Eat good food, eat good food, eat good food!

When I purchase and consume food, the environment is usually somewhere in the back of my mind, and not at the forefront. Cheap eats are my top priority since, as everyone has been saying, I'm just a lowly, broke college student. Though I try to purchase and prepare my own meals as much as possible, this is at times difficult due to my schedule of work and class. When I eat out, I usually just go for what tastes good. It is hard for me to think about the environmental costs of production that go into the preparation of my meals, since most of the time I have no idea where this food comes from. I assume, therefore, that the environmental impact of the foods prepared for me is negative.

When I think about the environment when I make food choices, I try to purchase and consume food that has the lowest production costs. To say that products are locally grown is more important to me than saying that they are organic. Eating organic doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be spending more money, but this, more often than not, seems to be the case. I couldn't imagine buying all of my groceries at Whole Foods when a six-pack and a reasonably sized portion from the salad bar easily costs 18 bucks. I doubt if shopping only at Whole Foods will actually help the environment at all. I'd rather just buy things that are locally grown.

I remember when I was very young waking up early on the weekend and going to the farmers market down the street and the local fish and meat markets with my parents. As a small child, it was a fun time, and I remember eating some really good tasting fruits, and meeting all kinds of great people. By the time I was elementary age, we had moved out of the city, and I haven't been to a farmer's market since. I'm sure there are some in DC, but I've yet to check them out. Waking up early on a Sunday isn't the easiest thing to do for me either. Willie Nelson and Neil Young once told me that this was the right thing to do. Perhaps that's what it's going to take to make the world a little more greener.

Green Eggs and "Green" Ham

In my food selection the predominate thought is that of health rather then environment. If I choose more organic products it is more due to the fact that i want to be eating a healthy product rather then an environmentally healthy one. Post my consumption and learning of how these products are more "Green" I am glad that I did purchase them and choose to consume them, however, in my decision making process the environment is not my priority. Its difficult changing your consumption pattern. Its a change in mentaility, the core of how we think and act. I eat what will taste good.

After taking the quiz in the beginning of the semester about how many worlds we would need if everyone lived like us (in which we would need 3.5 for everyone to live like me) and my greatest impact was consumption. I don't believe there is an excuse for this lifestyle, yes it is mainstream, there are difficulties of being a college student, lack of knowledge, etc. But as a culprit of not considering my impact I continue to do so anyways. My diet of the last few days has been nothing out of the norm but I can't imagine Chipotle having a postive environmental impact.

Another issue when it comes to choice is what is the better one? If its organic does it make it more 'Green'? These are questions that most don't know the answer too. In our society frozen foods, fast food, easy to cook meals are the target of marketing. You can heat up a full meal in just a matter of minutes that you didn't have to cook! The ease in which families can eat dinner makes life simple and quick. Another issue is not only choice but the volume of consumption. I must admit that I do eat a lot. I weigh about 210 lbs, I'm active, and I'm a college student. I like to eat. The amount of calories is a detriment on the environment because the demand forces more land to be cultivated, faster, depleting the soil and its nutrients.

There are answers. There are better choices that I can make.

Why can't green food be more friendly on the green in our wallets?

I am sorry to say that I usually don’t think about the environment when I am making my food choices. I think the biggest deterrents to buying more green products are price and the infrastructure. As a student, buying organic and all-natural products is so difficult because we don’t have extra money to burn on those products (they are usually noticeably more expensive). Also, the society we lives with food that is wrapped in fancy packaging, imported, and loaded with preservatives. It is hard to get around that. So, instead, I shop for what I will get the most use of at cheap prices.

As I am looking at my “Made in Guatemala” Chiquita banana, I think about how this one fruit has probably caused so much negative environmental backlash. First of all, it came all the way from Central America, which right there has such a negative impact because of the distance it took to transport it. Second, Chiquita bananas, like most commercial bananas, are probably grown in a huge sack of pesticides. All of which are probably not disposed of in the most eco-friendly way, and then run off into rivers and streams. All this and my bananas were so green (meaning under ripe, not environmentally friendly) that I haven’t been able to eat them for days!

But that is not all. I buy lettuce and I get it in those pre-chopped packages. Why not buy a whole head of lettuce and save on all the fancy packaging? I don’t know. Maybe because usually those bags of salad are usually cheaper and easier to use. I know that I don’t shop very greenly, but it is hard when we live in such a consumer society (excuses, excuses…I know!).

Technology will save us all...and dreams will come true

Technology will not solve our current environmental predicament. I think it will only prevent it from growing at the exponential rate that it is now. As technology improves and reduces our 'footprint' on the environment, it has not found a way to reverse the damaging effects we have caused over the past few hundred years.

Automotive technology, for example, is advancing at rates that have not seen since the gas shortage of the 1970's. Then, we changed from large, heavy, powerful cars to smaller, more efficient ones. Currently we are seeing another automotive revolution where we are moving towards cars that use hybrid or ethanol technology. These progressions, while good for reducing emissions will not reverse the effects of the past, with Hummers that get very few miles per gallon.

These technologies will have an effect on us as consumers however. As of now, a hybrid car is more expensive than its gas counterpart. Technology needs to advance to a point where it makes things better and at the same time is readily available to all consumers. Once that happens technology will help us more and only then will we really start resolving our environmental crisis.

Human technology

It is my belief that ultimately, technology is a positive force. If it isn't, then we are truly doomed, and I'd rather remain in the mindset of idealism. Technology is, in my opinion, an extension of ourselves as humans. It is the product of our collective ingenuity, efforts and innovations. Our technology reflects our capacities to create and progress socially and economically. The search for new and greater technologies is one of the supreme accomplishments and goals of mankind. Philosophical ratings aside, technology is our tool for improving our well being and making life easier. It does not make sense to say that what is needed is less technology as this is utterly impossible. The pace at which our technology improves and progresses will never slow down; as new technology comes out we will use it, as we should. We are, after all, only human. We need to think about the ways in which technology will make our lives easier.

Some will argue that technology separates us from our environment and our society, making us less human and leading us to our ultimate doom. Just ask H.G. Wells. Environmentally speaking, as technologies improve and life becomes easier and easier, we are more likely to forget about our environment. Technology can and does breed apathy. Therefore, I agree that technology can be both good and bad. But, alas, it is time for a change.

No longer can technology promote apathy. It must, instead, encourage action. If technology is truly an extension of ourselves, it must reflect our ideals, and must bring us closer to the environment in which we live. It must become a reflection of our collective environmental conscience. Our technological innovations must fall in line with our hopes of a greener planet. It all comes back to our shifting mentality and mindset about the environment. I agree that our collective voices must stand up and say that we want these technologies now, not tomorrow or ten years down the road. In my mind, the question should not be whether technology is good or bad, or whether we need more or less of it. Rather, we should start thinking about whether technology can truly be a reflection of our ideals, and whether it can encourage less consumption. Regardless, technology is here to stay and will forever advance at a phenomenal rate. It is our duty to keep it in check and reflective of human innovation.

Living in individual habitats

I think we are supposed to respond to eachothers blogs now? So I suppose I will do that....

I think that it is a valid point to say that technology itself can be good or bad, even at the same time. When we say that a certain technology can help alleviate our emissions that is a good thing but when do we see the positive effects of such a technology? Do we use it correctly? How do we ensure that everyone uses it?

That seems to be the biggest concern, that Hillary brought up, which are incentives. Does the government have the only hand in giving incentives to being more green? For using environmentally friendly technology (which we do have) are tax incentives the best thing we have? What about shareholders of a company? They have the power to invest in only environmentally friendly corporations, or to press that the firm they are investing in to develop/use said technology.

Far to often, we as individuals say we may do our part and throw the coke can in the recycling bin but large amounts of pollution stems from factories, cars, etc. We assume the government will pass a magical piece of legislation, enforce it, and all will be better. While we need the laws an dthe government to take action we can't simply wait for that. The voice of the majority needs to say in unison that we need to use these pieces of technology to ensure our own survival and the sustainability of what we have now for the future. At the individual level we can make sure our own actions are that of environmentally mindful, however, there is much more we can do. We can join and help in different NGOs that work towards a greener world. We can pressure congress to move forward on legislation today rather then years from now. We can produce better facts and use a 'scare'tactic (even though this seems to be whats happening now). We can donate money. We can only purchase technology that is the best for the environment.

We discussed in last class the market and economy being the driving force. Its a reciprocal relationship. We purchase these new products because there is a high supply, to meet the high demand. Its economics but we are the agents that create the market. We can change our preference which will change what is marketed. Its happening already, car commercials, etc. These are the changes that need to grow in volume. We can change our perception and the promotion of clean technology can help but we are the actors that need to be that change. We are the ones that innovate and create new technologies.

In "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," I agree with Michael Maniates argument that the public needs to take more action than what is being publically promoted. As part of the campaign for green action, environmentalists appeal to us by making environmental actions seem immediately, if we choose to take them. For example, switching to more eco-friendly light bulbs automatically lowers cost for the consumer because they last longer and use less electricity. But, is that enough?

Our social drives to environmental change leave us only wanting to act in away that benefits ourselves, instead of looking for long-term changes. We need to make society based changes. The media tries to portray environmentalism as posh and something "cool" because some celebrities are taking action, but they aren't superheroes. Emulating them isn't going to make the impact we need. True, action is better than no action, but BIG actions are better than small actions. It is going to take a long time for society to adopt large measures, such as cutting back on carbon emissions, because those require a large overhall of everyday activities, such as driving.

The article adresses this issue, but doesn't really offer up any solution to help motivate the masses. Ditching your car and buying a more eco-friendly one might decrease carbon emissions, but dumping an old car in a land fill isn't much more environmentally friendly. It needs to start from the top. If corporations start making more eco-friendly options for consumers, then they will be a lot more likely to adopt them in the future.

A quote from one of our readings said, "We do not inheret the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." I think that quote really speaks to this article and for how our thinking about political action is not creating many long term effects. As the article said, recycling and cutting back on shower times has a more positive effect than a negative one, but it is not enough to create a lasting impact.

The First Steps

The ideas Michael Maniates sets forth in his op-ed are quite simple: individual actions that seek to conserve will not be enough to reverse the effects of environmental degradation. Shorter showers, cool light bulbs, and recycling is just not going to cut it. We need to start thinking in terms of sacrifice and fundamental changes. This is not to say that these individual choices are not important; if we do so, our collective action can slow the growth of environmental damage. Such simple actions are not counterproductive, but they do fall far short. These must be our first steps. This way of thinking is correct, as far as I'm concerned, but the real challenge comes when we start thinking about what steps to take next. How do we go from taking baby steps to adult-sized strides? How do we go from being "lazy environmentalists," to vigorous stewards? We need to sacrifice, but how and in what way? We, as Americans, need to start struggling together, and we need the political leadership to encourage us to do so.

Politicians care about the economy, and to say otherwise would be counterproductive. We always hear politicians talking about jump-starting the economy, encouraging us to consume more. They embrace economic ethos, whether they be neo-liberal or more protectionist in nature. But is it possible for our politicians to tell us to consume less? It's unlikely that this will ever come out in such words, but it is what needs to happen. As we know, the mindset of consumerism is entirely ingrained in our collective American consciousness. Our ultimate purpose is to consume, right? It's hard to think otherwise when you look around you. Take, for example, a little place known as Friendship Heights. When I first came to DC almost four years ago, I distinctly remember this area as a place where people went to buy expensive things. I've heard that the Bethesda/Friendship Heights area is one of the most desirable places to live. As more and more people continue to move here and get their cozy, high paying jobs, they obviously want to buy more things. If you look at this area today, every available inch of property is being filled with more and more designer shops and retailers. In just four years, the pace at which this consumer mecca has grown is quite astounding. And if our leaders continue to say the same things, nothing is likely to change. So what do we do?

In my mind, environmental change begins with the individual. We take our first steps by replacing our light bulbs and recycling. Then we each consume less, telling each other to do the same. But yet, our leaders say nothing of sacrifice. They speak of innovation and new technologies, but only very slowly implement change. It is our duty, therefore, to collectively demand action. We must put pressure on our government so that they start talking of sacrifice and stop pandering to our supposed "private, individualistic, and cost-effective" dispositions. We as Americans must let our leaders know that we are struggling together, and that we demand fundamental changes in transportation and agriculture systems today, not thirty years from now. Having taken our first steps, we must now seek to take that big step forward.

As we discussed in our small discussion groups this past Friday, can the government just simply enact policy that will be the driver of social change? The San Francisco example that Britney brought up about how the City government made plastic bags illegal sounded like an "easy" way to make sure that we do what we can for the environment; However, do we need the government telling us rather then showing or explaining the best way to effectively help the environment. I realize this isn't the main point of the article but I thought it was an appropriate comment that ties in with the article.

Maniates proposes that these "Three assertions permeate the pages: (1) We should look for easy, cost-effective things to do in our private lives as consumers, since that's where we have the most power and control; these are the best things to do because (2) if we all do them the cumulative effect of these individual choices will be a safe planet; which is fortunate indeed because (3) we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy." He contends that the easy solutions offered to us are to reduce consumption here or there and if everyone does it then we will make massive social change are not wrong but ineffective. He asks that instead of keeping this potentially cataclysmic environmental change which will be subdued and eased by small changes in our diet and consumer life style be explained with honesty in that we need drastic measures. He wants the experts and the government to stop hiding the true, ominous secrets. His final statements revolve around the fact that we are grown ups, we can handle it.

He is right. While we should continue to use eco-friendly products, the facts and figures disseminated by the supposed experts say that we will see dramatic shifts in our environment in a matter of years. Making small changes now will help in the far future, however, we need change NOW. The difficulty of this position is that what do we do? How can we make such drastic shifts in our habits? Maniates proposes, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." And that is absolutely correct. We need to focus on what is our source of energy. I think that will reduce emissions and pollutants emitted from vehicles (cars, planes, buses, etc.) as well as other technologies that require production (such as in factories). If we can change to Nuclear that is a first step. If we can cut our dependence on oil and use what makes America what it is, INNOVATION, to acquire a new set of technologies that is good for the environment then we can see high volumes of change. The only issue is can we make this new energy source affordable? To developing nations? If they need energy they will use coal and oil. Two products, especially if the US cuts its dependence will be drastically reduced in price. This is one point of contention, however, the US is one of the biggest polluters so if we can reduce our emissions then so can everyone else but we all do need to work together to achieve such a goal.

Environmental Platforms ...McCain vs. Hillary

Senator McCain and Senator Clinton have opposing environmental platforms. McCain, a republican, is, in my opinion, more human focused while Clinton, a democrat, cares more on an environmental level. Both have different plans for changing and improving our current state while they do agree that change is needed.

Senator McCain can be characterized as a market liberal. He supports a mandatory cap on emissions to lower carbon pollution and reverse global warming. He is also the only candidate to make global warming an issue in his campaign for president. By introducing a bill to cut emissions 65% by 2050 where an 80% cut is needed, McCain does not feel that there is a global environmental crisis.

Senator Clinton can be characterized as an institutionalist due to her plan to creat 5 million new 'green collar' jobs and create a new National Energy Council to impose her plan. She supports protecting our parks and wildlife for future generations and is an advocate for children's health. She opposes nuclear power but is willing to work with the problems that result from that form of renewable energy.

McCain clearly is more concerned with tackling our current environmental state. His track record in the senate shows that he stands up for the issues he believes in whereas Clinton opposes new drilling yet voted to allow new drilling off the Gulf Coast. McCain is also the only candidate to make global warming an issue on the campaign. Clinton also has, on many other issues, said one thing on the campaign trail yet proven she does differently when voting in the senate. At least McCain, agreeable or not, sticks with what he believes in and makes him more of a trustworthy candidate.

keeping it optimistic

I have chosen to examine the economic platforms of John McCain and Barack Obama.

To begin with, McCain seems to be very much so a market liberal in the environmental sense of the label. Like most market liberals, McCain seems to believe that a lack of economic growth, poverty, distortions and failures of the market are to blame for economic degradation. With statements such as, “A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy,” and that “History shows that poverty is a poor steward,” McCain is proving, at least through campaign rhetoric, that he is a market liberal proponent. In addition to this, if market liberals are more inclined to propose optimistic scenarios of the future, McCain’s adherence to “common sense” approaches to environmental stewardship by harnessing market forces to bring about technological advances to reduce our dependence on foreign oil rightly fit this mold. Environmental stewardship is patriotic, and if we, as Americans, stay true to our patriotic duties, our future will remain hopeful.

On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama sets forth a detailed plan that is also optimistic, while at the same time promoting specific solutions and time tables. Obama’s environmental idealism is based on his commitment to realistic solutions to ending our foreign oil problem and strengthening international institutions and forums to deal with climate change. For this reason primarily, Obama seems to be an Institutionalist. By restoring US leadership as a responsible promoter of environmental sustainability, Obama seems to be committed to the importance of US hegemony.

While it is difficult to rely on and maintain full belief in the platform statements of presidential candidates at this phase of the campaign, it is easy to draw distinctions between these two candidates. My personal biases withstanding, McCain’s statements seem very clear cut and more reliant on tired rhetoric. Obama’s platform seems immediately appealing, as it sets forth the major environmental problems, as well as specific steps to take and possible solutions. While it is important to remain optimistic, both as a presidential candidate and as a proponent of environmental stewardship, it is important to point out the need for sustainability and collective action. From this point of view, Obama’s platform seems to be talking the most sense.

The trees get no vote!

The two candidates I have chosen are Barak Obama and Mitt Romney.

Obama: "Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."

Romney: "The United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands."

These two candidates have different beliefs about the environment. The troubling thing to grasp is that its each candidate offers different solutions to seperate problems. While one, Obama, seeks to better our environment and reduce our ecological impact for the future welfare of Earths citizens; Romney wants to better the environment also but because it is for economic and security purposes so you only have to get to a certain level in order to attain that feeling of stabililty. Now to categorize the candidates. I don't think one term can correctly qualify for each candidate so the following is a spectrum on which I believe the candidates fall.

Market Liberal----Romney---------Institutionalist--Obama--------------------Bioenvironmentalist

I think these categories help to understand what actions the candidates may take, if elected to office and the reasons why. Knowing why the candidates will take certain action builds trust and faith in them. Do I personally think that Romney will put the environment at the forefront of his presidency no. I think he will work on legislation to help lead us away from energy dependence, however, the dedication and conviction does not seem to be as strong as Obama's.

Obama realizes the impact the US is having and wants to reduce carbon emissions, reduce energy dependence, and promote a cleaner future. These do seem to be the most in line with my beliefs, however, it could just lead to the exportation of ecological degradation to developing nations. Romney on the other hand in one of the Republican debates says that its not just an American Problem but a global problem in which we need make a global change. He does make a strong point here, however, we could be the leaders to become a world hegemon with strong environmental policies that we can export to other countries rather then just our waste and envionmental damage. Maybe if we get Gore back in as Vice-President we can really change our environmental policy and social stance towards global warming.

Week 2

People do want change. The overwhelming consensus from the American Public is protect the environment, however, few are willing to make the sacrifices to do so. Big business, the government is making small steps towards the ideal result of energy independence, and the individual are all voicing concern but a minority is taking action. This sense of apathy stems from the fact that we, especially as Americans, see few short term effects of Global Climate Change.

Scientists, environmentalists, and even politicians say that the ecological systems most susceptible to the warming of the earth will occurr in 2047 for example. I have seen certain documentaries and read articles detailing the current effects of Global Warming and the majority of negative effects are found in nations in Africa and South East Asia.

So in a simple answer the problem is most people do not feel or see global warming affecting their lives. Why are American so concerned about their security? Because the US was attacked on 9/11, lives were lost and the country showed its vulnerability. We are hesitant but often willing to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars on military and defense because we have seen what the "enemy" can do. But now the enemy is ourselves and we don't want to realize that.

THis leads into living environmentally friendly. I do believe that if everyone did it would make an impact whether small or large. Most people think of saving the environment not only for themselves but for their children and future generations. Living environmentally friendly is simply to take the environmental harm of each of your decisions into consideration. Every time you travel to work do you consider public transportation? When you take the trash out do you consider recycling? When asked to donate to Greenpeace do you?

THose are a few examples, everyone can contribute in their own way. The trouble is there really is no "one way" to be environmentally friendly. If people were told that if they changed all their lightbulbs to be energy efficient and that would in turn reduce CO2 by a certain percentage and this was backed by facts I think more people would do so. People need to be told what is the best way to help. I am not the most environmentally conscious. I don't try and abuse the environment of course but every decision I make does not consider the environmental harm I may have. But more often now I see what effects I could be having with my consumption, trash I put out, energy I waste, etc.