well as the huge agricultural areas of the Central Valley, keeping the environment healthy is a concert on everyone’s mind. If anything that was discussed around the thanksgiving dinner table was the fact that many in my family might take a too extreme approach to dealing with the environment. My sister runs a non profit in Portland Oregon that works to restore the Columbia river so she is real rabid about the need to fix the environment. My father, a small business owner is always weary about new laws and taxes that will hurt his businesses.
There was much discussion about the future of the environment and what seemed to be the overall theme was that any future changes need to be pragmatic and not too destructive to the local economy. Among these new solutions can be the practical tools such as new energy efficient light bulbs that do a lot to conserve energy. Because of many in my family feeling taxes and other environmental regulation already puts a large burden on business, conservation of energy seems like a much more practical solution then radical approaches. Small changes such as insulated windows and better mass transportation.
There was optimism for the future and that the fear of massive global warming and rising of the oceans was nothing but fear mongering. There was no doubt a belief that more is needed to be done, but the key was to make it manageable and not draconian top down decisions.

Discussion with My Roommate

I did not go home over the break, so I had a discussion about the global environment with my roommate. My roommate, who is also Japanese, thinks that the United States has to get involved with the environmental movement more. She pointed out the lack of people's awareness in the United States, so she insisted that they have to educate people in the United States. Thus, my roommate's opinion is that the Human Nature in the pyramid is the most important part. However, for me, the most crucial part in the pyramid is the Social Change. I know that it is difficult to get everyone on board and seems too idealistic, yet in order to improve the environment, people need strong leadership who make a change in the society so that people can be aware of the problems. I talked about the lack of leadership of the Bush administration in terms of the global environmental problems and green collar jobs that Obama is planning to provide as an example. Still, I agree with my roommate's opinion, because in Japan, people, especially children, are unconsciously educated about the environmental problems. Many elementary schools and junior high schools in Japan requires garbage collecting as a field trip, but I do not see so many American kids are collecting garbage. Also, unlike in the United States, many Japanese students have to clean up their classrooms by themselves almost everyday, so they naturally learn how to recycle garbage and reduce waste as much as possible. Though we were not totally disagreed, I enjoyed discussing about the environment with my roommate.

Although a bit late, my two cents on Prof. Manitates and his "trinity of despair"
These three variables do a good job of showing the different views on our decisions to participate in environmental change. The fact is however some of these factors are much more important and influential then others.

Although human nature and environmental strategy are measures that are easy to understand but the idea of social change presented by the professor is a bit complicated and is worth discussing. In his presentation notes, he described his disdain for patch work approach towards change by small dedicated groups and rather suggests a change of "system" thought. I feel this is an optimistic and unrealistic approach to understanding the social contect of promoting change. All change in the world has not come by an all of a sudden change in mentality, it takes the pushing and hard work by leaders and innovators. It takes this push by a few to create the pr and publicty that in turn will take these actions into the mainstream. Just like with securing rights for African Americans in the 1960s, it took the courage of a few to get the ball rolling to create enough controversy that the issue of rights became a mainstream discussion. The same can be seen with environmental groups today who are setting new ideas into the concious and discussion of everyday people.

The Solution: Make it Easy to do the Right Thing!

I found his argument especially interesting because it provides a different framework to think about how social change in fact happens. It is a misconception (one that I am guilty of having held) that in order to affect change,the masses need to be on board. But that simply is not true and this triangle clearly shows that. It is more important to have a strong dedicated core that can focus on setting agendas and later galvanizing the masses. This is evident when looking at all types of lobbying success. We need to stop acting like individuals and start acting like citizens otherwise the problems and at least the roots of the problems will continue to exist because we live with flawed systems and structures that allow these problems to exist. Overall I thought that the Triangle was very interesting and fairly accurate.

Great Idea, if the price is right.

There is no doubt that it is possible to create products and buildings that are both economically sound as well as ecologically beneficial for the environment. It seems almost idiotic why so little has been put into making buildings and products more environmentally sound for the very minimal cost increase. With the great examples of soil roofs and create non toxic goods as well as the very book itself shows that it is a very possible objective that more designers and architects should be considering.

If we manage to move away from these current consumption cycles into actual sustainable cycles as the authors have prescribed, we can avoid much of the destructive consumption patterns that we have found ourselves in. Although if the price difference between well designed and supplied building is comparable to a poor standard build one, there is no doubt that this technique will be choosen but the problem lies in when the there is a price difference between the two, and if the price difference too large for developers to handle. One possible solution for this could be to just make this new ecological building practices standard so all new construction and designs implement these techniques, although this might raise the cost of buildings, the earth reap the rewards.

William McDonough is brilliant!

Basically my title says it all. I totally agree with his philosophy and the ideas he portrays in cradle to cradle. I think they make perfect sense. People are not going to change or start to really think and apply environmentally friendly practices into their lives unless its productive, innovative and continues to move us forward. As we've discussed in the class, people aren't willing or accepting of moving backwards so we need need to move forward and apply new ideas that will help up preserve and live in harmony with the environment. I don't think we'll ever be able to get rid of industries and large scale companies so we should work with them and redesign they're production process so that waste can equal consumption. If we can apply these new design measures into all new development projects not only in the United States but in developing countries, we become that much closer to creating a sustainable environment, in which we live in sync with the natural world (aka we won't be destroying it!!)

Perhaps these plan is optimistic but at least its progressive and creative and more plausible then sitting around waiting for people to change there lifestyles back to the way they were 100 years ago. That will never happen. People change when they have an alternative. If we give companies a comparable alternative to their current means of production that takes the environment into consideration and ultimately ends up saving them money; they will choose the alternative. And as more and more companies do so, green architecture and design will become the standard. Being pessimistic and threatening has done absolutely nothing for the environmental movement because people feel there is no point to do anything sense we're doomed anyhow. I like this idea because its inspiring. It makes me want to jump on board and get involved because it makes sense and is ultimately I believe and hope the future plan of our country...or it better be otherwise we really are screwed!

The Greening Of That Work Meeting

After reading Jone's article, I think that green collar jobs are a great idea. IF we could replace jobs, boost the economy, and help to create more sustainable industries I honestly see no reason not to. While I do not agree that green jobs would solve all problems or that green jobs are all we need to save our economy I think they are a peice of the bigger puzzle. If greening these jobs allows for the education of workers, this would have a positive influence on the environment. Knowledge is not only power, nor is it simply jobs and a better economy, when it comes to the environment knwoeledge is fear. I think perhaps maybe we need to be afraid, becasue fear mobalizes us, it brings us together, and turns us into civilains rather than only consumers. Mostly I think green jobs would help the economy and would help to spread knowledge which would mean good things for the environment. Still, like I said this is just one step in the right direction.
-Tess

Green Jobs

There is no doubt that much of the opportunities in the future economy lies in Green Jobs. It would be naiive to believe that it is both environmentally and economically plausable to sustain the traditional manufacturing that has existed in the United States. Jones has some really strong arguments when he proposes new investments into new green industries because they are jobs that can suite our technological advanced industry and not easily be exported. Due to much of the focus of Green jobs are based on a reinvestment in the local community, the rewards are kept local rather then exported to other countries or lost among corporate shareholders.
By a refocus on the local level, exernatlities such as transportation costs and offshoring of jobs and profits are eliminated. Green jobs keeps everything inhouse.
Just like everything else in todays society, it needs to be market forces to lead a way for more green jobs. With increased fuel prices and more protectionistic trade politcies as a backlash against globalization, the forces are gaining ground for such a system proposed by Jones, hopfully it will be soon enough.

Reaching All Levels of Society: A Guide to Gaining Environmental Support

I believe Mr. Van Jones’ perceptions are extremely valid and legitimate. Individuals that are worrying about day to day crime and making enough to pay their bills are not in a position to think about the polar bears if it comes at an expense to them. This is precisely why green collar jobs are so crucial in getting the lower socio-economic class on board with environmental activism. I thought it was especially interesting when Mr. Jones was quoted as saying that he never plans on see a member of the NAACP going against environmental concerns or being sold out to polluters. This is extremely important because through his visions he has been able to create situations in which environmental issues on the ballot improve the lives of the socioeconomic class rather than taking their much needed tax money and spending it on a cause that seems so different from their everyday lives. In my opinion, green collar jobs are one of the only major ways to continue to gain support from people that normally would not feel as though they are in a position to support such acts.

Green-Collar Jobs to the Rescue!!!

I really like the idea of green collar jobs. Honestly it's the only thing that makes sense for dealing with our present economy, with people loosing their jobs and the environment. I don't understand how anyone could think this would be a bad idea. As Van Jones article points out, "a recent study released by the Political Economy Research Institute and Center for American Progress shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs over the next two years by investing $100 billion in a green economic recovery plan." That's one seventh of the cost of the original bail out plan! I don't understand why this wasn't done in the first place.

These new green collar jobs would provide the working class with secure jobs that are local and can not be outsourced like most of our old blue collar jobs. A bailout that doesn't address the job shortage here in the United States would not solve the economic problems even if the economy stabilizes. This green plan would help solve both. Also I like the idea of creating a Green Corps since its provides people with an opportunity to participate in community service and it teaches people how to perform green collar jobs, since new skills are going to have to be developed.

I believe this is the only way to address the environmental problems in the United States like Global Warming because it deals with saving the economy and providing jobs. No one has wanted to invest in the environment because it means reshaping how our economy runs and that could potentially mean some short term loss, something most people would not accept. But due to the current situation with our economy already in shambles I think presenting green collar jobs as a solution to our economic crisis, could get the process of reshaping our economy for a greener future underway.

Nature's cool

I was at my cottage one night, and I decided to go for a run. It's very dark at my cottage and it was pretty late. I ran around for about an hour. When I finished I dove into the lake and just swam and swam, and then I looked around me. It was so dark and the stars were so bright, that I felt overwhelmed. I was asked by one of my friends where I thought we'd be, as people, without electricy and I thought of that moment, the darkness and the lake. So this is my answer to the question: where we'd be without electricity:

You know, I saw it once. It’s something to be afraid of. All darkness, hushed sounds and breathless eyes that seem wider without light. At first it’s terrifying; you believe without electricity we’d be absolutely no where, believe you feel it on your hands and knees, that it’s a place in your head made of real things, like air, or its absence. But then you realize you could call out to blast the silence; make it your own. And then you’re sure there’s a definition of living, that it’s these moments when you can shatter something as pure and innocent as darkness. These moments, and no others.

I know where we’d be without electricity. I’ve been there. It’s a beach at midnight. I remember staring at the lake, and thinking I should call it god. Thinking that, and of a book I read once; a girl who’s hair fell down her back like smoke. I’m sure that’s what this water was, some liquid form of smoke they’ll manufacture one day and sell as jewels. I walked until I couldn’t anymore, and then I swam, forgetting to make note of that moment when the tips of my toes could no longer grasp solid ground. I swam out so far I couldn't see the beach anymore. I wanted nothing to do with light, or the objects that reflect it. I dove beneath the water again and again, hiding myself from the moon, trying to disappear my skin. I wanted to be surrounded and swallowed up. To be owned by the wonder I felt, the astonishment that something like a lake existed, and that I could master it. I could have screamed if I wanted, and stolen back the silence from this night. But I think it’s indecent to scream until you’ve disappeared, and I think that screaming is the only beautiful thing I’ve ever done.

See, screaming is the sound of destruction, the sensuous equivalent to a murder. It should be used only as a person is coming undone, and it should be the only witness. And so I screamed. It was sounds echoing off sounds echoing off a moment that can’t be recreated; a moment that one would call god later, or his absence. A moment that suffocates, like lake water, or smoke. Moments like these are rarely adjectives though later I think I’ll call my own beautiful. I’ll probably forget that it was a living thing, an animal or just many breaths of air, that this time spent in a lake devoid of the electric shouldn’t be contained within a memory but breathed up to sustain me through all my well-lit years, through currents and wires and waves.

You know what a moment like that does to a girl, don’t you? It breaks her apart. See but only when I’ve been divided can I believe I was ever whole. Only after screams that untie the knots within me can I forget all the disparities; the spaces like insults between my ribs, thirty separate teeth, 206 lonely bones. For a moment, right after throwing breathes and shadows out into the sky it’s possible to forget I’m made up of parts. Possible to believe I’m only a voice, a pretty little sound becoming a satellite; becoming some star my grandchildren can point to one day, and say my name. Have you had a moment like this? A moment when all you are is a voice that will last forever, as the only ugly light cast upon a planet of darkness?

I know where we’d be without electricity. We’d be in the middle of lakes trying to drown our skin beneath the water, trying to contain a living moment in our minds. We’d become silhouettes, gaping holes in the world, living lights that stretch and shout instead of shining. We’d cease to be solid; abandon our bodies for the shapes our voices traced in the sky.

I’m trying to say I’ve felt it: heaven. I’m trying to tell you I swam out too far one night, I screamed to loud, and held my breath too long. I’m saying that I think God is a language written somewhere above dark lakes, that stars are shouts reflected off each other. I think paradise is a scream, an exaltation, a moment of pure emotion or darkness. I think we’d be here without electricity; exulted and pure and feeling until we could take it no longer.

Nature around us.

Among the most exciting moments I have had was backpacking through the redwood groves of Northern California. Far away from the noises and distractions of the modern world, these ancient forests bring total tranquility. These are far from normal trees you would find in other forests. These trees are among the largest and oldest trees left in the world, with some of the having been around for over 500 years. For a living organism to have been around before the discovery of America is just mid boggling. The trees create such an atmosphere that you cant help but constantly keeping your eyes open and observing all the element around you from the deer to the small rodents. This trip really opened my eyes to the symbiosis that these animals and plants have with each other.

There is no doubt in my mind taht we should do more to save nature. Unfortunately most of us live in cities or suburbs which take us away from nature so it becomes hard many times for us to relate to the needs of the non human world. If more people had the chance to go out and explore the environment and see the dynamics of it, there would be a much stronger push for conservation.

Fantasia

The most thrilling, enchanting engagement I've had with the non-human world? But there have been so many and they're each so unique and special--how could one even compare?
I love the earth. I love the ground, I love the trees, and I love the leaves. This morning, I was sitting in my Arabic class in the second floor of Ward and literally was staring at the leaves, with their autumn colors, blowing in the wind. I was not even outside to partake in the cool breeze or the crisp air, and yet, even through the window, through vision alone, I was engaged in a thrilling, enchanting, magical experience with the beauty of the non-human world. The colors, shapes, and swift movements of the leaves against the greyish blue backdrop of the sky stirred deep within my soul. After that vision, how could I worry about anything?
Nature speaks to the soul and has an ability to heal nearly all wounds. Humans must protect nature because in protecting nature they are truly helping themselves. Pain, death, stress, and destruction are constantly complicating our lives and nature truly is the safest, most healing refuge we have. To allow our magic to be destroyed, to cause pain to that which removes our own, is something that humans have a responsibility not to allow to happen. The earth is too precious and sacred, not just with its own systems, but for the mental, physical, and spiritual healing of humans. We have to do more to protect the earth, if for no other reason (although I have several other reasons), it means protecting ourselves.

The Greatness of Nature

When I was in high school, I lived in Switzerland. My high school was in a mountainous villege which had about 3000 people. I had to take a mountain railway to go up and down from the village. It was inconvenient to live there, but the view was excellent. I used to go jogging every morning through a big farm and a small path in the woods. Twenty minutes after running through the unpaved path, there is a place called "Eagle's Nest." It is on the cliff hidden by the woods, and there, you can see the Lac Leman sparkling among a sea of clouds. I think the view was the most enchanting one, but I saw a lot of beautiful views in Switzerland and the Alps. Certainly, I know that nature is not always beautiful and kind to people. I was terrified that my eyelid got frozen when I went snowboarding in minus thirty degree. However, I would like to save the nature and enable for the future generation to see these beautiful views. Some people think that they have to control the nature and change it somehow artificially, but I think that we need to find the way to live within the nature and get along with it.

Mitzpe Ramon

I love traveling because whenever you travel you get to experience an entirely new environment. Not only do people change and their culture but you get to investigate a new ecosystem. Whenever I visit somewhere new I'm always amazed at how different the Earth looks from there. The last place I traveled too was Israel, last spring for study abroad. Israel completely took my breathe away because it has so many different landscapes in one tiny country.

The place that absolutely took my breathe away, was when I saw the Negev for the first time at Mitzpe Ramon. At Mitzpe Ramon there is a giant creator that just drops off into the Negev. It was amazing, I couldn't take my eyes away. As our tour guide says, when you come here you can understand how Christianity, Judiasm and Islam were created here in the desert because you can't help but be contemplative and think. I remember he had us lay down right next to the clif and just take deep breathes and think and I never felt more at peace.

I love to hike and explore the non-human world and I think it is crucial that we save it. I don't even want to imagine a world with only human and pests (species that threive with humans). That would be a bland world. We would loose all the inspiration we get from the non-human world and nature. If we loose bio-diversity we'll only eat a couple of plants, see a couple of flowers and animals, it would be so boring. So I say we come together and fix our planet so that we can all live happily together...the end!

Food Choice

Honestly, I do not care about the environment when I choose what to eat, becasue environmentally good foods, such as organic food, are usually expensive. I often buy chap, frozen vegitables instead of fresh ones. Also, I am living with one roommate, not a whole family, so a little bit of foods is enough to feed two of us. Compared to foods in my hometown, foods in the US are designed for a big family. For example, the number of mushrooms in one container is bigger (Mushroom itself is bigger, too, I think). If the number in one container is smaller, I would buy one, but, in this situation, I might spoil most of the mushrooms. This is why I tend to buy cheap, frozen vegitables which will not spoiled in such a short period of time.

More harm then good, but do we care?

I know the environmental impact many of the products we find in the supermarket have but when browsing the aisles, its easy to forget while scanning for dinner. The good thing is that the United States is so agriculturally rich that so much of the food we find in the supermarkets are from this country and don’t need to be shipped half way across the world. That being said, walking in the produce line gives a bit more of a sobering feeling. Walking thru the tables and tables of tropical fruits, its almost shocking at the abundance of fruit and vegetables that have been shipped across the world and the huge carbon footprint that this leaves. This is such a departure from reality when considering seasonal fruit no longer have meaning because we can get our strawberries and oranges anytime of the year. This is an unhealthy relationship. We can learn to ejoy the variety of seasonal fruits and move away from the expectation that everything should be available at all times.

The food items that probably had the largest environmental impact is no doubt the beef in my diet. The amount of energy in the form of cut down forests to make room for cattle, the vegetables grown and fed to the animals the slaughter, butchering and transportation of the animal and it finding its way as a patty in our meet section is mind boggling. Although the means of distribution has allowed us to lower the costs of this chain its still does considerable environmental harm.

food food food

I try to think about the environment when I make my food choices, but sometimes it's depressing and I choose no to think about it. It kind of disturbs me when I look at the ingredients on the back of all the processed food we eat in the United States because I never know all the ingredients are or what they do. It just seems unnatural and unhealthy. I watched a documentary last year, called "King Corn", that really changed the way I looked at the food industry particularly the production of corn in the United States.

In "King Corn", two recent college graduates went to rural Iowa to grow an acre of corn to discover the inner workers of the corn industry. They realized that most of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified and not for people to eat. It's either grounded up for animal feed, so there is corn in our beef, or it is used to create corn syrup, which is used as a sweetener in almost all processed foods and drinks. Basically they discovered that corn is in almost everything we eat in such vast amounts that it's can be found even in our hair!! I found it incredibly weird to think about. After watching that movie I swore I'd eat all organic and natural food, but that just isn't a feasible option for me because of the cost of those foods. While I was abroad in Israel, I ate all locally grown fruits and vegetables. It was great and I knew that the foods I ate over there were not only better for me but better for the environment.

I think all the processed and frozen food I ate over the past two days, like the frozen dinner I had and the cereal I ate for breakfast. Those foods cause the most environmental damage because all the wheat, corn and other vegetable ingredients had to be grown, packaged and shipped to the factories. Then at the factories they are processed with who knows what, re-packaged then shipped to the grocery stores where I bought them. All the energy used to produce those foods create a lot of environmental damage. I wish there were more organic and local affordable options here in the United States, so that the food I consume isn't as environmentally damaging!

My Relationship with Food and when it turned Green

The summer before my freshman year in high school I went on a month long backpacking trip in the Pacific Northwest, which drastically impacted my perceptions on the relationship between humans and their natural environment, including my personal relationship with food. After coming back from the trip I told my mom that I would only eat Kosher organic meat (I grew up in an observantly Jewish household, so all of our food had to be strictly Kosher, and I loved meat too much-or so I thought-to just give it up). My mom's response was, "If you pay for it, you can do whatever you want". Well, having no source of income except for meager babysitting wages, I chose what I saw to be the next best, although initially painful, option. I became a strict organic vegetarian.
My initial reasons for becoming a vegetarian were rooted in politics and health. I did not want to support the companies that were mistreating both animals and workers (for me it was the Kosher companies that were hiring immigrant workers and paying them meager wages--I am also weary with clothing companies), and I did not want to put chemically infested animals into my body. However, over the past 6 years, my reasons for vegetarianism, now pescetarianism (I reintegrated fish into my diet for medical reasons), have evolved and are continuing to evolve significantly.
One example is that my understanding of the environmental impact food production had went so far as the treatment of animals, but I rarely associated my diet with the impact of food transportation. Last week I went home for Rosh Hashanah, and, as with most Jewish holidays, our week revolved around two giant feasts dedicated to bringing in a sweet and healthy new year. My mom, knowing that I am usually short protein, made a beautiful organic seared tuna dish the first night and wild Alaskan salmon the second night. Under normal circumstances that would have been a dream. I should have been able to eat those dishes no problem, with nothing on my conscience (except the fact that I am still not completely comfortable eating fish). After all, it was a holiday, I got to go home and eat my mom's cooking, and she made two ridiculously nice special meals just for me (well, for my siblings and relatives too). So, why then was I unable to eat my fish without a heavy heart?
I think I can attribute a large part of that to the recent readings for this class relating to the world's fisheries. Those readings reminded me that there are still hundreds of changes I can make in my life to coexist more peacefully with the earth. The Alaskan salmon, probably the food that had the greatest environmental impact because of the transportation (although I am not entirely sure) was contributing to the depletion of the very thing that keeps us alive-the natural environment. It was organic, so my Mom certainly thought that I would approve, but that didn't matter. The environmental impact of bringing that salmon to my dinner plate in Akron, Ohio was not the way I wanted to start my new year. To credit my mom, the fish was delicious (there was no point on letting it go to waste), and it may have even been worth it simply for the dialogue that it opened among my family members. So, to answer the question, I do think about the environmental impact of the food that I consume, and the weight the impact plays on my decision to consume the food has continued to increase since taking this course.

Technology, the solution?

We see technology as the tool to solve all our problems. Just as we use technology to improve our lifestyles with new products which allow us to different things we never thought possible, we see technology as this ultimate tool for we see it as a instrument bridges to what we want. This belief in technology transfers to the environment in how we see its limitless abilities to gap those ecological and environmental goals with what we are limited in doing now.

There is no doubt that technology will allow us to solve many of the environmental questions that are facing us now but no all. Any of these problems are beyond quick fixes but lie with systematic societal change such as consummation habits. Technology will allow us to drive more fuel efficient cars but it wont stop the damages of a society where everyone drives cars and of an infrastructure to support it.

The fact that many people see technology as a solution is also a sign that people are not willing to immediately do anything to change the downward path of the environment but put hope into some belief that somewhere down the line there will be a technology or advancement that will easily solve what many seem hard right now. This reliance in the future may be too much pipe dream and not enough pragmatism.

Technology can save us... maybe

The reading I read for my International Economic Policy class says that technology can save us from the environmental crisis. The text was, I think, well supported. What the text exactly shows is that many developing countries are much polluted than developed countries as developing countries use older technology which is often harmful to the environment. Those who use new technology is developed countries. Further, I just read an article from Forbes.com yesterday. The article shows the world's dirtiest cities (http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/26/pollution-baku-oil-biz-logistics-cx_tl_0226dirtycities.html), and I found that most of them are developing countries. Most of the pollution are water and air pollution caused by poor technology. Back into the text from my economic policy class, it also supports its argument by saying that China's pollution has been decreasing from 1990's. This means, as developing countries become more advanced, they will be less polluted. I think that is true. I believe that techonology can save the earth, but it does not mean that domination of technology is good for the environment. Overusing technology can certainly harm the environment. Thus, what I suggest is that we, as consumers of technology, should understand which technology is good for the environment.

Technology: An answer or a path to more of the same?

Too many people rely on technology to answer all of our environmental problems, and from my perspective, this is an incredibly dangerous mentality. Yes, technology does and will likely continue to do wonderful things for people, ranging from advances in health care to sustainable development. However, technology also seems to pull people farther and farther away from nature and this is where I start to get concerned. Rather than playing outside, people play on their computers, rather than talking in person, people chat on the computer as well. Technology can certainly be an asset to environmental innovation and I see great things for the future, but I am also concerned that the more we rely on technology, the farther from nature we will we be pulled. And for our personal, environmental connections, this is not such a great thing.

Small changes small effects

I feel this article summarizes a lot of the problems with todays pop culture environmentalism. Too many people believe saving the environment is simply to turn lights off and taking shorter shower. Although these small measures do help, they are doing nothing to step the environmental damages that are being done to the earth. Although we all claim to want to do good for the environment but are we willing to do the major and systematic changes that on a societal level that is needed to lower our impact?
Although the author wants a new public campaign to solve world environmental problems, the problem is that it will be hard to motivate people because unlike fascism and human rights, theses damages are much harder to see such as global warming which it will go up only a few degrees.
I do not know what the answer is to get people involved in wanting to make large fundamental changes needed to stop the environmental damages we are doing. I guess these small changes are a step in the right direction so ideally we should build upon them and make even bigger steps. If we build upon these baby steps and make the changes less extreme and more tolerable.

Blind Faith?

While I agree with Michael Maniates that the "easy" ways to go green and try and help the environment won't cut it in the fight against environmental degradation, I think that he may overestimate the American public. Many people would view more difficult and extreme measures to reduce consumption as infringements upon their inherent rights as Americans. Quite simply, people believe they have a right to drive those gas guzzling SUV.
I think that telling people easy and simple ways to help make their lives greener is a good way to try and encourage change. If people realize how easy it is to make these small changes perhaps they will make larger, and more difficult changes in their lives, but we must start small. Especially for the SUV drivers of our country. And believe me, there's still quite a few of them.
I also think that just because our government isn't explicitly telling or ordering us to make big changes in our lives we won't make them. People who are excited and energized by the opportunity to work together as a community to overcome challenges are the same people who would seek out ways to make a bigger difference, even if it requires bigger sacrifice.
I do agree with Maniates's argument that people should be informed of the bigger and more difficult ways that they can make a change. Environmental education is lacking in today's schools, and in the media. I think that educating people about the consequences of their actions, and telling them ways they could decrease their negative increase on the environment could help to motivate more people to become environmentalists who do more than just the easy things.
Still, I believe that too many environmentalists peach against these easy fixes. But the fact of the matter is a little is better than nothing at all, and by making these small changes people really can make a difference. For me, the biggest reason why I might not adopt a greener lifestyle would be because I feel like one person can not make a difference. Instead of telling us that small changes don't matter environmentalists should be telling us yes they do help, and bigger changes help even more. Maniates touches on this view but I would have liked him to really endorse this idea. It's important to get everyone involved and engaged.
(Tess Nowadly)

Do the Elitists have it right?

This article reminded me a lot of what we discussed in our small discussion group and I think it makes an incredibly valid and interesting point. While individual action is vital, necessary and should continue, there is no question that in order to effectively combat climate change large-scale action needs to take place. Governments and large global institutions need to lead this effort, but in order to do so, the political will has to be there, and that is where individuals can come in and make the largest difference. People have to get active in ways that include more than simply turning off the lights when they leave the house (although that must continue and be encouraged). One aspect of the article that stuck out in particular was that it appeared to blame environmental elitists for having such low expectations of the American public. While I agree with the author that individuals can do more and need to do more, I also think that Americans are so stuck in there ways that the only way to slowly change people's lifestyles, without them having the attitude that says "screw it, we've already destroyed everything anyway", is to integrate changes slowly. Unfortunately I think that environmentalists have a pretty accurate perception of the majority of the American public, which is why  although it may seem as though they are underestimating us,  encouraging small changes slowly , although not enough, is the only way.

Easy, Lazy, No Green

I totally agree with the author of the article, Michael Maniates. Most of the books and booklets promoting the improvement of global environment usually suggest very easy things, unplugging electronical devices when they are not needed and taking a bath rather than taking a shower and so on. Certainly, if everyone of us could do these things, that would help the global environment a bit, but not everyone does that. I usually unplug everything in my room when I go to bed, but my family members do not do that at home. It is just because unplugging everything in my house is not easy at all while unplugging everything just in my room is quite easy. Throwing a bottle or can in a recycle box is easy, but taking bottles and cans from trash can is timeconsuming. People are seeking the easiest way and becoming more lazy. Also, I often think that the government are just telling people to do something good for the global environment and do not have strong solutions to improve the global environment. I was really moved when I saw the speech made by Severn Suzuki in Brazil in 1992. She pointed out that many adults, especially world leaders, should act for the improvement of the global environment without thinking about their own profit. Hopefully, someone who can really take the global environmental issues seriously will stand up and lead the world to better environment.

Nothing Worth Fighting for is Ever Easy

The environment is in trouble. We all know this and it's about time we do something to safe our planet not just for ourselves but for future generations to come. And we can not save the planet by doing a quick 10 easy step program to changing your daily lifestyle to incorporate being "green". It's not that simple. There are no quick fixes that can happen if we all recycle or take short showers. They will help slow down the damage but they won't fix them because the problem is not necessarily us, its the system organized by our institution and economy. We consume because we're told that what we're told to do, but have we ever stopped to think that our pressure to over-consume and produce waste is causing all the environmental harm...nope, we haven't and we have to.
In Michael Maniates's article, he mentions that in order to avoid the worst affects of Global Warming the United States will have to reduce it's carbon emissions by 80% in 30 years. That's a drastic change that we can all help make happen by changing our consumption of fossil fuels and cars. We need to put pressure on our current economic system and government to change its tactics and to take the environment seriously. I think its terrible that according to those easy fix books they believe that "we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and above all easy." I don't want to be portrayed as lazy and self centered by nature. And Michael Maniates shows that in history, the American people have rallied behind strong leaders requiring drastic change. We need more demanded of us, and then maybe more people will start stepping up to the plate to create and inspire a drastic social green revolution, that will be remembered along side the greatest revolutions including the Industrial and Medical. We need a drastic change and we need someone to stand up and demand it from us....now the only question remains, who is it going to be?

Barack And McCain: No Surprises

Really I found no surprises when I looked over McCain and Obama's arguments. Both the candidates seemed to take a rather middle of the road approach. Obama as a more liberal candidate was slightly more progressive than McCain when it came to carbon emissions, and he focused more on turning the new Green wave into a market for more jobs and more American-made products that McCain did, which, I would have expected because he is a democrat.

In terms of Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories I think that neither candidate would fall perfectly into a particular category. However, because both candidates support a cap-and-trade policy when it comes to carbon emissions, a policy reminiscent of the Kyoto protocol, I would say that both candidates recognize the ability of economic incentives to control environmental problems. So, I would characterize both candidates as market liberals.

I think that many people would be surprised by how similar the two candidates platforms are when it comes to issues of climate change and energy conservation. I, however, was not surprised at all to see the similarities. Both candidates are mainstream party politicians, who are not running on a platform heavy with environmental concerns. I think if anything, the Clapp and Dauvergne categories helped me to see the similarities between the two candidates, not the differences. I was sort of surprised to see just how focused Obama was on the economic implications of environmental policy, as his positions focused slightly more on these factors than McCain's seemed to.

I would say that Obama's policies make more sense, not because they are extremely different than McCain's but because they focus on seeing environmental change as a possible positive for our economy. Obama's position shows that he sees the emerging energy crisis as a possibility for a new market, and a possibility to make the United States a powerful contender on environmental issues. By making environmental policy seem like it will have a positive effect on our environment Obama's policies stand to see implication and support.

(Tess Nowadly)

US Environment in the Future

Basically, John McCain and Barack Obama are stating the same thing in terms of environmental policies. However, McCain's policies seemed more persuasive and specific. Although one of Obama's policies says "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050," he does not clearly state exact numbers or how they are going to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions like McCain does in his website. McCain's plans sound more realistic and persuasive from an objective point of view. Both candidates certainly take environmental problems seriously, but they do not seem to take them as crisis. McCain relies on new technology and economic growth to improve the global environment. For instance, one of his policies says "John McCain Will Foster Rapid and Clean Economic Growth" to help the global environment. That is exactly how market liberals think, because market liberals regard poverty and weak economic growth as causes of the environmental problems. On the other hand, Obama puts an emphasis on human welfare by mentioning tax and price cuts. Also, he tries to creat new jobs for those who are unemployed. This Obama's way of approaching the environmental problems is like institutionalists.

Barack to the Future

While on paper, it looks like Barack Obama and John McCain have similar energy and environment policies, however I feel like Obama will have luck at implementing them. Jowhn McCain is too tied to the oil industry and Bush administration to change the energy direction of this country. Since President George Bush has taken office, John McCain went from being a moderate to voting 95% of the time in favor of Bush. He already showed us that he is willing to compromise his ideologies to gain support from the Republican Party, who is to say he won't do it again while he is in office.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain want to reshape our industry bringing green collar jobs in the United States, however only Obama has pledged to create five million green jobs within the next ten years. Also instead of investing money into technology development to produce plug-in hybrid cars, he wasnt to pay who ever develops the technology $300 million. It seems like that money could accomplish more if it was was used to develop the technology. And I completely disagree with building 45 new nuclear power plants. They're dangerous to the environment and they become and ethical and equity problem. Where are they going to be built? I can guarantee they will be built in poor or minority neighborhoods, that lack the power to fight nuclear waste being stored in their backyards.

I think Obama is going to bring out country in a new direction with his green development plans. I believe his trade and cap plan to reduce emissions will be very effective and will also show the rest of the world that we are serious about fighting global warming. Instead of reallying on the markets to fix our problems (like McCain probably would) Obama wants to fix the way our economy runs and wants to work with unstitutions to move our country in a new direction. John McCain might have made a good president eight years ago when he competed against Bush for the Republican nomination. Now I feel like he's to involoved with lobbyist and oil companies; he owes them too many favors especailly for all the funding they've given him for his campaign. Obama is going to be the one to lead our country into the future, with new alternative energy development and jobs.

BaRockin' the White House!

Ok, I have to admit that at first I was surprised by some of the similarities between the two visions of the candidates, but I think there are pretty definitive differences between their perspectives of the environmental crisis and actions they plan on taking.

In regards to McCain, it is pretty clear that he is a market liberal. While he claims to focus on scientifically-sound, mandatory emission reduction timetables, he believes that climate policy should focus on a market-based cap and trade system (although so does Obama). (If that doesn't scream market liberal then I'm not sure what does!) McCain also says that international efforts must be made to solve the climate problem, but my main concern with that is that I can see him using the need for the international community to take more action as a way of taking the heat off the United States.  

McCain also focuses a lot of his attention on reducing dependence on foreign oil, which is incredibly important, but at the same point the focus is not on reducing the need for oil in general. He supports offshore drilling in Alaska, which may serve as a temporary fix, but it is not the direction that we should be taking. Again, is market liberal perspectives are evidenced when his websites says, "there is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities". I think his word choice says it all: prove to the world, subject to the whims of others, expand our production capabilities. First things first, Mr. McCain please recognize that policies should not be adapted as a means of "proving" ourselves to anyone else.

Some positive aspects of McCain's policies include his clean car challenge, the fact that he wants the U.S. to be a leader in a new international green economy, greening the federal government a priority. FOr these three things I give Mr. McCain a thumbs up!

In regards to Obama he also supports a cap and trade system which is set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, which I believe is more than McCain. He supports short term fixes for gas costs, which I think is necessary because thousands of livelihoods are virtually destroyed because of unaffordable prices (although the phrase short term continues to scare me since we live in a country that always seems to focus short term).

One aspect that I really like about Obama' policy is that he wants to save the amount of oil we export from the Middle East and Venezuela over the course of 10 years, which I think is great considering we never seem to hear the word "save" anymore.

All in all I was surprised both for the good and bad from both candidates, but encourage everyone to vote for Obama if they don't want to see their rights taken away by the next administration.

McCain Vs. Obama..

Although there are many similarities between the two candidates, there are however fundamental principles that make it possible to separate the two candidates with help of using Clapps and Dauvergnes environmental perspectives. When analyzing the overall theme of McCain’s proposals, we see that he believes in the power of the market to create the solutions that are needed to change our impact on the environment much like that of a market liberal. From his proposal of a trade and cap system for emotions as well as government funding for commercialized green technologies with his Green Innovation Financing and Transfer.

Although Mccain and Obama share many similarities in goals, there are however a few differences that show a different environmental perspective. Although much like Mccain he agrees with a cap and trade system for emissions as well as tax credits to promote such new technologies such as hybrid cars and new clean energy sources. The difference can be found in their views on the economy. While McCain is a Market Liberal, Obama has definetly more of an Industrialist perspective to his views of including government in his goals of promoting change. Among these insitutionalist views, he seeks massive inject of money from the federal government into technology and business to help spur those changes that he seeks.

Its really hard to find much difference between the candidates on the environment, they both want to push stronger standards and goals for fighting emissions. One exception however is the question of energy independence, while Obama wants more efficiency and conservation, McCain plans for expanding nuclear, coal and natural gas to provide alternatives for foreign oil. Another exception is the one of international commitments on the environment. McCain has seemingly more information on how to reassert the United States as leaders in environmental causes as well as engage up and coming economies of India and China.
Its hard to choose one which is talking the most since on the environment. I think McCain might have the upper hand in this issue because no matter how much money we spend on technology, they are years away while oil prices are hurting us now. McCains idea of increasing some new coal and nuclear plants are an unnecessary evil for bridging this gap till these technologies get online.

In a World of Mr. Fishes...

(sorry for the obnoxious underlining-I'm having trouble getting rid of it)


In Stanley Fish's article, "I am, Therefore I Pollute", Fish asks if it is possible to "believe something and still resist taking the actions your beliefs seem to require". I think this question holds weight for many people in the United States. On a microscopic level, most individuals in the U.S. are at least aware that several of their routine habits are extremely harmful to the environment. I do not believe that there are many peple who intentionally use paper cups or extra hairspray to contribute to climate change. I come across individuals like Stanley Fish everyday, people who know that they probably should turn off the light before leaving the house, but don't have the energy to walk across the room to flip the switch. This is a common problem that can be seen with nearly any cause-- once one is able to convince others that a problem exists, getting people to take ownership of it and actively combat it opens a whole new can of worms.

I do not know if I agree with Oskar that pop-culture is taking environmentalism too far (not to say that it is not misguided in some cases) because it is difficult for me to imagine pop-culture ever taking it far enough. I recognize that a backlash is certainly possible, as seen in Stanley Fish's case, but I can only hope that while small environmental changes seem drastic and inconvenient right now (and people's annoyance makes them almost want to resist actions that they know are necessary), in 3 years they will be norms and people won't even think twice about having to walk an extra block so they can take public transportation.

While I agree with Akari that the most pressing environmental concern is climate change, when I asked my friend Noach what he thought, his first response was President Bush. Although this was not at all what I was expecting to hear, it made me think about the role of politics in general as the most pressing challenge facing the global environment. By nature the state system creates significant challenges for dealing with environmental concerns. In a globalizing consumer-based world, it is extremely unlikely for countries to put the good of the world before the good of their country. The problem is that while it is a government's responsibility to protect its citizens, this protection is almost always viewed in terms of economics. The challenge of not abusing common goods has not been effectively dealt with in regard to the environment. This is why I believe that while global warming is the biggest tangible environmental concern, the most pressing challenge today is working within the political system to build a foundation for countries to work on long term solutions to environmental issues. Governments need to take more initiative in protecting the environment because unlike Stanley Fish, if governments continue to neglect stronger environmental policies, the result will be drastically more tragic than that of a few more individuals not flicking off the light switch before they leave the house.

Where'd The Oil Go?

I think one of the most pressing problems is the oil shortage that is currently affecting the American Economy. While I understand that the oil crisis is probably just one small aspect of the detriment to the earth's ecology, I think that the implications connected to the oil crisis could be very destructive in the future.
While problems with the sea level, global warming, and animal extinction probably will cause just as many problems in the end, I think the oil crisis gets more attention, and more stress is put on oil than on other commodities. Unlike the issue of carbon gas emissions and polar bear endangerment, the oil crisis is currently wrecking havoc on our way of life, not only by affecting the world's economy but also by affecting the balance of power. I believe that, attempting to procure more oil will only lead the United States, and other wealthier nations, into unjust wars with countries that have high oil stuffs, like Iran.
The entire idea of the haves and the have-nots will change as oil gets harder and harder to come by, and with the change I fear that war will be inevitable. The stress which our nation and others puts on oil leads me to believe that nations will do anything to procure the resource, as it seems to be vital to survival.
While I do believe that there are many pressing problems, and that each of these issues has far-reaching implications for the earth, I believe the oil crisis could be one of the most dangerous, because its an issue with the most potential to entice short-term violence between nations.

(Tess Nowadly)

Global Energy Crisis

I believe one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment is the energy crisis. We are reaching the end of our fossil fuel resources, and no matter how many commercials Exxon Mobil plays, oil is not going to be the future energy supplier. There's just not enough left to sustain our growing population. Scientists do not know for sure how many years left we have of our oil, coal and natural gas reserves, especially since the growing world population and developing countries will continue to require more of these resources. We need to develop sustainable alternative resources and the key word in that sentence is sustainable.

Not all sources of alternative energy will work in all areas. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal and even bio energy sources can only be implemented in certain areas to be sustainable. Our worlds economy depends mainly on one source, oil. I have learned my economic classes that its never good to put "all your eggs in one basket". If we do not have an alternative for oil when that resource runs out, the world economy will collapse. We should learn from this mistake to not invest all our efforts into one alternative source of energy. We need to develop and improve the technologies for all the alternative sources of energy, so they are sustainable to the environment of which they are located.

One thing that also horrifies me, is nuclear energy. Its not stable or safe and is environmentally harmful. We should learn from the Love Canal, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island that the devastation of a nuclear reactor malfunction or nuclear waste leak is not worth the energy produced . Nuclear reactor malfunctions can kill thousands of people and destroy acres of land. Not to mention nuclear waste dump sites are not safe. The waste leaks into ground water and the earth, which we witnessed with the Love Canal tragedy. Leaks happen daily around all nuclear waste sites everywhere in the world, including the U.S. and France. France is praised for its nuclear energy plants, but there are numerous cases of nuclear waste leaks into rivers and ground water, which is why they are looking into alternative resources of energy too. The U.S. needs to move away from the idea that nuclear energy is a sustainable source for alternative energy; its not.

Sustainable alternative energy is a pressing matter because not only will it save our global economy but it will help us fight global warming which is another crucial problem that needs to be addressed. Moving away from the use of fossil fuels will limit the amount of green house gases that are admitted into the atmosphere. When we create the technology to implement these new resources, we will take a huge step forward in fighting global warming. This needs to be done immediately and needs to be implemented in all states, developed and especially developing states that will require more energy in the future.

The Most Terrifying Thing for Me

What I am concerned about the most is the global warming, because it seems, for me, an endless spiral.

When I think back how much I used air conditioner last month, I feel that I had done something horrible to the global environment. However, as it is too hot to live without air conditioner, I could not stop using it. Overuse of air conditioner is one of the cuases of the global warming. Thus, global warming and the frequency of using air conditioner are mutually propotional; if the temperature of the earth goes up, people want to use air conditioner more frequently. When that happens, the temperature of the earth goes up again. It is endless. Further, the global warming melts glaciers in the North and South Pole causing sea-level rise. As the sea-level rises over years, some islands and coast areas will sink under the ocean. My home country, Japan, is island. A tiny part of Japan is now in danger, and the government is desperate to save the small island, because it is the south most par of Japan and expands the fishing zone of the country. Although now it is just a tiny part of Japan, once sea-level starts rising quickly, I am sure my home country will be the one of the earliest sank countries in the world. If the land areas starts sinking, many creatures (not only human being) will be living in some concentrated areas of the world. That will cause food, resource, and land shortage. So, for me, the most terrifying environmental issue is the global warming, and it can be the most pressing challenge facing the global environment.

Akari Mizuta

Stanley Fish, a grumpy old man with a reasonable point.

There is no doubt that our consumer driven society has put us down a destructive path which has lead to poisoned water supplies, deforestation and other substantial damage to our environment. These damages have not gone unnoticed in recent years however. For a few years now, environmentalism has become the new catch phrase which has become all the fashionable rage among Americas middle and upper classes. Although their are many people in the US that are truly concerned about the environmental damages our consumer lifestyles have caused, the Stanley Fish post makes very valid points about how much we want to disrupt our everyday life for the environmental good.

Although many of his points are those of a grumpy old man who dislikes the new ideas to what is socially acceptable, his example of the progressing level of detail to the sorting of paper trash shows that we might have reached a level of absurdity.

The question of living an environmentally friendly lifestyle in the US is an extremely loaded and controversial question because to primarily raises the question of to what degree are we willing to forfeit our comforts for the greater environmental good.

There is no doubt that we can all do small changes that collectively would have a huge impact but at the same time I do agree with Mr. Fish that the pop culture appeal of environmentalism is in some instances going to far. I feel that should we continue to push for more and more radical environmental changes, we risk a backlash against it all. Just as the 1980s was a backlash against the hippy environmentalism of the 1970s, we could risk the same outcome unless we slow down this green drive. I am all favor for more recycling, less dependence on oil and energy but for a sustained drive towards conservationism, we need to move slower and make people feel that changes have an effect rather then for some abstract cause.