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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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!).
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!).
Thursday, February 21, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)