final

The "planned obsolescence" thing from the Story of Stuff film really stuck in my mind, especially since I can really relate with it. Actually, perceived obsolescence was actually a part of my experience too. I was pretty late getting in on the iPod crazem and I only got one in 2005. I got the latest model out at the time, the Photo model. Then, a month or so later, Apple released their Video model and didn't announce it in advance and I was so annoyed that I just dropped 300 dollars on an already outmoded gadget. Apple did that on purpose I bet, and just like they planned, I got upset that my crappy old iPod wasn't as good as the shiny new one. I hate Apple.

part 2 later

Final blog topic

My two favorite readings this semester were the "Cradle to Cradle" book and the "lifeboat ethics" reading.
Cradle to Cradle brought up many interesting ways that we can redesign our world in order to live with nature. The most important concept from this reading was the idea of not being "less bad." Their ideas promoted technologies that are sustainable and work with the environment as opposed to technologies that are just better for the environment. It is important that we look to develop new products that can be recycled not just downcycled.
The lifeboat ethics article was much different than the cradle to cradle book. This article was very pragmatic. The idea that they propagated is that earth should not be viewed as a "spaceship" but rather a "lifeboat". Because of this, if we help others we are only reducing our standard of living. Giving food to the poor for example will only propagate further overpopulation. Famine should actually be viewed as a population check. While this view is not very humanitarian, it makes sense especially in the context of I=PAT.

Cradle to Cradle

I like the optimism that William McDonough and Michael Braungart have in Cradle to Cradle. With all the negative research and publishings we see today about the impact that we are having on the environment, it is refreshing to see a positive outlook. It was interesting to see how they both interpreted the relationship between the environment and industry. Personally, i think that the industrial revolution has had a negative impact on the environment, no matter what sort of angle one attempts to take. Technology is great, and i am thankful for it-i dont know how my grandmother grew up without running water-but i think that it has undoubtedly had an immense negative impact on the environment. Unfortunately, as much as i love McDonough and Braungart's ideas of innovative architecture and commodities, i dont know if they alone can save the planet, especially given the way our current society is structured. I think that using completely recyclable or completely biodegradable products is a wonderful step for consumption in the future, but it needs to in addition to practical disposal of old waste and most importantly, adjusted levels of consumption. i think that an issue that is just as important, and that should be raised simultaneously with what we consume, is how much we consume. solving the environmental concerns of one alone will not save the planet.

cradle to cradle

I thought that what the authors of the book brought up were awesome ideas. It's really a good idea to make stuff that goes back to nature or make garden cities or whatever else they were saying. Be one with nature: work with it as opposed to working against it. However, they might be a bit optimistic about this. Can the technology we have actually do all of this? Wouldn't this be really expensive since they'll have to change everything? Can the developing world afford to do all this? I want this movement to succeed though, so hopefully technology is actually affordable enough for everyone to implement.
Also, I thought this book was definitely cool (albeit a bit heavy and expensive and weird-smelling), imagine if all books were like this. You could read them on the beach without worrying about them getting wet or while lounging in a pool. Plus they'd be immune to water damage. Once, I had a textbook that got wet in the rain, and when I tried selling it back, they wouldn't take it because of water damage. That was 120 dollars down the drain, which would have been

question 7

I'm a city boy, but when I do experience nature, I usually enjoy it. Back in high school, our field trips were nature trips. We explored caves in freshman year, and we hiked up two different mountains in sophomore and junior year (we went to an amusement park in senior year). When I entered high school, I couldn't wait for senior year so I could go to the amusement park (they ended up making us do stupid physics problems though), but after experiencing all of the field trips, the nature trips were a lot more tiring and dirty, but definitely much more scenic, pretty, memorable and fun. Nature is so unpredictable, and thus so many funny things happened during the field trips.














In freshman year, our science teacher was an Australian guy and he was doing crazy things like climbing around the caves and jumping from rock to rock and it was so cool. After that trip, he would then be known to all of us as Dr. Indiana Jones. Here's a pic of Dr. Jones taking a picture. Also, we got to see what can be best described as the cave taking a dump, and it was pretty cool too. We were also supposed to go to the bat cave, a huge cave where tons of bats hang out, but some guy freaked the bats out, which freaked him out, so he fell and fractured his leg and the rest of us ended up not going there.

Sophomore year was even better. It was raining while we were hiking up to the flatrocks in Mount Makiling, so the trail was really slippery, which led to a lot of funny moments. One of my classmates slipped and was literally hanging from the root of a giant tree. He was crying out for his mommy and I thought it was hilarious. There was also a guy who actually fell and tumbled down the slope and we heard his scream from pretty far away, doppler effect and all.

Junior year was definitely the best though. We hiked up Mount Banahaw and it was so much fun. It's kind of this religious mountain journey thing, and there are things like carvings of the Virgin Mary and stuff like that on the way to the top, which had three wooden crosses. There was a slight drizzle, but at least it wasn't scorching hot like it usually is in the Philippines. There was this one tiny cave (they called it something, but I don't remember what) that you had to contort your way through to get to the other side. Supposedly, sinful people would have a hard time going through, so I didn't even try because I'd probably be stuck there forever. Here's a picture of us hiking up (there's me waving to the camera) and here's a picture of me and my buddy pretending that we'd just gone through that cave.
Those trips were definitely among my favorite high school moments. I actually kind of miss it, and I'd like to go to one of those trips again with my friends.

I think that nature is definitely something worth saving. Some people have a more "practical" approach to conservatism; they want to save the environment for self-preservation and to save us humans as opposed to actually preserving nature. I think that we actually have a responsibility to take care of nature though. It doesn't matter if we can eventually find replacements for the things that we rely on nature to give us, it would still be too different. I don't want my kids to not be able to experience what I went through during my field trips (or whenever my mommy drags me to the boonies). Nature has been around long before our civilizations, and hopefully we won't destroy it and when all is said and done, it will last long after human life as well.

Question 6

Over spring break six of my friends and myself drove down to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I would say that the group was as environmentally aware as the average of American University students. Basically, the situation was that five of us drove down on Saturday and one had to come late on Tuesday. Because of this, we decided to drive three cars. Even though we had five driving down at the same time on the way there, because of convenience and comfort we decided to take two cars. When this situation is looked at in terms of environmental waste or gas cost this does not make too much sense. Because of this, I had a discussion with one of my friends about this on the way back.
I learned that the group generally cared about environmental issues enough, but did not want to sacrifice comfort. He understood how this situation did not make sense, but did not really want to do anything about it. This is probably the most important thing I learned; while some may care about the environment they do not want to make sacrifices to protect it.

week 5 question

The way we produce food in America is unsustainable. In our everyday lives it is hard to eat food that is produced in a sustainable way. For example, organic food production seems like it would be less detrimental to the environment however when it is shipped from halfway across the world this positive effect is negated. Making small changes can help, but in order to eat in an environmentally sustainable way we would have to:

1: Eat lower on the foodchain
2: Buy locally grown foods
3: Buy organic foods.
4: Do not buy foods with unnecessary packaging

To address these issues we need to look deeper than on a personal decision basis.

When I buy food I would say I think about the environment as much as the average American. I try to avoid buying things with unnecessary packaging such as bottled water. If an organic option is available I may buy it if it is not significantly more expensive. Aside from doing little things like this, I do not go out of my way to buy environmentally friendly foods. Of the goods I've bought in the last few days, I would say that a Brita water filter was the most important for the environment. Because of this I will not buy bottles of water any more, which is wasteful and also sort of silly when you think about it. In some places a bottle of water costs more than things like soda or juice, when you can just get water out of the faucet.

Question 5

I try to be environmentally conscious when it comes to everyday choices. However, I hardly ever think about the environment when buying food. There are a large amount of things I cannot eat, so my health comes first when I am picking out food. Other then that, price is my biggest concern when buying food. I ideally, I think buying locally grown food is best for the environment but there isn't any place within walking distance where that is provided. I do buy locally grown food at the farmer's market in MN when I am home. Also, in the summer, there is a small locally grown food stand by my apt in DC but there aren't many options.

I think all of the coffee I drink has the biggest impact on the environment. I should use a thermos but sometimes I forget, or don't clean it and it's too big to fit in the coffee machine at work. Therefore, i end up using many disposable cups. The amount of cups, lids, sleeves, sugar packets, etc. that I use is definitely harming the environment.

question 5

Unfortunately, I don't really think about the environmental impact of the food I buy either. Like Joanna, price is the number one thing I really look at, especially lately. Actually, since I came to college, my eating habits have been terrible and I've made some ill-advised unnecessary purchases, so I'm trying to save as much money as I can, even with food. I don't care if it tastes like plywood, if it's cheap, I'll eat it.
I think the microwave dinners I've been having a lot of lately probably have the most environmental impact (they were on sale for a dollar each at Giant). I don't know exactly how they prepare those, but I'm assuming that they're both unhealthy and environmentally unfriendly. There's the box, the little tray, the plastic wrap, all the ingredients, etc. Also, organic food is usually healthier and more environmentally friendly (that's what I heard anyway, I'm not sure) and microwave dinners are definitely not organic.

question 5

I dont thin that i have ever kept the environment in mind when i buy or eat my food. Top on my list or concern when buying food is price; if it's cheap, i'll buy it. This applies to almost everything that i buy, with the exception of eggs. I like to buy organic or cage free eggs when i can, but again, if they are significantly more expensive, i dont even do that. Price is definitely the most important factor in my food choices, probably followed by health (multi grain v. white bread, calories etc). Technically, i guess just because its organic even mean its environmentally better anyway.
I did watch a segment on tv once about buying food that is packaged in less plastic, and how we should all buy things that arent over packaged, but to be honest, i've never actually stopped and bought an alternative because what i was looking to buy had too much packaging.
Of the most recent foods that i have eaten, i would say that the prepackaged cake i made probably had the greatest environmental impact due to all the byproducts and materials that go into the manufacturing of the mix and the packaging. although, thats a tough question, because its hard for me to judge the environmental impact of the food that i have consumed.

Question 4

I don't think technology alone is enough to save us.  By "save" I mean significantly decrease the negative impact we are making on the earth, to the point that it is considered sustainable.  I do believe that technological advancements will continue to be developed that can help or even reverse some of the damage already caused.  In Nash's article, for example, he predicted that technology would eventually eliminate overexploitation of natural resources, like wood.  In class we discussed how new technology is being developed in the agricultural field so that pesticides can be applied directly to plants, lessening their harmful effects on the environment.  As stated in Davis' article, history doesn't provide us with any evidence that humans have the desire to use modern technology in a sustainable fashion.  Since technological regression is so unlikely, it is important that technology be incorporated into solutions to environmental problems as well as be used with restraint.  Maybe the right combination of technology and moderation will save us. 

Week 4

Technology is an interesting part of the I=PAT equation because people hold different opinions on whether it is negative or positive. Some argue that technology is the reason the environment is in the shape it is today. Technology invented the smoke stacks, cars, and power plants that continue to pollute our planet. Others believe that technology can save us by producing "greener" products, as well as innovations that clean up the environment in some aspect.
I believe that technology is actually somewhere in the middle of these two points of view. Technology is very hard to predict. Because of this, it is hard to say what kinds of technology will be invented in the next 10, 20, or 30 years. To say that technology will save us is relying too heavily on an unpredictable variable. I do believe however that technology can offer some hope. If we invest in technologies that could possibly save some aspect of the environment than there will be a better chance that a breakthrough in that particular area will arise. This can be done by giving more government funding to scientists who are involved in research pertaining to the environment, or through private grants.
It is important that we invest in techology while not relying too heavily on it. Along with this it is important that we change our consumption patterns while at the same time doing something about the exponentially rising population on earth. Once we focus on these three things we will be moving in the right direction.

Question 4

Technology is something that i would say most americans cannot live without. From cell phones, to computers to even electricity, its one of the few consistent things in our lives. We have become so dependent on it that it that i cannot foresee us going back to the days of less technology. Looking at trends however, it seems that as technology is improving, getting quicker, smaller, etc, it is also becoming less damaging to the environment. We are coming up with new technologies that use clean energy, and that are more energy efficient. While in the long run, we may still be damaging the environment with the use of any technology, its improvements at least are now looking to save the planet, rather than continue to destroy it.
Its strange to think that only 100 years ago, hardly anyone drove cars and electricity was uncommon in the US. Now we cannot imagine a world without such things. 100 years from now we may look back and think how could we live in such a dirty world. Technology is changing so quickly, and with the new trends being not just quicker and smaller, but cleaner and more efficient, we may see an equally dramatic growth in cleaner energy.
In 100 years, technology brought us from outhouses and horse and buggies to self cleaning toilets and 8 person SUV's. 100 more years of rapid technological improvements may lead us to completely renewable energy sources and a cleaner environment. At this point, it really has to, because it is so much a part of our everyday lives that we cannot get rid of it, we must improve it. With all the new trends and the ever increasing improvements in technology, it appears that technology will save us from completely destroying the environment in the future.

Question 4

I have generally thought of technology as a positive force in the world. I think there is a general positive view of technology in America because we are banking on new technology to save our ecological problems. Publications, such as Time, always have articles on new environmentally friendly technological innovations. However, technology is not a magical solution that will solve all problems. It seems people are relying on technology because technology allows us to continue the lifestyle we cherish but still feel we are helping the world.

I think technology can be a good force but its not an end all solution. A lot of other changes need to take place and technology is just a small piece of the puzzle.

Question 4

Technology is one of the things that got us into this environmental mess in the first place, and I think we'd have to effectively harness it to eventually fix the environment. I don't really see people giving up most of their newfangled stuff for any reason , so the best way to become green is to slowly replace these with environmentally friendly technology. For example, since people probably aren't going to suddenly give up their cars for recyclable soy rickshaws or horses or whatever, the best thing we can do is develop much more environmentally-friendly cars and make things like the Prius cooler and trendier so that more people will buy it. They could put a Prius in the next Transformers movie, have Batman drive a hybrid batmobile and have James Bond fly economy in his next movie.
Also, I think that eventually, technology will be so far out and sci-fi that we can live in dome cities that protect us from harsh environments or live in space colonies or whatever. Maybe one day, it will be what will save us after all. But at this point, technology is not going to go away, so the best thing we can do is minimize its impact on the environment.

Question 3

I really liked Michael Maniate's article. After our small group discussion last class about the how climate change can really be addressed and curtailed, i round Maniate's article to back up what i was thinking. The most obvious point to me is addressed in Manaiate's use of other historical events that required large, powerful movements, not small steps. The best comparison, in my mind was when he notes that "Paul Revere didn't race through the streets of Middlesex County hawking a book on "The Lazy Revolutionary." While the environmental crisis isnt exactly the revolutionary war, the comparison is justified. Action needs to be taken, and not on a small, individualistic base. I agree this is a larger issue that the nation needs to be pulled together and told that we cannot turn around climate change by changing our light bulbs. Our government needs to not be afraid of telling us that this is a global, large issue. I think that the government needs to step in and make bigger statements and implement more drastic changes in order to truly address the issue of global environmental damage.

Question 3

Michael Maniates' article addresses a dilemma that faces activists of all kinds.  Environmentalists, human rights activists, and pretty much anyone involved in advocacy for a given issue must decide how to go about raising awareness.  However, inspiring change is not easy in a society that has an increasingly short attention span and, as Maniates says, glorifies all that is easy.  When an issue appears too overwhelming and cannot be resolved with methods that are simple and convenient, the public seems to simply look the other way.  The dilemma is then whether to appeal to the public by conveying a simplified version of the problem and offering solutions that seem doable, believing that some change, even if minimal, is better than nothing, or to tell it like it is and risk complete avoidance by the public.  On a personal level I agree with the last paragraph of Maniates' article, but I'm just skeptical that the majority of Americans would be willing to change their lives in ways that may be inconvenient for the sake of the environment (or for any reason that doesn't provide immediate gratification). 

Question 3

question 3/ week 4

The argument presented in the article is definitely important. It will surely take more than just "little things" to get anything really significant done, especially with how bad the environment's shape is at this point. However, I do think that getting celebrities or these little books and guidelines or whatever to get people to make these little changes can be useful too. To really fix things, the author said that it would take massive changes in lifestyle, and that change wont come immediately and will have to be done gradually so people can adjust. The first step is awareness, and and these things bring awareness at least. It's not much, but it's a start; at least people are thinking about it now. It can also change the mindset of people somewhat, and they can probably build off of that. But yeah, there's still a lot of work to be done.

Week 3 Question

Michael Maniates brings up a good point; in order to make a significant impact on climate change the world needs to make significant changes. He claimed that in the next 30 years the US would have to cut carbon emissions by 80%. To achieve a reduction of emissions even close to 80% would require drastic lifestyle changes. The advocation of "easy answers" barley cracks the surface of what is needed to be done. What is needed is coordinated worldwide action that would more than likely need to put environmental concerns ahead of other issues.
Instead of whining about easy individual action as he gets flown around in his private jet, Bono could advocate for governmental policy change. Then again whining washed up rockstar is not exactly a prerequisite to global environmental policy. The things that are advocated by most "experts" like Bono or Tara Reid will not significantly impact our environment. Even if they did, anyone with any sense would not take orders from the rich elite of Hollywood. Politicians and scientists need to be the face of environmental policy, because this is their field. While individual action will not hurt the environment, we need to look at the big picture.

Question 3

The main argument is that people in power are not demanding enough of the public to change our impact on the earth. Therefore, the biggest environmental problem is the way politicians and environmentalists are addressing environmental change.

I think his argument makes a lot of sense. I do believe these little things people advocate are not enough to make an impact on the environment. Its an issue that hasn't been really been brought up. I definitely think more action is needed and that its not going to come from people. I think it needs to come from environmentalists and politicians, mainly people in power.

However, I think advocating small lifestyle changes is a good thing, I think it raises awareness for our consumption problem. I just think its not enough to rely solely on that.

question 2

Mike Huckabee's stand environmental issues centers around energy independence, and this means that he is probably more of a market liberal. He believes that if the US did not have to rely on foreign oil and had the ability to produce its own energy, it would help the economy. It didn't even seem that he cared about the environmental crisis that much, but instead wanted to make the country more green to reap economic benefits.

Senator Obama on the other hand, seems to care actually care about climate change and the environment, as opposed to just caring about the economic benefits that would result from environmentalism (although he does believe that it would also help the economy).
I guess he's somewhere between a market liberal and an institutionalist. In his speech, he mentioned that the world thought the White House's view on the issue was "isolated," and that the US should be a leader in the world's struggle to become more green. However, he also believes in technology and hopes that it can improve the economy as well.

I agree with what everyone else has said, and think that Senator Obama's plan is definitely the way to go. He seems to really care and has actually put a lot of thought into the issue. I agree with Tai because as evidenced by his quite specific plan, which is much more comprehensive than Huckabee's (or anyone else's), he knows what he wants to do.
Also, he mentioned that the US has to set an example that the rest of the world can follow, and this is definitely true. A lot of countries see the US as hypocritical because they're talking the talk but not walking the walk. I remember in some other class, we talked about how the US was telling some other country (i don't remember what it is) not to cut down their rainforests, but the other country was like "hey, you messed up all your resources to get where you are now, so why can't we do our thing with our resources so we can have what you have?" It'd definitely improve international relations if the US would try harder and go green.

Week 2 Question

Obama attributes environmental change to our demand of and reliance on oil. He has a detailed and well thought out plan for his solutions. I believe he sounds like a market liberal and an institutionalist. He takes a clear stand that the environment is an important issue without sounding alarmist. He offers many economic incentives for plans that improve the environment, such as incentives to farmers to restore grasslands. He also proposes large government investment in technology that will benefit the environment. These are all characteristics of market liberals. He is also an institutionalist when it comes to environmental change on an international level. He proposes international institutions, such as creating a new forum on global energy, to combat environmental change.

McCain seems to be a market liberal. He looks at environmental change through an economic lens. He argues that we need to care about the environment because our economy depends on it. He seems to be concerned but does not think there is an environmental crisis. He addresses this issue by proposing economic investment and incentive in technology that will solve environmental issues.

McCain had a much shorter and more vague stand on the environment. I think Obama's platform makes a lot more sense because his plan is much more thought out. McCain offers one or two vague sentences on what should be done but no actual plan. Also, Obama offers many more specific solutions, while McCain only has three. I think the categories is a good place to start when analyzing these two candidates' platforms but no one its into these categories perfectly.

post 2

my first reaction to reading the environmental platforms of the two candidates was that the platform of the democrat, Barack Obama, was much longer and more detailed than that of the republican, Mitt Romney. Obama seems to represent a bio-environmentalist, advocating reduced emissions, oil independence and other environmental based incentives. He stresses replanting trees and restoring grasslands as a way towards saving the environment. Romney on the other hand seems more like an institutionalist. His incentives are driven my helping the economy and the people. "Energy independence is crucial to our economy and our national security". he focuses on improving technology through nuclear power as a way to save the environment.
Having learned of these categories, it was much easier for me to distinguish the candidates platforms. It allowed me to associating each candidate with a general group with which his ideas were consistent with, further enabling me to infer other environmental beliefs of the candidate.
I would say that Obama is easily making more sense of the environment, as he has much more to say about it. he addresses not only issues of improving what we have, but on restoring what we've destroyed. He talks about emissions, clean energy, biofuels, oil independence, global standards and leadership within the government, while Romney only touches on the economy, nuclear power and technology. He fails to go into any depth regarding his proposed solutions as well. Obama, on the other hand, lays out not only what he sees as the clear and present danger, but he also sets out a clear plan of action to solve the environmental issues we face.

week one question

I agree with everyone else that there really isn't one environmental problem that is more important than another. Although some problems, like deforestation may have a larger, more immediate impact, in terms of destruction of habitats and few trees to clean the air, many other issues are just as pressing. If sea levels rise too much, coastlines will change. If the poles warm too much, glaciers and ice coverings will melt. If our climates warm too much, weather patterns will change, most likely causing more severe storms. they are all important global environmental problems.

Living in an environmentally friendly way is also a subjective phrase. on the most basic level, those in the developing, or more accurately, the underdeveloped world are the only ones who live truly environmentally friendly lives. The majority do not drive or use electricity. and they do not consume food at the level that the developed nations do. However, living in the developed world i think that while we may not be completely environmentally friendly in the same respect as the underdeveloped word, the term has come to be a relative term. relative to many other individuals, i try to be environmentally friendly. I recycle at home in NY (DC doesnt seem to believe in recycling), i take cloth bags to the grocery store, i turn the lights off. Everything that i have been taught to do to be "environmentally friendly" i do. Unfortunately i do still drive in DC. I guess i still have some room to become more environmentally friendly.

Tai brings up a good point, it is incredibly hard to pinpoint the most "important" global environmental problem. How can one say that deforestation is more/less important than rising sea levels? It would be hard to convince anyone with strong convictions that one issue is more important to mankind than another. That being said, I think that biodiversity loss is one of the many important global environmental problems. It is among the most important because it is impossible to reverse.
The large variety in species of flora and fauna on earth has come about through billions of years of evolutionary mechanisms. Through the mechanisms of natural selection, species naturally go extinct. There have been five previous mass extinctions that have been seen in the fossil record. However, the current rate of extinction is one thousand times that of the fossil record. What this means is that we are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction. This extinction is believed to be caused by human behavior. Changing natural habitats, introducing non-native species, and over hunting have all contributed to this mass extinction. Once these species are extinct, there is no way to bring them back. The reason why this is such a big problem is there is no feasible way to reverse this extinction through technology or changes in human behavior. Once a species is gone, it's gone for good. It is possible to clean our rivers, re-plant trees, and stop emitting greenhouse gases, however unless we develop some kind of Jurassic Park technology there is no way to bring these species back. The only thing we can do is stop the bleeding, and globally change our practices. As you can see, there are no easy answers here.

I don't really know what I consider the most important global environmental problem. It's overwhelming how many environmental problems there are. Its hard to prioritize a problem such as global warming over water pollution. Also, environmental problems are all, in a sense, related to one another. They affect each other.

Therefore, I think the most important global environmental problem isn't an actual environment problem but the lack of awareness and action of these problems. There are so many problems around us but little being done about them. Environmental problems need to be addressed in domestic and international arenas. Only after environmental indifference is addressed can progress be made against environmental problems.

week 1 essay

I think that the I=PAT equation is a good way to start looking at the environmental problems the earth is facing. It's simple enough, and is pretty easy to remember, but it's also pretty comprehensive. All three are definitely related to each other and affect each other's impact on the environment. I did think that the technology part of the equation is a bit iffy though. Like we discussed in the last class, technology might actually even help the environment in some ways (like solar panels or whatever).
I think affluence is probably the most important and influential part of the equation. As computed in the ecological footprints, we would need a lot more than one earth if everyone lived like an average "modern" person. I actually thought I was going to do okay in that footprint thing, because I walk and commute and I recycle almost everything (I hardly throw anything out;my apartment is full of empty boxes and grocery bags), but I still got a really bad score of 7 earths or something like that because of all the flying around I do. I guess we can't have people flying around all the time.