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.