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.