Final thoughts on SIS-388

As an International Studies major, I thought I had become accustomed to studying seemingly insurmountable global challenges in my classes.  I've been able to study the origins of violent conflicts, analyze the behavior of states, learn about how the global economy functions, all topics of great interest to me.  However, it wasn't until I took this class that I was forced to think critically about how giant global problems will get solved.  In class exercises, where we created imaginary non-profits, and thought critically about how society could improve climate situation, exposed me to the challenges of finding ways for the planet to become more sustainable.

I also found it interesting to learn about the different points of view in literature about ways to go about solving global morning.  These views seem to be mutually exclusive, despite how distinct their authors try to make them out to be.  For example, a social green may think that social injustice is feeding the environmental crisis, but they might be in favor of an institutionalist solution which calls for "guided globalization to improve human welfare".  None of the explanations and approaches to a solution seemed wrong (mostly due to the large amount of guessing that is required in this field) which is why they should all be considered when looking for answers. 

From now on, I hope to think more about possible solutions to the issues I learn about.  Knowledge of global warming's origins are crucial to the effective governance and policy formation that could remediate its effects.  Also, despite the subject's pessimistic nature, I've learned how important it is to try and stay positive in order to not give up on the work that needs to be done.

Take Aways

I took this course concurrent to being president of EcoSense, American University’s environmental club on campus. This was a very interesting experience as I was able to participate in actions and organizing that related to the issues that we were discussing in class including climate change, food justice, and tar sands. I was thankful for the class as it allowed for me some space to reflect on environmental issues and how best to create change. When you are part of any political group which shares an ideology or concern, issues, like climate change, can start to seem self-evidently important. “Of course climate change is an issue, duh!” “Of course we need to move away from fossil fuels.” While this might be truth it is important to remember that not everyone in world sees it that way and to forget this is to get lost in your own sound bubble. Thus I really appreciated getting a perspective on the wide variety of different solutions and ideologies that attempt to address perceived environmental problems. I believe that it made my own ideology and beliefs more coherent as I could articulate where they stood on the spectrum and thus better defend them.

I also really took away many things from the section of creating social change. In particular I found the Meadows piece to be particularly insightful. I liked how she broke down “systems” into leverage points at which one can intervene in order to change a system. It was interesting to see how different points can be easier to access but less effective at producing change then other ones which require more work. This type of analysis is simultaneously depressing and uplifting, as it indicates that environmental problems are systemic, meaning that they are broad-based and deep-rooted in society, but also reveals that this is not the way it has to be. Change can be created but it requires thought, perseverance, organizing and self-reflection.

Avengers Assemble

Bare with me, I'm coming off a weekend of almost 10,000+ words written for final research papers; so once I start here, I'm not quite sure where it will go.

When I walked into my first International Environmental Politics class, I felt fairly informed about the environment, even if only by osmosis.  When you live on a campus that is on track to be carbon neutral in the coming years (and more importantly, when you spend perhaps days in collective hours writing papers in Gold Star LEED certified building) you must just sort of absorb environment stuff.  Right?

Wrong.  I'd have to say that I felt a bit like Neo in the Matrix in those first few weeks - inundated by information and feeling a bit like I was in fact 'living in a dream world'.  It wasn't as if I simply took the readings and lectures in class on faith, either.  I began to read on my own about environmental dangers, made my own observations as I continued through my last fall semester as an undergrad with a new and increasing sensitivity to the effects human civilization has had on the planet.  My ideas about society and culture's constructed nature were planted in philosophy classes at American in my freshmen and sophomore years, but now - perhaps culminating in being in my hometown on Black Friday -  those ideas have bloomed.  We do live in an artificially created consumer-centric, industrialized world in the United States.  It doesn't have to be this way - nor is it the natural order of things.  The prolific advertisements that cajole us every day - telling us that if we just buy this one product, then we'll be the person we really want to be - are founded on the ideal of growth at the expense of everything else - and growth  by profit.  Not growth of happiness, or spirituality, or community, but growth of money.  Artificial growth.  

The interaction of this International Environmental Politics class with my others this semester have left me feeling that the United States is on a precipice.  Many things have come to a head in the past; new challenges have sprung up across the board that our founders certainly could never have conceived of.  The environment is one of those.  In fifteen years, according to Bill McKibben and others, we will have produced enough carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses to meet, and then exceed the two degrees of  average warming deemed acceptable by the international community.  

Fifteen years. 

That's not very much time.

If anything, this class propels and inspires me to take a more active stance in changing the frameworks we think are forever.  I'll (hopefully) be joining the workforce sometime this summer or early fall, and as a contributing member of society, I want to bring awareness to these environmental issues that are rarely seen in the daily news in any constructive or educational sort of way.  I'm not the activist type.  But I will continue to do what I can to inform my friends, family, and random strangers about the issues that will challenge our nation and society in the years to come.  Over the course of this class, I've learned that knowledge is power - moreover - knowledge in the hands of the people in the right positions is power.  If I inform all the people I know, maybe one of them will be in that right position, at the right time in the right place, to make a difference in the coming decade.  Heck, maybe that person will even be me.  

My Takeaways from Intro to Doom

When we started this class back in August, I had a lot of hope for my first Environmental Studies class. However, as Simon introduced the class as "Intro to Doom," I knew it might not be as bright and cheery as I had hoped.  While the doom and gloom of the course was rather overwhelming at first, I think one of my biggest takeaways from the course is that we need to get more serious about climate chance and preserving the environment.  I knew this was an imminent issue before, but it has become clearer that the feel good activism of the environmental movement, like recycling, clearly is not enough for what we actually need to do to continue to live on this planet.

Another of my takeaways is a fear that we actually won't do enough to save the planet.  I know it's good to remain hopeful and constructive for the environment, but I know how Erik Assadourian in the back of my head screaming about how we're all doomed unless we radically changed, and I know how difficult it will be to actually get people to change.  I have definitely taken away a new sense of terror for the future and possibly a new push toward more radical action.  I'm not sure how much time I have to physically commit to the movement, but I do feel more inclined to go to a protest or to take serious action towards environmental protection.

Another thing that I've taken away from this course is the fact that I really only know a fraction about the environmental movement.  There is a lot of science, strategy, and history that I really have no idea about.  This has definitely motivated me to look more in to these different topics, especially all the international conferences centered around the environment that most people do not know about.  The semester may be over, but the learning has just begun for me!

What I will take away...

Politics is complicated. Environment is complicated. If we want to talk about Environmental Politics on an international stage, it's mission impossible. Most of the frameworks, conventions and meetings that involved hundreds of parties around the world did not bring any solid result or goal towards global climate change or environmental related issues. We have covered a lot about history related with international environmental politics, but it's really hard to see any results for now. Even though most of the countries do have their voices that support '' global climate change is real and we need to do something to stop it ''. When it came to reality, especially when different parties talking about economic related topics, they tend to avoid to make any sacrifices for global climate changes. The whole idea about stop global climate change became a blaming-shifting issue. Parties, especially the ones who had biggest power over the others do not agree with step back to protect the environment because they are afraid of that other countries may take the opportunities as their advantages. So people's attitudes changed a lot towards environmental issues. Most of them have the will but not the real actions.

Personal changes will not help us with current situation, which is bottom-up strategy. Completely depending upon the hierarchy will not work either. Plant a tree will not save us from dome. What if one out of five people plant a tree? We have 7 billion people on Earth now. To tackle the environmental problems, we need to start actions from both the head of the issue as well as the end of it. To be more specific, start from the conception of consumerism which could be the end of the production line; it also could be the head of demanding. If there are fewer and greener demands for products, maybe we can push the entire system one step forward towards sustainable. If from the production line, we could start from the design of all products as what we learned about wastes equal to food, we will limit the amount of wastes the produced as by-products of commercial goods. This will help us both saving energy to produce these "wastes" as well as energy to deal with them. 

Environmental protections are needed yet so difficult to put into reality. We tried to solve different environmental politics related issues in group exercise while we do not have any personal or financial involvements with the issues, however, it's really difficult for groups of people which about only 25 of us in the class to come to an agreement. So when we apply this to international scale, hundreds of parties get involved as well as billions of people. Not only economy drives the direction, health issues and other major issues get involved. I think this sophisticated feature will persist unless there is an organization that has super power over all countries around the globe and have the power to command all. Or on the road towards international environmental politics, current situation will persist and doing nothing good for the environment. We are just speeding up to the end of human society.  

UK drivers lower their carbon footprint

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17740356

As sales of fuel-efficient cars rapidly rise in the UK, carbon emissions from motor vehicles have decreased by 23% since 2000.  This increase in sales is the result of high gas prices and technological advances that can produce more of these cars.  The article goes on to discuss how this change in consumer behavior is linked to rising fuel prices, along with high tax and insurance costs that come along with less efficient vehicles.  Analysts believe that the way to see this trend continue is further technological investment by the government as well as more consumer incentives to buy fuel efficient cars.

The UK still has a long way to go to meet the EU emissions goals by 2020, but this change in consumer behavior has produced tangible results.  Gas prices in the U.S. are significantly cheaper by comparison, so it's not as strong of an incentive for Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.  This positive effect in reducing carbon wasn't exactly planned, but more of a reaction to a change in conditions.  If institutions in the UK can find ways to keep gas expensive and insurance rates high this trend is more likely to continue.

This example is very specific to one type of carbon emitting source, which is why it was able to be reduced effectively.  Most environmentalists, ecologists. scientists, etc. realize that targeting individual sources of greenhouse gas production is the best way to lower emissions.  I believe this type of reduction can be replicated in many other countries around the world, provided that the conditions are the same.  Fuel prices must be VERY high, enough to motivate buyers to move towards smaller/fuel-efficient vehicles, and insurance costs must also be expensive for larger cars.  Considering that a large portion of greenhouse gas production comes from cars on the road, this gives me a lot of hope that some portion of emissions can be reduced.

The Future of Your Urine

Three of the inventors with their invention.

Maker Faire Africa is an anual pan-African convening of inventors aiming to foster creativity and African independence.  This year, one proposal in particular is garnering a lot of attention.  Four young women  (between the ages of fourteen and fifteen) have constructed an apparatus that uses urine to power a generator.

The invention uses some energy to initiate the process wherein urea is separated into nitrogen, water, and hydrogen.  From there the hydrogen is purified and pushed into the gas cylinder and then is pushed into the generator.  Through this process, 1 liter of urine will provide 6 hours of electricity.

One liter of urine = 6 hours of electricity

While critics on the internet have doubted the effectiveness of the invention and have criticized the fact that the process still requires some energy to begin creating energy, it is important to acknowledge the success of this idea.  These young women have gotten together and created a system that uses bodily waste and turns it into something more productive.  This is important for both gender equality internationally and to shift away from the predominance of Western countries stepping into the Global South and continuing Western imperialism through aid agencies.  Simultaneously, it is moving away from the use of fossil fuels and natural resources for the creation of electricity.  Furthermore, this invention can be further developed into an even more successful product that can be mass produced and distributed across the world.  Perhaps we can even start using it in the United States to decrease our dependence on natural resources.

As an invention, this generator gives me hope for the future because it proves that eco-friendly inventions are being developed across the world and not just in the Global North.  It also gives me hope because it is brilliant in its ingenuity.  These four young women have created this as teenagers, which means they have their whole lives to continue developing it and other ideas.  Perhaps the fate of the world resides in the hands of these young girls who have obviously been working hard over the past few years and have something to show for it.

Elemental Avengers: Introducing Thorium

Thorium is an element on the periodic table of elements named - you guessed it - after the God of Thunder, Thor. 

Joking aside, you'll notice Thorium is one away on the Periodic Table from "U" Uranium, which is the main element used to generate nuclear power - among other things.  A certain type of enriched uranium allowed for creation of nuclear weapons. Thorium, like Uranium, can be used to generate nuclear power.  However, Uranium "is only slightly radioactive...it's abundant...doesn't require costly processing, [and] it is extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel" as Richard Martin writes in a December 2009 Wired.com article.  Thorium's benefits don't stop there.  Martin goes on to write that Thorium:

 Leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste... that needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons (Martin, Richard; Wired.com).  

This element isn't new, either.  It was discovered in the 1950s, but at that time, Ken Silverstein writes that the "federal government made the fundamental decision to place its research and development funds into 'uraniaum' which could be also used to make nuclear bombs" in a April, 2012 energybiz article.  Remember that in this Cold War context, the government probably saw investing in Uranium as killing too birds with one stone; develop power for a growing nation, and weapons to fight the Soviet Union, with one element.  

However now, in the aftermath of Japan's Fukoshima meltdown, ever increasing energy requirements, the problems with the dumping of nuclear waste, and in the midst of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it might be time for a change.  Thorium, combined with a new type of reactor called a LFTR - Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor - that uses molten liquid fluoride salts to self-regulate and cool the reactor - would apparently virtually eliminate the possibility of meltdowns like Fukoshima (Martin, Richard; Wired.com).  

This chat below (also from the Wired.com article) shows the differences between standard Uranium reactors we have today, a potential Uranium and Thorium reactor, and the LFTR Thorium only reactor.

As you can see, Thorium is the clear winner in cost, cooling, proliferation potential and footprint.  

China and India have already begun to look into Thorium reactors to manage their own growing energy needs.  Thorium hasn't yet gained much momentum inside the United States, however, because of very real obstacles.  The US would effectively need to build new an entire new fleet of nuclear reactors in order to fully embrace Thorium, engineers would have to be retrained, and energy companies inside the US would need to be on board with this infrastructure change, or they would mostly likely suffer.  The startup costs would be huge, in a time where the American public doesn't want to see government spending.  

Despite the obstacles, Thorium gives me hope.  Cleaner, safer, more efficient nuclear power, combined with increased efforts in wind and solar technologies would give us a way to wean ourselves off of oil and coal, hopefully starting - at last - to curb the waste we currently flood our skies, seas, and earth with on an daily basis.  Thorium will not magically solve all of our problems.  But it is a step in the right direction, I think, and it is a possibility.  Even more encouraging is the China and India are moving to implement LFTRs.  If China and India succeed in their endeavors, more developing countries might start up with more efficient technologies in the first place.  

http://grist.org/food/with-real-food-calculator-students-take-prop-37-into-their-own-hands/

http://www.realfoodchallenge.org/calculator

The Real Food Calculator is a tool developed by the Real food Challenge that allows college students to evaluate the food purchased by their universities or colleges. The tool calculates how “real” the food is using a holistic scale which includes how sustainability it was produced, how fair the labor conditions it was produced under are,   and how it had to travel to reach the university. Students who use the calculator audit their school cafeteria and other eating establishment and then use the information they gather to make recommendations about how to make food purchasing more sustainable and “real.” The goal is to get universities to eventually sign onto a Real Food Campus commitment whereby they pledge to purchases at least 20% “real” food by 2020.

The real food calculator is exciting because it provided students with an opportunity to address global food issues on a community scale. The industrial food system as it exists today is detrimental to both the environment and human life. Monoculture crops and the exorbitant usage of pesticides and fertilizers have led to massive runoff and created massive dead zones in the oceans. The overproduction of corn and soy, particularly GMO corn has led to the creation multitudes of unhealthy over processed food-like substance. Further, labor practices in both the food service and farming/processing industries are some of the worst out of all US industry. Students can address these food and sustainability issues on their own campus and make positive, if incremental changes by altering how their university buys food.

The calculator is also exciting because its accounts for two of the major criticisms of the food movement: 1) that it is too focused on the individual and 2) that it ignores workers.  The food movement of Michael Pollan and other thinkers has tended to focus on what individuals should do to improve the health of themselves and their families. They can shop at farmers markets, avoid processed food, or start their own farm or garden. While these actions are beneficial they fall into what Maniates calls the individualization of responsibility whereby people try to address systemic problems by focusing on individual choice instead of larger systemic solutions.  By focusing on changing the purchasing of larger institutions and getting them to make “real” food as part of their governing policies students can have a much larger impact. Further, the food movement has often ignored the people who grow or cook food. The real food calculator takes labor practices to be fundamental part of its definition of “real.”

Environmental challenge: water crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/the-coming-global-water-crisis/256896/

Alexis C. Madrigal. “The Coming Global Water Crisis ”The Atlantic International Channel (blog). May 9, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2012

The Coming Global Water Crisis is a blog talks about different issues that lead to global water crisis. There arefurther problems that generated because of lacking fresh water resources. It also make projections for the future of the globe, which is that regions that have water-stressed problems right now, while maintaining the rapid growth of population that increased the demand for water; as well as the rapid meltingrate of the glaciers and snow pack on top of mountains. The water shortages will be much more severe in the future than itis right now. According to the Global Water Security report from U.S. Intelligence Community, the “annual global water requirement” will be 40 percent larger than the sustainable fresh water supply. The U.S. national security might threatenby the absence of proper interventions that regulated by policies related with water shortages. Social and political instabilities and even the failure of states may cause by intensive water shortages.

​There are several causes that linked to the water crisisthat are related with ecohydrology theories in this blog. He mentioned that the declining of the fresh water supply is the main dispatches of the Planet Earth. Rapid depletion of underground aquifers greatly damages the entire water cycle. Since there are enormous amount of water pulled out from theaquifers without proper evaluation about whether the groundwater can get enough recharge; especially in arid regions, people tend to dig deep wells to pull out more water, all of these reckless actions worsen the water shortage situations. This including the water that preserved in the aquifer for long time, which means that there are possibilities that the aquifer may never have the peticular source or any source to recharge of itself. Unregulated exploitation of groundwater greatly changes the ecosystems that depend upon groundwater. Trees that used to get water from their capillary system that is 20 feet below the ground, but now because of there are great amount of water depleted; the water table dropped a lot, trees’ roots cannot suck enough water to support them now.

Another important aspect we need to pay attention to is that the disappearance of the glacier and the snow packs,because majority of the snow pack on top of the mountains are the only source of water supply during dry seasons. Example would be Andes, where huge amounts of glacier disappear in past decades, the water supply severely impacted because of the disappearance of snow pack. The decreasing of water supply in dry season would affect the entire ecosystem as well as human who lived near by regions. With the onlywater supply gone, trees are not able to find water because they cannot move around. Some animals could survive by immigrating to further areas to find available water supply but same problem will happen with those supplies too in the future. Some animals couldn’t make it through and died on their water-hunting journey.

Besides the facts of the water supply decreasing, demand increase is another cause that leads to water crisis. The changing of our dietary preferences is a huge factor that used a lot of our limited fresh water. The middle class will be the major consumer by 2030, which is about 4.9 billionworldwide and most of them will arise from developing countries. People will have more money and they want to live a wealthier life. We will see a dramatic increase of demand for meat products than now, that requires more energy and water to raise livestock. In order to produce meat products, we need to keep animals by feeding them water and grain. The growth of grain requires water as well. We are now using double or even more water to get that slice of ham to consumers. Today, as much as 93% of water supply goes to agriculture sector that coming from varieties of sourcesincluding river, lake and groundwater. There will be great pressure coming from food production that on the water supply, which has already happen in some regions.

Alexis’ way of solving the water crisis is by signing more agreements. “Today, water basin agreements often do not exist or are inadequate.” From my point of view, I do not think that, signing agreements with countries sharing water basins would work in terms of solving global water crisis. Agreements may work with some countries that have violent conflicts by using diplomatic weapon. The reality is that non-state actors, terrorists and extremists may not be bind by agreements. Signing agreements may have some help to save water but it does not have the ability to constraint countries by law or military forces. It depends on conscientious of who signed the agreement. The effects of saving water are verylimited.

In order to save the world from water crisis, we need to develop water efficiency technologies and much more important is that, the spreading of these technologies globally. Education will help people realize the importance of water. By education, we can teach more people know about how to save water during the daily life. This will enhance the acknowledgement of water scarcity of much larger scale. Even though some Americans know about it’s important to save water, but very few of them actually put an effort to do that. Lacking support from the government and it’s too expensive to install new infrastructures that have high waterefficiency may be the obstacles that we encounter right now. From my point, I think proper governmental subsidy will also help to save more water from the national level. We need something bigger steps and actions, rather than minorindividual changes on the margins. We are adults and we know the price that needs to pay by starting with serious actions. When we facing with water crisis, it’s not a simple issue by as simple as taking shorter shower or use toilets that use much less water. Fundamental changes need to be done to save us from future water crisis.

The Native attitude

When I was in high school, I took a trip with my youth group to Ontario, Canada with a parish on an indigenous Canadian reservation.  For five days we stayed on the Six Nations reservation in Brantford, Ontario, the largest native Canadian reservations in the country.  We also spent several days in Toronto and stayed at Council Fire, a native Canadian cultural center in the city.  On the reservation, I had the chance to speak to many members of the Six Nations community and what really struck me was how their everyday lives are so closely integrated with nature.  The leaders and community members we encountered taught us about their culture and how it revolves around a deep reverence for the natural world.  At the church service I attended all of the prayers and the liturgy had references to the earth and our responsibility towards it.  So when our group did all sorts of outdoorsy things, such as kayaking the Grand River and biking around the Canadian countryside, I experienced it from a fresh perspective which made it that much more amazing.

I believe everyone has different motivations as to why we should "save nature".  For some it's economical and for others, like the Six Nations peoples, it's for religious/spiritual reasons.  My personal reason for wanting to preserve and protect nature is that I really enjoy experiencing it whether I'm hiking, biking or kayaking.  The outdoors are a place I can retreat to when I need to get away from city life, and I just feel rejuvenated whenever I've spent quality time there.  Despite this being my primary reason for wanting to "save nature" I've found that the majority of other people's arguments for it are also valid.  It's hard to make a case for why we don't need a healthy environment to live in, which is why we should be protecting it.

Saving Nature

            The Redwoods. Tall mighty old growths. The ground lush with spongey soil. As I walk through the forest my eyes are locked to the sky. I am in Northern California and the sky is a dull grey but I cant even tell for above my head is a vast network of branches and leaves and life. A lush humidity touches my skin as I breath in wonder…..

            The discourse surrounding the question of whether or not we should save nature is troubling in that it is based on two flawed assumptions. The first one is that we are separate from nature. In the tradition western view, humans, because they are rational beings are thought of as being able to transcend nature and the environment. Through technology and reason, humans were to be able to tame the environment and change it for their own conveniences. While people now tend to see the need for environmental protection, nature is seen as something “out there,” that we can visit but are not part of. This brings us to the second assumption: that nature can be secluded from human influence.  Environmental protection usually comes in the form of creating national parks or forest preserves. While these places are important sources of peace and well-being for people it is a fallacy to think that they are untouched by human activities. Thus I don’t think we should be asking the question “should we save nature.” Instead we should be asking ourselves how can we be better members of the ecosystem? Or how can we best help maintain biodiversity or natural beauty? 

Restoring Balance

... The slight breeze chills in the crisp morning air as she trudges up the steep incline of the grassy hill, toes of her hard soled leather riding boots sinking into the grass - damp from morning dew - as she digs in to keep from slipping.  She pauses a moment at the top to look over the wooden fence at the pasture beyond.  The horses stand idly in the morning, tails flicking the occasional fly, heads pointed to the ground either lipping at foliage or muzzle deep in a hay bale.  It is a lazy morning.  

The girl removes a halter from a wooden post of the fence, and moves to unlock the gate and enter the gelding's pasture.  She closes the door behind her, halter on one shoulder, wandering towards a bay thoroughbred gelding with a dark mane and tail.  She whistles softly, and his perk up as he lifts his head to look at her, attentive.  One hoof stamps at the ground. A smile plays its way into the soft lines of her face as she walked within arms reach of him and pats him on the neck as she slips the halter over his head and secures it.  He stamps again and tosses his head as she finished attaching the lead rope to his halter - food awaits in the stable, and he is eager to eat.  This is the routine. 

At the slightest pressure on the lead the bay gelding follows the girl.  She leads him through the pasture, past the run-in that shelters the horses when it rains, around the large half-eaten hay bales.  As she rounds the corner with the bay gelding at her shoulder, the ground trembles and heaves as a thunderous mass of deep brown muscle surges past, a hands breath from colliding with her.  The girl's heart leaps into her throat as she looks up at the darker horse, another thoroughbred.  He is the epitome of equine, nostrils flared in the cool air, sides expanding from his morning jaunt - ears upright and alert as his minute twitches and shifts of weight ripple through his muscular body, from shoulders to hindquarters.  He is beauty, he is power, he is speed.  His attention drifts away for an infinitesimal instant, and he rolls forward with sound and fury, rearing up before roaring into a gallop - again mere breaths from the girl's chest - vanishing into the back of the pasture as the clamor of his hooves echoes into the still morning. ...

I count myself lucky to have had many 'thrilling/magical/enchanting engagements with the non-human world' in my life so far.  My all time favorite family vacation (well, until visiting Italy this past spring) was one to Shenandoah National Park.  I still remember looking out from the top of a precipice with my dad, after hiking a long mountain trial through the forest and being absolutely floored by the beauty of the valley below me.  During my study abroad semester in Jordan, I saw breathtakingly desolate expanses of desert with great red monoliths of tableaus rising from them; grand mountain ranges with fear-inspiring drops and canyons, and some of the most verduous plant life I have experience.

None of these suited my purposes, though.  Nature is beautiful - but all of the sites I have seen border the humanist perspective.  What did these great vistas do for me?  They inspired me. I found them thrilling, magical, enchanting.  In most all of the respects immediately above, I was a tourist, traveling to these sites to enjoy them. The first vignette, however, was a powerful - frightening - reminder of my humanity.  I was the girl in the pasture.  The darker gelding - we call him Junior - who galloped past could have trampled me in that moment.  In that instant, he was in control.  It was a powerful reminder of balance.  Humanity prides itself on its intelligence, its creativity, its ingenuity.  We forget that, despite all of that, we are essentially weak.  We are not faster, bigger, or stronger than many species on our planet.

We should concern ourselves with 'saving nature' because we need to be reminded that our world is one of balance.  Human beings are just another mammal - granted, a mammal that has taken control over much of the world, and proliferated it in a way I don't believe any other species has - but we are a part of the cycle, and even up until now there has been little respect for that fact.  'Nature' has existed for millenia before humans appeared on the earth, and will no doubt continue to - in some form - long after we are gone. Why do we, as humans, believe we have any right to interfere with the natural order as it has existed since the creation of our planet?  Sometimes we need to be reminded of our place in order to concentrate on putting the natural world back into balance, if that is even possible with all the irreparable damage that has been done.

Nature and us.

I wanna talk about a recent experience that I had with the non-human world, which is the most magical engagement that I had during college. Due to the fact that I live on campus, it’s not allow to keep pets in dorms. In order to have some “pets” as well as for my research purpose at first place, I purchase some bush beans seeds from whole foods and start to plant them in small pots. I used to keep some plants at home, which that already mature enough to sell on the market. This is my first time of planting from seeds. This feeling is really interesting comparing with just watering some plants that purchase from the market. I planed to use these seeds as my experiment subjects and the purpose is that to examine whether there is a relationship between plants growth rate and carbon dioxide emission.

          

            I started with soaking them in water for one night and then plant them. What is very disappointed is that most of the seeds did not sprout. So I searched online about planting technique, then I finally get about 8 out of 10 seeds sprouted. This process is like taking care of a baby. You can observe the growth of a seed, how it get sprouted, how it grow up quickly and you can observe all the changes that happened with it. I like to play a trick that changes the direction of plants that facing with the sunshine. Within hours, the plants will react with it by changing the directions. This process makes me feel something that I grow and I plant, and see it grow up. It's really exciting to watch the whole process that a rice size seed can grow up as a 10 inch tall plant in 20 days. The only thing that I did is watering the plants regularly and make sure that they get enough sunshine by put them along the window. All of the work was finished by these tiny seeds. The whole process remind me of how precious the foods that we eat are. Vegetations start with seeds and then sprout, flourished and produce foods that we need. We should not waste food especially meat products, because it requires even larger amount of energy and water and nutrients comparing with the production of vegetations.

            I think we should concern about saving nature. As this week’s reading, we put ourselves in the wrong position in nature. Nature should not be something that we want to conquer but we are part of it as well as we are a product of it. Human history is a blink of eye comparing with the history of nature, even though we made tremendous changes of nature; this did not make us anything superior than nature. It’s hard to predict what nature will do to us. Just like how things happen in the hurricane Sandy. People can tell the power of nature from how powerful and how damage it could be. We are so tiny when we facing with the force of nature. We should concern about our future in terms about how we should place ourselves in the nature. We can never beat the nature, we should be respectful to it as well as protecting it. It’s our mother and home. We should not do harmful things to it.

A vision of food

Currently our food system is organized around the idea the food is a “commodity” to be “produced” by a few specialized individuals for the rest of society.  Much of our food is grown on large scale industrial farms and then funneled to a small number food companies which process the food and ship it to the consumer. Thus the food we consume is completely removed from the ecological and social context in which it grown and becomes a nothing but a “product-for-consumption.”  In spite of the fact that everyone must consume food, only a very small percentage of people actually participate in this process.

I hope that the next 50 year will see a dramatic shift in this food system. Part of this shift will be radical relocalization of the food system. In urban and suburban areas, rooftops and abandoned plots will be transformed into agricultural space for community gardens or urban agriculture operations. There will be hydroponic and aquaponic systems in large workplaces, schools, and homes to provide meals those who attend them. Rural areas, which used to focus on monocropping, will now focus on biodiversity and maintaining a local ecological balance. Farmers markets will replace supermarkets as the dominant place for the purchase and trade of food. This is not to say that national or international trade of food should not occur at all, it should just occur on a less massive scale then now. Local food will replace industrial food as the norm, while industrial food will replace local food as the exception.

The way in which people relate to the earth and food will undergo a radical change as well. Our current food system is linear. Food is produced, consumed and the excess is thrown away. This has led to the production of large amounts of waste and ecological harm. Our new vision will be circular, as waste is minimized and reuse emphasized. People will have a better intuitive understanding of how their agricultural actions affect the larger ecosystem. Inedible food waste will be composted, while excess food will be given to those who are hunger instead of thrown away. People will see food, not a as commodity, but instead a community resource and giver of life

Gardening and agriculture will become part of our common life, as more people than before will take part in growing and producing food. Agriculture will be integrated into the public school system, and school will run their own gardens and food operations. Community Colleges and University will offer more courses in practical gardening and agriculture. This is not to say that everyone will become a full time farmer, but working for a few hours in a community, workplace, or school garden will be considered a valuable use of time that is rewarded.

Our new food system will based on the idea of fresh, healthy food as a human right, to be grown by communities for communities. While in our current food system decisions about what crops are grown and how they are to be regulated are imposed from the top down, with corporations and regulators making most of the decisions. Our new food system will be community-centric, as communities will be able to make their own decisions about what type of foods will be grown.  Further food will be considered a human right, not something whose control can be ceded to market forces or corporations.

Food of the Future

Increased globalization has resulted in massive amounts of food imports from outside of the United States.  Americans literally have a world of choices at their fingertips when they shop at a supermarket because a large amount of our meat and produce comes from other countries.  Traditionally seasonal items are now available year-round for us to purchase at any time.  Our increased globalization is heavily tied to rapid technological advancements.  In the case of food production, current examples technological integration include hybrid seeds, fertilizers, pesticide resistant GMOs and synthesized meats.  A possible vision 50 years from now, is shift towards lab-produced food with less dependency on traditional agriculture.

It's very difficult to say exactly what Americans will be eating 50 years from now and where it comes from, but we can be certain it will be very dissimilar from today.  The American diet is currently drastically different from what is was several decades ago.  We are currently incorporating larger amounts of "food-like substances" into our diets than generations prior ever have before.  There also have been great improvements made in food sanitation within the past 50 years.  Robert Paarlberg's article on organic food and world hunger points out that industrial-scale technical improvements have made American foods significantly safer over time.  Since 2000, instances of E. coli contamination in meat has dropped 45%.  Surveys from the Centers for Disease and Prevention also show that most fatalities and hospitalizations from unsafe food in the United States today are due to mishandling or improper preparation inside the home. 

A trend that could possibly take off in the future is artificial meat grown in laboratories.  One statistic from an article in The Guardian discussing the future of food says that 70% of the grain and cereal grown in the United States are fed to farm animals.  As more animals take up land space and more crops go towards feeding them, this option would use much less water, energy and land than our current method of harvesting livestock.  The United States is currently the highest meat-consuming nation in the world but other developing countries, such as China, are catching up.  Much like the green revolution in the 1950s, artificial meat could feed a larger number of people using fewer resources.  Transportation may also prove to be easier because it would take longer to perish and could allow for more storage time.

Converging Interests: A New Food Supply

Avenging the environment does not require a sacrifice of our national interest.  In fact, in the next fifty years I hope we see a convergence of environmental issues with national security issues.  To demonstrate this, I focused on a vision of a more secure and environmentally friendly the food supply chain for the United States food chain, fifty years in the future.

As it stands now the food supply chain in the United States is largely centralized.  Large corporations control processing plants that the majority of the foods that end up - in one form or another - on our grocery shelves must go through regardless of where they were locally grown.  Local farming does still exist in our country, but on a minuscule scale compared to the big business farms.  One of the issues of this centralization is the inherent weakness it brings in regards to national security.  If these mammoth processing plants were attacked, the United States food supply chains would be in disarray and shortages would quickly follow.

To protect our food supply and the well being of citizens, in fifty years the United States would have regional food hubs instead of a centralized system.

Within these regional food hubs, each section of the country would focus on the local crops that grow well in their area, be it using large swaths of land for pasture for livestock, tropical climates for fruits, or adequate rain and mild temperatures for corn and other crops.  Each region would aim to supply itself with the crops it could cultivate - in laymen's terms -  each region would depend on local farmers for its food.  In the public, farming would be held in high regard again, and work and school schedules would be such that even small local gardening of simple vegetables and fruit was encouraged at the family and community level.  

When a region cannot cultivate a certain type of crop within their land, they would simply buy that crop from another regional hub that does specialize in the crop they want.  For example, if Maine wanted oranges from Florida, the Northeast Regional Hub would trade something they cultivate - say, corn - for oranges from the Southeast Regional Hub.  Changes in culture would push communities to value seasonal foods over non-seasonal foods to keep the focus on locally domestic grown foods as opposed to flying out of season fruits around the world just to keep them in stock.

These regional hubs would be managed by the United States Government, and to encourage food both staying in the country and being bought locally as opposed to globally, the government would offer incentives for corporations and business owners that stayed within the regional hub framework.  

Overall, this system would cut down on carbon emissions because less food would be traveling across the country and across the world to satisfy niche American tastes.  It would also foster communities and 'greener' living as farming culture would be integrated into modern life in every aspect, and valued as a honorable and absolutely necessary profession.  As farming life becomes modern, and communities are living with it in their front and back yards, livestock abuses would hopefully diminish because chickens, cows, and pigs wouldn't be hauled off to a kill yard in the middle of the country, they would be visible in the community.  

Lastly, this regional food hub system would make the United States food infrastructure less vulnerable to attack and collapse.  With five regional areas being mostly self-sufficient and relying on local business, an attack in California would not mean devastation in Maryland.

The regional food system I have described as happening in the next fifty years is admittedly idyllic, and I'm sure I have ignored many structural and political factors that would make this vision problematic.  I paint this gilded image to poke at the problem. Our current food system should alarm people.  It is vulnerable to attack, there are many injustices built into it.  The mere difficulty of tracking food back to its source is concerning in regards to the public health and keeping our food clean and safe.  I have suggested one avenue to explore in regards to improving our food system for all involved.  Dare to dream bigger than I have.  

In next 50 years.

Fifty years from now, there will be even less people working in the cropland comparing with what we have right now. From planting seeds to harvesting, the entire production process of food will be totally done by machine. We need only couple of people run the farmer company that may responsible for 1000 acres or much bigger area of cropland. Their only duties may only be check the status of machines in the cropland, enter command code into the planting system; irrigation frequencies and amount, pesticides application time, how much of the sunshine needed for crops will be accurately calculated. They don’t need to go to croplands at all since there will be different kinds of machine monitoring the growth of plants and do proper adjustments based upon the real time monitor observed. There will be barcodes attached with foods that coming from these lands so buyers are able to check the entire growing process online based on the codes they have. On the other hand, the production will increased for having multiple layers of “land” in same place. The layers of cropland will be shifted in order to have same amount of sunshine. The shifting will be calculated by the computer system automatically, which allow a more accurate outcome. With the population increasing in next 50 years. The city will take more land than now and there will be much more smaller size cities emerged as well. This may lead to the fact that the shipping distance for foods decreasing a little bit. But on the other hand, available cropland become further and further away from the central of cities that will increase the mileage of food. The way to use all the available space for food may include that using building roofs and building land on the top of parking lot to plant foods, which may be the food sources for local communities’ farmer market.  

On the consumer side, we can order the foods we need online and system will find the food with best price and also smallest mileage. The food we ordered online will be delivered to our home so that we do not have to drive to buy food. The quality and price are guaranteed. For people who cannot afford to buy fresh food, there will be another substitutes for that. It has low price but enough nutrients, calories and proteins inside of it. It is easy to preserve and also carrying around. My guess is that it would be something like a beverage and there are lots of different flavors in it. It uses the foods that are not sold but still fresh that blend all kinds of food together? 

Technology: A prescription with serious side-affects

Technology is completely integrated in my everyday life.  To give you an idea of how ever-present it is, I will outline my typical morning routine: Wake up to the sound of my alarm on my iphone, hit the snooze button two or three more times until I finally decide to get out of bed and turn on the lights.  The room is stuffy and hot so I'll turn on the a/c while I'm up.  I then go to the kitchen to flip on the hot pot to boil water.  I pour water for tea and instant oatmeal for breakfast.  As I'm eating, I check my email on my laptop.  After breakfast, I'll get changed and head out of my apartment with headphones plugged in, listening to my iphone on the way to class.  This routine requires me to use 5+ different types of technology, from my personal phone and laptop to all of the devices installed in my apartment, just within the first 15-20 minutes of my day.  While all of this is going on I don't even stop to think about all of the technology that went into the creation of my iphone and macbook or the light fixtures and air conditioning unit.

While the American public generally views technology as being a positive force overall, it is important to remember that it can just as easily be turned into a negative one.  In this era, mankind can research and develop vaccines to save millions of lives, or use medical advancements to create biological weapons and wipe out millions.  These examples require certain motivations behind their implementation, but in the case of global warming, our techno-centric way of living has its negative consequences despite how positive we view its role in our lives.  There is a clear correlation between industrialization and the amount of carbon dioxide we end up putting in the atmosphere.  Whether we like it our not, technology is going to play a major role in the progression or regression of global climate change.  It has been predicted that if we continue to consume at our present rates, we may face an unsustainable Earth in our future.  The question we face is: how much am I willing to alter technology's presence in my life to slow the warming of our planet?  Global warming is a collective action problem, so if citizens of the world don't act as one, we shouldn't expect to see any results.

As we face the consequences of global climate change, methods to remediate the damage we've done may be found in future technology.  If this proves to be the case, then we may be able to credit human ingenuity in creating technological advancements to make the world a better place to live.  But we must not forget the negative impact high technological consumption has had on our planet through pollution, increased carbon dioxide emissions and many other planetary repercussions that come with global warming.  Either way, if a technological solution to global warming presents itself, we cannot return to our current state of consumption without harming the planet.   

Technology: Our Savior or our Doom?

As my colleagues on this blog have all mentioned, technology has developed rapidly over the past few decades.  Even looking back to the 1990s when most people did not have computers or access to internet in their homes, now a sizable amount of the population has access to the world wide web on their portable cell phones.  We really cannot even fathom where technology will go in the next five years, let alone the next fifty.  Technology in reference to the destruction of the environment has two different parts to play.

The first part is how the development of technology contributes to environmental degradation.  Since technology develops at such a rapid rate, the Western world has face a phenomenon of technology we bought, but a few years ago, becoming irrelevant and outdated.  For example, the development of cell phone technology tends to lead folks to buy a new phone every two years in the United States.  This is usually encouraged by cell phone contracts lasting only two years, and also by the fact that most cell phones fall apart or stop working somewhere around the two year mark.  That means that any one person who gets their first cell phone at age 20 (thought many get one before that age) and if they continuously have a cell phone until they turn 70, they will go through 25 cell phones in a life time.  This is assuming that no phones get stolen, broken, or water damage during one's life time.  Twenty-five cell phone is a lot of waste, but also involved a lot of production.  A lot of energy goes into the creation of technology, which is then used and abused by the public.

The second part of how technology is involved in environmental issues is that since it is developing so quickly, technology could help us save the planet, or at least make it possible for people to keep living on it.  It really depends on your goal of if you want the planet Earth to survive, or if you only care about  people living on, but regardless technology's speedy evolution could actually solve the mess that human race has gotten every species on this planet in to.

There is no real way to know which way technology will contribute most effectively with.  Perhaps a combined effort of reducing the common person's consumption whilst pouring time, money, and energy into technological development for saving the environment will be a successful tactic.  Or perhaps more and more people will get sucked in to the newest iPhone craze and we are all doomed. Who knows?  The one thing that is certain is technology has and will continue to impact our future.

Technology Depends on Structure

 It is impossible to say anything about technology in the abstract. Some, often referred to as “cornucopians” have tried to argue that technology is inherently beneficial to both the climate and society; while it may cause temporary problems, continued technological growth will eventually solve all the problems it creates. Others have argued that technological growth because it is accompanied by economic growth and consumption necessarily increases environmental impact. I would argue instead that technology is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful. Instead it is entirely contextual as different technologies will interact in different ways with both the climate and society depending upon the social, political, and environmental contexts they are developed and deployed in.
Take GMO crops for example. GMO crops are often touted as technologies which will both decrease poverty and hunger, by increasing crop yields, and decreasing irrigation and environmental problems. While the potential might exists for gmo technologies to provide these benefits, for the most part they have not as many areas that adopt them suffer even worse environmental problems. (For instance, Mexican farmers who have planted GMO maize which produces its own pesticide have seen the development of “super bugs” which are resistant to the pesticide). With the introduction of GMO crops, farmers are encouraged to which to Western style monocroping, which leads to erosion and soil degradation. Further, because GMOs are often patented by a company, farmers are banned from saving their seed and often have to pay high premium for the “rights” to certain crops. This has created a cycle of dependency and debt which turn farmers into corporate vassals. Why in this case is technology harmful? GMO technology is owned and controlled for the most part by corporate interests such as Monsanto, who are concerned mostly with profit. Thus, for the most part they produce GMO crops which are designed to benefit them primarily. For instance, Monsanto makes a series of crops which are designed to be resistant to Roundup pesticide, which they also own.  GMO crops because of the context they exist in.
However, other technological advancements such as improvements in municipal recycling do seem to benefit the environment and society at large. This is because the technologies are utilized as a public service. Further, the internet, while it require the use of electricity, has greatly increased the ability of new environmental ideas to spread. Many environmental NGOs and activist have successfully used the internet to increase the reach of their ideas in ways never before possible. The internet, as concept is relatively cheap and accessible to a large amount of people. Thus it has a larger potential to be a force for environmental and social good.
Other technologies such as appliances, cell phones and other personal items, tend to be harmful to the environment because they are created and used in the context of consumerism. Consumerism encourages people to consume large amounts of stuff, most of which they will throw out in a few months. Further it encourages people to ignore the origins of their products and the environmental harm their production has caused.
Overall, it appears that because much of the technology we use exists within the context of corporate greed, consumerism, and industrial capitalism, it tends to be harmful to the environment. That is not to say that it is inherently harmful however. If you change the social structure in which technology is embedded, you will change its effects.

Technology: a life saving straw?

It's hard to simply make a judgment about technology when we talk about its position in the environment. The invention of light help people to see clearly during night, but it causes light pollution that impacts animals. The invention of car, airplane and trains help us getting much further away places in much shorter time, but they causes serious air pollution and also severe depletion of fossil fuel. the invention of varieties of electronic devices that help us a lot during daily life, but also generate enormous amount of electronic wastes that pollute the environment. The invention of plastic water bottles allow us carrying water with us no matter where we go, but tons of plastic bottles piled up everywhere. Whether the technology is a negative or positive force in our lives depend upon how we are going to use it. It is a tool for us to use not something that will dominate our future. I think the best example of it is the nuclear power plant, where is we use it properly, it can generate enormous amount of energy that supply our energy instead of burning coal to get electricity. on the other hand, the nuclear power also generates hazardous wastes that are very difficult to deal with. For some unstable countries and terrorists, nuclear power has become a powerful weapon to help them strive for hegemony. The whole debate about technology is like the coin has two sides. There are negative aspects of technology though there must have something else that have positive impacts of it.

As the I=PAT equation mentioned, the environmental impacts that we have are decided by population times human affluence and technology. We can tell from this that technology plays an important role in terms of environment. When we talking about environmental protection, we can not eliminate the impacts of technology that it will have over the entire issue. The level of technology determines the degree, the range and the area that we may influence, which under most circumstances, by damaging and over exploiting the resources. This kind of going to the debate of whether the developing of new technologies is compatible with environment protection. Facing with the situation right now, I think technology would work in a more positive way for correcting the mistakes that we made before. If we made changes of our current technologies to make them have higher efficiency, save more energy and pollute less; these all the benefits that we get from improving our technology. If we use technology in a more reasonable and environmental friendly way, technology will have bigger positive force than negative forces. In order to use it in the right way, stronger regulations and policies that aiming at different technologies needed to be done before the technologies spread to the entire world because once it get widely spread, it will be difficult to control people how they will use it.