Quotes

"'If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.'"
From Hot, Flat, & Crowded
Thomas Friedman
p. 7 (quote from movie The Leopard)

"We cannot simply do nothing; neglect will not be benign."
From The End of the Wild
Stephen Meyer
p. 73

"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence." - Aldo Leopold, The Sand County Almanac

"These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive of the environment. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at almost any cost; enormous investment in technologies designed with little regard for the environment; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including profit from avoiding the environmental costs they create; markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by a worshipping of novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet--all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the planet's ability to sustain life." - James Gustave Speth, Bridge At The End Of The World

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

About the environment and our grasp

On the ride home from Philadelphia late into 2 am on Thursday, my dad brought up the topic of Global Warming.
He mentioned a recent article explaining that apparently quite a few scientists have been kept from stating their data that Global Warming wasn't affecting temperatures as much as scientists have claimed recently.
While I didn't read the study myself, it brought some realizations for myself.
Through the teachings and journals I have read about environmental issues, many of them revolving around predictions of damages in the future, how can I be sure that what I learn is correct without extensive research, meaning can I take anything for face value. I'd like to, I'd like to take my American History books for face value, but we've learned that they might not always be accurate. I wonder how what I have learned will play out in the future.
Later on my parents talked about my future in the environmental field. They wondered what the difference between environmental studies and science, I informed that if I become an environmental lawyer with a focus on an international level, I can help process and interpret current environmental law and push for more useful ones if need be.
I think, as I have learned from my parents in the past few years, if the word environment is used, it is automatically marginalized. If you use the idea of social justice or feeding the hungry or managing resources, these are listened to. It's because the environment isn't a separate issue, it's a concept that embraces all issues in itself; social, mental, physical, material, and immaterial.
In speaking to my parents, normally when I speak to my parents about the environment, it usually ends with my dad stating that science will solve everything and there is nothing I can do to convince him otherwise. However, I think two things have helped me in having better talks with him about the environment.
1. Framing environmental questions in terms of necessity rather than an "environment" theme. This means it'd be more effective to talk about flooding issues or food contamination rather than Global Warming or deforestation.
2. Studying more about the environment so that my dad assumes I am knowledgeable about the topic. My dad now talks to me about environmental issues because he knows I have been studying about environmental issues and gives me a set amount of respect.

Favorite Quotes

1. From Bill Mckibben's "Think Again Climate Change" article, "Unless climate change is de-ghettoized, the chances of making a real difference are small."

2. From Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. Chapter 6 "Bio-diversity": "Biodiversity doesnt only help us to live - it helps us to adapt."

Thanksgiving Conversations

Over Thanksgiving, I engaged my older brother in a conversation about the environment. I kind of went into it knowing that he would be the one that would be the most interesting to talk to, because while the rest of my family is pretty liberal and generally sympathetic to the environmental movement, my older brother is very conservative. So as I sat down to eat my Tofurkey for the first Thanksgiving ever, my brother asked me why I was a vegetarian. "Mainly for the environment," I said. This sparked a short discourse that covered topics such as organic food, climate change, and other issues pertinent to environmentalism. I found that my brother's views are mostly driven by one principle: self-interest. When I brought up the threat of rising sea levels for island states, he simply said that was their problem. He also said he refused to buy organic or natural foods because they were too expensive. So what do I think this says about try to present a convincing argument about environmentalism? In my case, I began to frame my argument in a way that emphasized government and corporate responsibility. I said that the government should subsidize green consumer options so they are more affordable. It was apparent to me that I could never convince my brother to become vegetarian or do anything intensive on the personal level. However, if I could convince him that we needed responsible policy, he would perhaps be more interested in the cause. When I mentioned increased business responsibility, he also had a hard time agreeing. His self-interested principles guided comments like, "well, a business needs to make as much profit as possible, and organic methods are more expensive." Again, I tried to convince him that the state needed to make these options that are currently fiscally unfavorable become a reality.

I think that when confronting someone about environmental issues, it is easy to become annoyed or angry, especially if they are seemingly ignorant about the issues. But I think what we need to do is make sure we take into account what kind of person we are dealing with: how do they feel on certain issues, what is their overall guiding ideology. This can better prepare us to frame a meaningful argument that makes environmentalism seem practical and compatible with their views. Don't offend or become defensive, note each one of their points and try to respond to it constructively. My conversation with my brother showed me that I could have an intelligent conversation on issues that I don't think he had ever even considered before. This is good news because we need to engage people, no matter what their political views, on the most important issue of our time. I think I am learning how to do that constructively and effectively.

Constructive Change?

From doing this exercise over Thanksgiving I saw the importance of not feeling like you have to convince everyone. I tried to keep in mind what Mike Maniates said in our video conference about how there are already enough people who believe in climate change and are concerned with it. We do not need to spend our time and resources educating people who do not seem to get it or do not want to accept what changes need to be made. This realization was especially important for me because had I tried to convince my grandmother or my great aunts and uncles then I think I would have had a completely miserable Thanksgiving.
It was very helpful to structure the talk I had with my cousin around the commercial. It was such blatant evidence of how the fuel companies are trying to manipulate scientific facts to maintain their consumer base in light of the recent environmental movement.
I concluded that its best to communicate with people about climate change in a calm way, using examples around you rather than trying to bring in abstract examples to illustrate a point. People do not respond well they feel targeted or accused of something so speaking in a general sense is also helpful. However, all these things help to facilitate conversations about what change needs to happen, its something quite different to cause actual change. I think to cause constructive change in our society the environmental movement needs to just bypass people like my grandmother and inject change right into the system with industry reform and clean energy alternatives.

Politics at the Dinner Table

Over Thanksgiving, I spoke to my Mom briefly about climate politics, but got very little useful feedback. Essentially, she acknowledged that "global warming" was a real issue, but she wasn't convinced that it was as severe as scientists make it out to be. She expressed her belief that carbon dioxide from cars and trucks should be reduced, but from my understanding, she didn't seem to understand that her lifestyle choices in consumption contributed to those emissions.

Drawing from more interesting conversations I've held with a friend of mine at AU, I believe that the most important thing to do in these discussions is to listen and remain as emotionally neutral as possible. Once the conversation becomes emotionally hostile, I feel that the stance of the environmentalist is oftentimes compromised beyond recovery.

After many, MANY heated discussions with my friend about how horrible her family's small fleet of Hummers are for the environment, she finally understood my viewpoint when I pointed out the fact that the air in her town was not her's to pollute. Before that point, she firmly believed that if she had the money to buy these cars and the fuel to run them, it was her right to do so. This was the point of contention for the majority of our arguments, and I had a lot of trouble addressing these issues in a successful way.

From those experiences, I learned that emphasis should be placed on the impact your decisions has on your neighbors--the idea that your decisions affect others as well as yourself.

Overall, I think it is important to remain as calm as possible during discussions(though it's extremely difficult at times), and to take the time to understand where the other person is coming from. It is often impossible to convince the other person to change their opinion, but it is NOT useless to listen. By doing this, we can gain a greater understanding of public opinion on controversial issues, and we can use that knowledge to create solutions to environmental problems.

Thanksgiving Awkwardness

For this Thanksgiving I went to visit my extended family on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. I stayed with my extremely conservative grandmother. Half of my family is republican while the other half is democrat - my parents and their siblings are more moderate. So when Prof. Nicholson gave us this assignment I thought a lot about how or if I should even bring up global warming or climate change. I asked my parents about it and they both seemed to think that since I dont see this side of my family often, I probably should not bring up a topic that would spark such intense emotions. So I decided to talk with my 17 year old cousin.
We were watching a basketball game on tv and this commercial for 76 gasoline kept coming on. The commercial was talking about how their gas is somehow better than normal gas and is more environmentally friendly. I started talking to her about the misconception of cleaner fuel and how if we really want to effectively address climate change problems we need more structural changes to our society. She was agreeing with me and really recognized the falsity of the commercial and the kinds of consumerist behaviors that it reinforced.

Cradle to Cradle

First of all, I'm in love with this book. Both because of the writing style used, and because of its novel design. (Though I'll be the first to admit, it's heavy and weird to hold because of the materials used to make it).

On another note, I think that McDonough and Braungart are certainly on the right track with their writing. Reading this book is not alarming or depressing like many other works we have studied this semester, and I believe this is due to their balanced portrayal of information.

Not only do the authors clearly and concisely lay out the issues for the reader, but they follow up by describing what is being done to combat the problems. Rather than call for action in the form of laying blame and responsibility upon the reader and the general consumer, they detail the ways that THEY are working to change the system. This is a very different, and uplifting approach compared to many other authors who write on the subject of environmental topics.

Also laid out in this book is the recurring idea of getting back to nature; the idea that we should stop brutalizing the earth, and go back to enjoying and respecting it.

I think McDonough and Braungart (though I am unsure which author contributed which parts of the book) do an excellent job inspiring us to reconsider our own lifestyles in a way to makes us happier and more productive members of the planet.

They seem to advocate harmony and happiness through consumption, which makes any reader want to continue to read the book and apply its concepts to life.

Good for them

I'd like you to give your impressions of book we're reading at the moment in the light of other calls for action we've seen this semester. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
I believe William McDonough and Michael Braungart do a great job at trying to reinvigorate the modern environmentalist. They do very well assessing the situation and looking at the current flaws in environmentalism and apply their own skills to the situation, including green architecture. They inform the readers of the potential dangers coming from the multitude of chemicals we use and inhale inadvertently
The idea of I=PAT never seemed so wrong than when reading this book. They are right, human progress shouldn’t be judged in such a negative. I’ve wrote this before, our progress is not a symbol of environmental decay, we just need to figure our options properly.
By focusing on useful green technology like green architecture, understanding local environments and reacting accordingly, and promotion of general awareness of the environment hazards of the modern day, i.e. chemicals and drugs.
The way they are looking at the future today is something that everyone must focus on. Just becoming depressed about global warming doesn’t ruin the ship, actively steering away from the last berg and using technology to rebuild is the strength you have to deal with. More people need to be bold rather than depressed about our losses, showing that environmentalists and humans in general will work with possible solutions

"Cradle to Cradle": Beginning a Trend

I think reading the book “Cradle to Cradle” and watching the video “The Next Industrial Revolution” has made me realize that what William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is vital. We need people like them to begin implementing solutions. Whether or not their vision is overly optimistic, it is still an extremely important realization. We have been talking about changing the infrastructure and design of our world, Mike Maniates talked about creating environments where being environmentally friendly is automatic and this book and film talk about examples of how we can do that. The field of architecture and design is a crucial fundamental aspect of the way our world is structured. Change in this area is going to be necessary in creating a more sustainable environment.

Seeing the examples of what changes in architecture and design can do (in terms of benefitting the environment and lessening harmful human impact) is a powerful call to action. Seeing that these things are not too hard or too expensive makes it harder to ignore our obligation to be sustainable. What William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is definitely revolutionary and they might be overly optimistic about how quickly a switch to building “cradle to cradle” could be. If their idea catches on it will take a while to remake our working and living environments in their proposed style. But I did not find that they were in any was over optimistic, they merely seemed excited and enthusiastic about making what change they could now.

Trinity Of Despair

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

This quote ran through my head a few times while listening to Professor Maniates speak in class on Tuesday. I thought his discussion of the 'trinity of despair' was very interesting and pertinent. I would like to break it down, one piece at a time:

1. Human Nature

This is a huge part of the issue of environmentalism for me. As a self-proclaimed socialist, I have over the years vehemently stuck with my belief that humans are inherently communal beings with good intentions. To be honest, with all the selfish action I see happening every day, especially when you look at the massive failures and despicable manipulations that have occurred within the realm of environmentalism, it can be pretty hard for me to keep believing this assumption at certain times. But honestly, I believe that things like capitalism and a general overemphasis on personal freedom in America have brainwashed people into thinking that self-interest is the bottom line. They have betrayed their inherent instinct to work together towards solving problems and co-existing peacefully. But let's say for argument's sake that humans are self-interested. Well, than you better believe that it is our absolute duty to transcend those natural instincts and become communal creatures. Only then can we possibly overcome a challenge on the magnitude of climate change. So let's either look deep within ourselves to find that community spirit, or suppress those stupid urges that are telling us, 'I don't have to worry about these problems, I won't be around when they really start to mess things up!'

2. Environmental Strategy

Here I took some issues with Mr. Maniates' analysis. Over the last few classes, we've been challenged to think about thinks in a broader sense, to try to realize that these problems are bigger than just turning off our light bulbs. And while I concede that this is true, I think that this sends too much of a disconcerting message to people who are just trying to do their best to act responsibly on their own. For what ever the reason, some people just don't want to get actively involved in the power games at the top level, the policy stuff that will make a bigger difference. It is important to realize that while they are not making a massive different, people's personal choices should not be trivialized as being 'ineffective.' I believe this strikes at the very soul of many environmentalists (like myself) who have found such inspiration and validation in the practice of a grassroots and personal style of environmentalism. I will say that personally, becoming a vegetarian opened the door for me to a wide array of broader environmental issues. And it is for that reason that it was one of the best decisions of my life. I think if we blend the human nature facet with the environmental strategy part for a second, we will realize that if humans are self interested, deep down, even being green is just a self-validation thing. I think this may be a little harsh to deal with at first, to think, 'oh, so you're saying I just do this to make myself feel good?!' But as much as I like to think of myself as a true altruist, I've got to admit, it's probably true that wayyyyyyy deep down there, I am doing this to make myself feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I also truly believe I am doing this for other people. But hell, even if I am doing it for myself, does that trivialize it? No, because you are still doing something good. It's more than that though. My roommate always said that a big part of being vegetarian (or being green, for that matter) is about being an individual and I couldn't agree more. When a friend challenges me and goes, 'yeah, but who are you actually saving by not eating 1 hamburger,' I reply, 'Okay yeah, maybe I'm only saving one cow, but it's about being an individual. It's about not just following the pack because 'it's not gonna make a difference anyway.' Mr. Maniates talked about the importance of consumer power in our consumerist society and it's true. What you buy is unfortunately one of the biggest statements you make about yourself. So why not buy green? Of course it's important to realize that you have to go the extra step if you are really passionate about the environment. Organize! Write your congressman! Change the rules! But also, be an individual and make those lifestyle choices that say, 'I live what I preach.' I find when you start on the personal level, it opens the door to many different possibilities.

3. Social Change

Here's where that Margaret Mead quote fits the best. This was my favorite part of Mr. Maniates speech and really the biggest 'A-ha!' moment for me. It's so easy to get frustrated with how many ignorant people there are in this country, who don't comprehend the magnitude of the problem that we are facing. But I actually made the point in class recently that we live in a political system that allows 51% of the people to write the rules for 100% of the people. We have to use this to our advantage because you are always going to have people who disagree. But if we can get the power in the hands of the concerned people, they can effectively take the steps necessary without having the support of everyone. The people of the future will thank us, big time.

Nature is what you and I think it to be, from the word left to the idea of right

While I wasn’t in class because of being ill, when we discussed Professor Maniates’ view on environmentalists focusing only on “easy” solutions, it made so much sense.
I’ve read a lot of books and articles dedicated to simple steps to being environmental at home. Recycle, install fluorescent light bulbs, consume green products. It was interesting, in direct contrast to environmental theory on the internal concerns of consumption and overproduction, we are often told to buy into that consumption because that’s our “vote”.
Often times, in talking to people who are not environmental scientists or policy makers, in order the words, the people that form public opinion, I hear complaints that “there is nothing we can do”, “this is human nature”, rather than rallies of “we can change the way we live”. So they argue that they might as well stay status quo, because humans won’t change, it’s our nature to kill each other, waste electricity, eat processed food.
But it’s not our nature, we only recently have started eating McDonalds, recently set up power plants in their current configuration, recently started nuking other people. These things have only happened in the last 100 years, are they really set in stone? We live in an age of the internet, where people like me can figure those things out, but we also live in an age of so much information being stuffed down out throat, we end up accepting other peoples’ way of life as well it seems.
Human nature is so hard to discern simply because it’s our very thinking. Our scope of thoughts, going from nothing to oblivion to all to universal to individual to collective and all the relevant and irrelevant in betweens, represent our very nature. If there is some way to behave outside that scope, it doesn’t exist because it was never thought of. Indeed many of us are murderers, but many of us are nonviolent as well. For as many people to think we are selfish, there needs to be a recognizing force that remembers that just as many of us are the opposite and have the potential to turn that way as well.
Consuming green is a recent phenomenon, and in an age where everything is fast food, we need to realize so called easy tv dinner solutions to the environment aren’t the healthiest. More advocates following such a school of thought need to help others delve into that mindset and figure out what needs to be done, lowering energy consumption through efficiency and advanced technology, redefining city infrastructure to reduce consumption pollution, redefining our energy system, and most importantly, redefining our system of thought to make sure the word environment is so ingrained in our system that is reduced to oblivion, the term environmental ethics just becomes ethics.
Maniates’ trinity of despair is a valid one, and too often we have seen humanity try to consume its way to success (buying more pesticide rather than using natural pesticides and predators to reduce pests), I hope his work goes notice, it is part of our nature to want to know, that’s why we as a race exist today, not by some viral accident.

Trinity of Despair

I agree with Professor Maniates' point that the environmental movement is less effective than it needs to be, and I agree with the points the triangle attributes to environmental shortcomings.

For example, the assumption that all humans are selfish prevents the creation of policies that would place responsibility on the public to achieve environmental goals. However, such a responsibility could motivate people to become more involved in issues if they felt their role mattered.

In the future, it will also be vital that we place less pressure on people to do "the easy stuff," and reemphasize the importance of change through political action. If more people conveyed their concerns regarding the environment to their politicians, we would begin to see politicians stepping up to the plate to combat key environmental issues.

The third idea in the triangle has to do with the assumption that it will take the coordination of every human/every nation to make a significant difference in the preservation of our environment. The US for example has refused to seriously involve itself in international agreements without guaranteed involvement from India and China. This has perpetuated a cycle of negotiations that include uninvolved, partially committed countries who will not sign any agreements unless other high-emission countries do so first.

Professor Maniates' presentation of these issues provided me with greater details surrounding these distressing hindrances to environmental development, and yet the insight provided me with some inspiration in terms of reevaluating assumptions that have thus far held back progress.

Discussion Question 10

I really saw truth in all of the three points of Prof. Maniates “trinity of despair.” Some of his points echoed what we had already talked about in class (environmentalist strategy, human nature) but the idea of how we create social change was the most powerful to me. This attitude of having to feel like everyone agrees and being stuck trying to convince or educate people to care about this problem really resonated with me. I feel like that is how a lot of my friends who consider themselves to be environmentalists try to get people on their side. The graph Prof. Maniates really illustrated how there are plenty of people who are concerned about the environment. Yet what I focused on, as well as many people in the class, was the relatively small amount of people who dismiss climate change as a problem. I thought Prof. Maniates point was clear in that if we continue to get bogged down with trying to convince and educate, we are never going to incur the social change that we strive for. Our efforts and energy have a far greater impact if we direct them at structural changes to the mechanisms and institutions of society.
The examples that Prof. Maniates gave like the Civil Rights movement were very illustrative of the kind of social movements that worked without convincing everyone of their validity and worth. This is also true for the Feminist movement and we are seeing it now as well with the Gay Rights movement. Not everyone is convinced and agrees on what should be done, but the agents of the Gay Rights movement are not wasting their time and efforts trying to educate people and get them on their side. They are going right to the system and changing laws and the structure of society without diluting their efforts by trying to convince everyone.

The Lorax

After tossing the seed, the Once-ler looked down
And was surprised to see the boy wearing a frown
What are you waiting for? The Once-ler said
If you wait any longer, the seed might be dead!
But the boy kept frowning, his eyes pleading for help
“But Mr. Once-ler, I can’t do this by myself.”
The seed I can plant, but what of the dirt?
If it is not healthy, this tree will be hurt
And what if the clouds don’t ever bring rain
If there is no water, this tree will feel pain
And if I bring water, what if its bad?
With poisons or smog, it will make the tree sad
And what if the temperature gets to be hot?
If there is no shade, grow, this tree will not
What about other people who want to make thneeds?
From them, how can I possibly protect this seed?
So, Mr. Once-ler, as you can see
This is surely to big a task for only just me
Well, then I shall help you, the Once-ler replied
The boy looked happy but then sat down and sighed
I’m afraid that this task is too big for us two
What we need is for everyone to help and come through
When we unite all our voices, and let the world know
Then we can stop the things that won’t let this plant grow
We can stop the people who will chop down our trees
For you see, Mr. Once-ler, its more than just planting some seeds
If we change what was wrong when the Lorax was first here
The Truffala trees may be back in a few years
So join me and we’ll travel across the land
Searching for people, telling our plan
So that one day the Lorax may return and can see
That nature grows again, wild and free

Alternate Lorax Ending

But “hey” said the kid thinking real quick
“You speak of fresh water and clean smelling air
But all that is here is glumpled gross water
And smoggilous smoke
Thinking I can grow this tree is nothing more than a joke!”
The once-ler was taken aback
“I gave you the seed what more do you need?”
“What I need is a change to this misdeed
So I can plant this truffula seed
So come down right now
For I realize at last
I can’t do this alone
This task is too vast.”
The once-ler came down
And together they sat
For hours on end
Thinking of solutions to combat
Such an issue of water on earth and the air in the sky
That was just much too big for just one simple guy
They went to the town of the Consumigloos
and told everyone of these problems that were so overdue
people were sad
and ashamed of their thneeds
and realized they were all part of bad deeds
that created the smogulous smoke and the gupulty gook.
Before long
they rallied together to the truffula yard
working all day without any pay
working all night without stopping in sight.
They worked for a whole month and a half
to create what they called the purifligaft.
The glumped glu was pushed through through-turns and spins
and wheels and sneels
up pipes and shites
down keels and meels
and rushed out the other side
as the bluest most cleanest
water there was
the children could play in the river all day
and all of a sudden one day that next may
the Once-ler realized
Together, together, we'll watch the weather,
Now, and forever, never say never
A thneed may be what everyone needs
But a healthy world, indeed, is worth far more than greed.

Climate Change Discussion 8

As we have talked about previously in class, there have been plenty of efforts to confuse and blurry the scientific evidence supporting climate change. In comparing and contrasting these two websites, "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic," the latter was definitely trying to do just that.

The "Friends of Science" website was disproving several "myths" about climate change. What I found most striking about their arguments was that they provided no kind of scientific backing or even cited factual documents. I was also kind of disappointed in the "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" website because the links they provided on the website were direct to wikipedia. I think they could be more effective if they cited other scientific evidence beyond wikipedia which is not very credible.
I think the "Friends of Science" website was targeting an older generation by making their website very simple - they had all of the information on one page and it was all very simple and short. Whereas the "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" website was a little more sophisticated with more links and more organized into different types of arguments and how to refute each one - I think it was appealing to a broader audience ranging from young to old who could navigate the links and who would be looking for more in-depth arguments and facts.

I found the website "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" more convincing even though most of their links went straight to wikipedia - they were giving more information and had a lot more to say than the opposing website. I got the feeling that the "Friends of Science" didn't really care about giving detailed information and their arguments were overly simplified.

How to counter a counterer

I first read “Friends of Science” first to get a viewpoint of what seemed to arguing against the idea of global warming.
I found their arguments interesting, preventing facts about apparent arguments on why it is important to focus on global warming. They came from sources that didn’t really address the economy at all, a big factor in environmentalists accusing those who didn’t believe in global warming being only led by industrial influences. They presented a compelling argument in a professional manner throughout their website, although their tone seemed a little jaded towards the UN having too much jurisdiction over environmental issues, usually a stance that is not relevant with mainstream environmentalist thought of government intervention and regulation (then again, the early environmentalists didn’t think too highly of the government, or in Wendell Berry and Thoreau’s case, voting). Finally, they shifted the focus that we should center on air and water pollution rather than global warming, which are very legitimate topics that ought to be focused on well.
I then looked at Grist’s website, which was run as a way to counter basically every topic that the Friend’s made a fact. In a more informal manner, it basically broke down arguments that sounded legitimate on why CO2 isn’t a factor and gave links and factual information why it was indeed a factor. While the Friend’s were probably able to delegitimize nearly every uneducated environmental hippy on their viewpoints on the environment, Grist’s article was able to delegitimize every point that was used as ammo.
In the end, I found the Grist site more convincing simply because it’s purpose was the refute a basical rebuttal to global warming arguments. It was a counter to a counter (by the Friends). It was also focused only on global warming rather than veering a different direction (which the Friends did). A very useful site when I’ll have to argue with conservatives in the future when they give me equally legitimate sounding reasons like the Friends, although this time I’ll do my best not to sound like an uneducated hipster (not green enough to be a hippy)

Nature and its confusion

By the time I was a sophomore in high school, my friend and I have spent the last three years studying martial arts and exploring the woods. We practiced archery extensively on a small lightweight bow. On an especially odd summer day, after a session, we wondered what to do, and oddly enough we saw rabbit poop. So as a result, we looked at each other and said, “we are going hunting”.
Nevermind that such an activity is illegal in New Jersey, nevermind we weren’t acting rational, for some reason, the only thing in our mind was that “I want to hunt a rabbit”.
I’ve gotten this feeling before, where I wanted to hunt something, not for the pleasure of killing, but for literally the idea that I wanted to hunt and eat whatever I got. As weird as that idea is, it was the mode that I had as I went into the woods near my local pond. We brought along with water our little tiny bow, a hiking stick and set of katana with us, for some reason thinking they would be necessary. As we immersed ourselves into the woods, going deeper than we’ve ever done before. Looking around the trees, crossing thorned bushes, ducking underneath thick brush overhead, going across streams, we went into a different world.
Everything about the journey seemed to exist within the thick air that our skin touched, humid, dense and intense. What was a journey to find rabbits (stupidly inside the woods) became a journey to figure out where we were and what we were experiencing. As we began to comprehend that, we ran into what seemed like a tool of fate.
As we crossed the stream, we ran into two deer. Immediately my heart began to race. In what seemed like an hour, I moved my bag down and got out my bow. Edging in closer and closer, my thought process started wavering. While half of me still wanted to hunt and eat these deer, the other half of me wondered why I would want to hurt them in the first place. As I faced this battle of conscience, I still moved forward inch by inch. Every time I made a movement, the deer would freeze and look towards me, and I in turn would freeze until they put their head down. This game continued for a long time, and during that duration I ended up realizing I had no desire to hunt the animals anymore. However, when they stuck with their gut feeling and ran away, we chased them until they were far gone. Ironically, we found the same droppings we saw back at my backyard. So it was deer poop then, which is odd considering there are never deer in my house.
I guess when I think about that time and my relation to my environmental studies, I realize that those two sides of me conflict because while I may have those urges, where I was at the time, in the middle of a small piece of woodlands in the middle of an artificial suburbs, there’s no incentive to eat anything but processed foods, and hence this instinct if it is one, is sadly out of place and unnecessary.
As for saving nature, the fact that I don’t really know what nature is, because my environment is completely human sculpted, I want to save it, because the more I live in this planet, the more I feel like I’m living out a science fiction movie, where everything seems fake and eventually, dystopian.

Question 7

Many ideas flowed through my head when I began writing my answer for question 1 for this week's blog post. Throughout my life, I've had many awesome experiences with nature that has given me the environmental perspective I have today. I thought of going to Niagra Falls with my family and witnessing the raw power of nature, or going camping with family as a young kid, or even the thrill of whitewater rafting. But the moment I chose in the end was a much a simpler one. It's not a single moment per say, rather a recurring event that happens time to time. On the small trail that runs behind the Berkshire Apartments, the Glover-Archibold trail, there is one spot off the beaten path where my friends and I often make a pit stop. If you venture a few steps to the left right after you cross the stream that marks the midway point of the trail, you will find a massive tree trunk that has fallen across the creek. It carefully lays about 20-30 feet above the ground. We pull ourselves up by the massive roots, get on top of the log and carefully walk, one foot in front of the other, across the log. Despite doing it dozens of times now, the thrill is never lost. But once you find your seat on the other side of the tree trunk, an incredible calm washes over you. Even as you long down at the 20 foot drop below you, you can't help but feel completely at peace with yourself and the world around you. Sometimes we will sit in near silence, picking up on all of the sounds emitting from the woods: birds, bugs, distant traffic. Maybe we'll light up a cigarette and converse about what we learned in class or trade jokes. But this is about as close as I feel to nature during my time here at school. But the trail has become a huge part of my life, I take it every chance I get. Because its so easy to get caught up in the busy pace of city life., you need take breaks often. And sitting out on the log, the sun beating down on my face, bugs swarming around, the soft babble of the creek below, I couldn't feel more at peace.

Why is it so important to save nature? Putting all decidedly scientific arguments to the side for a second (e.g. destroying nature will cause our demise), the environment around us is the truest and purest source of beauty and wonder. As I said before, since I was a child, I was brought up to have an appreciation for natural beauty. 20 years in and I can't say I have found anything man-made that rivals the sheer power of Niagra Falls or the Grand Canyon. For me, it doesn't even take a natural wonder to appreciate the natural world. Even just a walk through the woods works wonders for me. Many of the reasons why I believe nature should be saved are nearly impossible to put into words. But I sincerely believe that if we are not in harmony with nature, we are not in harmony with ourselves. The natural world precedes us by millions of years. Humans function best when working in and with the natural systems that we have come to take for granted. Not only does the purest form of beauty exist within nature, but also our technology and way of approaching things is often done in imitation of nature. In short, I have always felt a very strong to all things natural. I think that the harmonious feeling I associate with being in nature is one that is almost spiritual. I am wary to acknowledge the presence of any 'higher power,' but the natural flow of things has always appealed to me as the strongest evidence of something larger at play. These intricate systems we live within have provided us with some of the most beautiful, awe-inspiring forms of life, and without that biodiversity, our context of humanity would be lost.

Non-Human Engagement

When I was 14 years old I went to a summer camp in Woolwich, ME on the Kennebec River. I went on a four day hiking trip with some of the other campers and counselors. We drove to the base of Mt. Katahdin - the highest mountain in Maine. The mountain is part of the Appalachian Mountain range and is in the center of Baxter State Park. We spent the whole trip hiking up to the mountain, carrying all of our camping equipment, setting up our campsite every night.
Starting at the base of the mountain where it was cold and dense with trees, climbing all the way to the top where it was only rocks. It was definitely the most strenuous hiking I had ever done, but reaching the top of the mountain and looking around was also one of the most amazing things. The view from the top of Mt. Katahdin was incredible. The sky was so clear and you could see the massive stretch of wilderness. Since the weather was good and the wind was minimal on the day we reached the top we were able to walk across this narrow path of rocks from one peak to the next, called Knifes Edge. It was only about one mile but the entire journey was extremely terrifying. I remember coming back from that trip absolutely exhausted and covered in mosquito bites but with a renewed sense of wonder and amazement at the non-human world.
I think that we definitely need to concern ourselves with “saving nature.” I think the main problem is that we do not value it enough to prompt us to make real change. If we lose the nature we have in the world – the quality of life for future generations is going to be compromised. They wont have the kind of opportunities to connect with the natural world like we did and generations before us did. In my opinion, a big part of what makes us whole and healthy and satisfied comes from the natural world and where we see ourselves in it. When I was on Mt. Katahdin I really got a sense of how small I was and how much there was out there that’s greater than me. When you have that kind of realization, you can build respect for that greater thing. If we do not try to “save nature” then we are really robbing our future generations of their ability to develop a love and respect of the natural world.

Natural Enchantment

The most thrilling/enchanting experience I've ever had with nature would probably be star-gazing outside my friend's cabin in the woods. There was supposed to be a meteor shower one night, so my friends and I trekked through the woods to a clearing where we all lied in the grass to enjoy the free show. The most "thrilling" part of that experience (or terrifying in my opinion) was when we saw two pairs of glowing eyes watching us from the wood-line. Of course I demanded we go back to the cabin, but I was forced to sit there, surrounded by the black wilderness. Bordering on panic, I didn't know what would be worse...sitting up to get a better view of our surroundings, or lying as flat as possible and praying I didn't get mauled by a bear. Either way, I have never felt so small, or so utterly out of control of a situation. Moments like that really make me realize how minuscule our own lives are in relation to the world that surrounds us.
For that reason alone I think that preserving nature is vital in maintaining a balance, not only for our earth's natural systems, but also for providing perspective in our lives. We should absolutely concern ourselves with the preservation of nature because we are a part of nature and we do not have the right to destroy it. We have the capabilities to preserve the environment, therefore we hold a responsibility to do so to the best of our ability.

Thoughts...

Here's a response I posted to an article on Dot Earth. Rush Limbaugh called on Dot Earth author Andrew Revkin to 'kill himself' to save the planet, referring to the attention that has been given to how many resources we use just by living in America. It's available here. In my response, I consider population control measures such as one child limits and monetary incentives, as well as reflecting on the role of environmentalists in general. Here is my response:

This is my first comment and I just wanted to say I love your blog Mr. Revkin. I was turned on to it through my Environmental Policy course at American University.

Of course it goes without saying that Limbaugh is a babbling idiot and once again amazes me with his despicable ignorance when it comes to environmental issues. But Limbaugh's comments do reflect a broader question that probably puzzles/offends not only his avid listeners but also the wider American public: where do we draw the line in how adamantly we functionally exercise our environmental concerns in our daily lives? I'm sure many readers of this blog have read Bill McKibben's Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single Child Families, in which he considers the environmentalists responsibility when it comes to raising a child. He cites the exorbitant amount of money it takes to raise a child in the United States and responds to similar accusations that environmentalists should refrain from having children if they are really so concerned about rampant population growth. After debating with his wife over having a child, he ultimately concludes that the paternal and human instinct won out and they decided to have only one. This brings up interesting concepts of human instinct when considering population control measures. I believe that you made a great point in your discussion of crediting people's choice to have one child. In America, the people respond best to incentives. McKibben echoes your thoughts in pointing out the fallacy of offering tax exemptions for having more children. Shouldn't the system reflect the opposite? These are questions that I suppose are better left to those with a greater knowledge of economics and such. But the question I find myself asking is, "are we really embedded with a desire, or need, to have child? My immediate answer is yes. As animals, is it not our basic function to, as my high school biology teacher callously put it, "make babies and then make room?" Should we, as environmentalists, try to transcend this "instinct?" If there really is the paternal/maternal instinct and child-rearing experience we crave, why not adopt? Are we really so tied to the fact that our child, in order to be 'ours,' must share our genes? I'm young and optimistic and years down the road, I fear that these very instincts I discuss will win me over.

Admittedly I have digressed from the original topic, but I think the overall point I was getting at is that environmentalists should not be faulted for not strictly adhering to the principles of living sustainably. For obviously there is a line that must be drawn. I am a vegetarian, but I guess what I really should be doing is not eating at all, huh, Rush?

Lastly, I think there's a bit of an overarching 'meaning of life' issue at hand here. Without acknowledging any God or spiritual elements, each of us have been graced with the greatest gift of all: life. We were given a brain, we can think critically and we are self-aware. We were given a body, so we can execute whatever our brains decide our purpose is. Because so much has been invested us, it would be even more harmful to the environment to kill ourselves. I feel that because I have been given this gift, it is my duty (again, forgoing any spiritual aspects) to use my relatively short time on this planet working to save the environment and educating others about how they can too. If we succeed in doing this, we outweigh the statistical price tags associated with our ecological footprint with the abstract but invaluable gifts of education and work.

Keep up the great work.

If the travel industry is going to exist in the future, it will simply have to adapt and be maintaining in an eco-friendly manner. I thought the article about people in Britain who are not willing to fly less was very interesting and relevant because I think travel is usually the last variable that people think to factor into their carbon footprint. However, if everyone has such a nonchalant attitude about the impact that flying does, this begins to add up. Millions of flights a year carries a heavy environmental toll and is just irresponsible. A crucial point that was made in the article is the fact that there are really no low carbon alternatives to flying if you want to go somewhere far or remote. For an island like Britain, a train may work for getting you to Europe but otherwise you have to take a plane. We can't fully eliminate travel, people will always need to get to different places for business or scientific purposes. So we have to develop a more energy efficient way of traveling. As for tourism and recreational travel, the first thing that needs to happen is a drastic decrease in the amount of travel we do. I would advocate limiting citizens to one flight a year, and then even decreasing from there. The second thing that needs to happen is the development of the concept of 'ecotourism,' where citizens travel to a community and actually learn and immerse themselves in the culture instead of staying at huge resorts and being completely removed. The latter enforces an irresponsible way of life, teaching us to not take into account any of the effects of our wealthy lifestyles. If we are emitting carbon just to get to these places, the least we can do is spend our time their learning about and appreciating them. This promotes an attitude that will make people rethink the way they travel and ultimately the way they live. Tourism is usually last on my list when thinking about what must be changed to tackle the environmental problem, but it is a huge factor and one that people are unfortunately widely ignorant too. Ecotourism and responsible vacationing is a solid first step towards incorporating the idea of sustainability into another facet of life.

Eco-Tourism

I have never really thought about “eco-tourism” before. Definitely, the tourism industry feeds environment degradation. The article from The Guardian really made some good points. It was interesting that people who are strongly committed to being green in their own personal domestic lives, make exceptions when it comes to travel.

There are many things in Western culture that we cannot imagine going without or changing. I think travel is one of them. Personally, my family lives in California and most of my extended family is on the East Coast (MA, NY, CT) so ever since I was young we have been flying a lot. Going to school in DC I fly between MA and CA at least six times a year.

What is even more troubling is that when I fly I almost always end up talking with people who fly (usually for their jobs) all the time. Most businesses send employees around the US and abroad to other branches for meetings or whatever. I think it would be very difficult to change this pattern.

I do think that a good idea for dealing with eco-tourism is to include the cost of environmental harm in the price of the ticket. I think it would really help to deter people from flying excessively. Ultimately, people are going to continue to fly until another cheaper, equally convenient mode of transportation is made available. Sometimes there really is no other option besides flying. Eco-tourism is just another manifestation of our globalized, consumerist, affluent society. Although we can create deterrents, it is our lifestyle and ingrained values of comfort and convenience that need shifting.

Eco Tourism

When I first thought about ecotourism as a means to diminish environmental impact, I thought it was pointless because calculating the amount of fuel used to reach far and away destinations would surely cancel out any good that would come from making such trips. In my mind, traveling somewhere off the beaten tourist path didn't make sense because all forms of travel consume such vast amounts of fuels thus contributing to global climate change.

However, after visiting some ecotourist sites online, it occurred to me that people are going to take vacations no matter what, but they could use their vacation to support a as they relax, rather than feed mindlessly into tourism-based economies that do not need their support.

If more people were interested in traveling to see rain forests, or aquatic ecosystems, there would be a demand to maintain those ecosystems rather than destroy them for profit. Government organizations would be forced to preserve the quality of those ecosystems because tourists would bring money into their region.

Ecotourism offers the opportunity to use vacation time as a means to preserve natural systems and prevent degradation. Even if the cost of traveling to exotic destinations means contributing to CO2 emissions, I think those same CO2 levels would be emitted regardless. People will travel and emit CO2 regardless of their destination, but with ecotourism there is at least an option to put those used miles to a good use (...sort of).

In this sense, I think that ecotourism offers an excellent alternative to the stereotypical vacation by allowing vacation dollars to support an important cause.
If only all vacation destinations offered such a benefit...

Food Dilemma

As we have discussed in class on multiple occasions, overconsumption is one of the leading factors that impact our environment. Keeping this in mind, I try my best not to consume more food than I actually need to stay healthy. Though I am not a vegetarian, I eat as little meat as possible, and try to limit the amount of dairy products I purchase and consume.

Last spring I took a seminar class through AU's Environmental Studies program and spent a significant amount of time researching and discussing the impact that food production has on the environment. Tremendous amounts of energy are used both in the production of food stuffs and the transportation of food to grocery stores around the US and the world.

Americans especially impact the environment because of the vast amounts of food we demand and purchase. Very few food purchases are made locally in comparison to the amount of foods we have imported from other regions.

After gaining this knowledge (along with other information), I've been eating as simply as I can. I avoid purchasing prepackaged foods, and purchase locally when possible. I generally drink water from my Brita filter, and rarely purchase bottled water/other beverages. Usually, my trips to the grocery store entail some painstakingly thought-provoking mental debates as I try to calculate the amount of energy used to produce, package, and deliver all of the food I purchase. In the end, I usually go home with a combination of fresh and frozen veggies, some milk, a box of cereal, and some pasta.

Though I can't buy all of my food locally, my strategy for food consumption is essentially to limit the overall amount of food I purchase and consume. And on the occasion that I dine out, I generally eat less than half of the food I order and I manage to make the leftovers last a few more meals.

Over the last two days, I've eaten my usual sauteed veggies, cheerios, a granola bar or two, some pasta and a few other light snacks, but I'm nearly positive that the Lean Cuisine dinner I ate had the most significant impact. Based on the fact that it's packaged with plastics and paper, it's frozen and shipped, and it contained pasta, sauce, and veggies from who knows where- I'd say it took the most amount of fuel to produce and ship.

I've never purchased frozen meals before this past summer, but I decided to start buying them after my babysitting family got me hooked. Since then, I've significantly limited the number of Lean Cuisines I've been buying because I realized how many resources they waste... and because real food tastes much better.

Food Matters

This is a very exciting question for me on a subject that I am very passionate about so I will try my best to be short.

On January 1st, 2009, I made the decision to become a vegetarian. I had tried it as a new year’s resolution the previous year but had only made it a few months. This year, armed with much more information about the cause, I decided to try again. 9 months later, I have still not eaten a single piece of meat or fish. Becoming a vegetarian was one of the best decisions I have ever made; I don’t regret a single second of it. The reason I became a vegetarian was mainly for environmental concerns. I learned about the amount of energy that goes into the production of meat. Facts like “eating one pound of meat is equal to driving an SUV 40 miles” held a message that was impossible for me to ignore: our food choices make a huge difference. So now when I go eat something, I consider a number of factors before making my decision. Meat and fish are obviously crossed out immediately. I try my best to drink soymilk instead of regular milk, acknowledging the still substantial impact the diary industry has on the environment. But now I’ve begun to take it a step further, asking myself, “is this product made from local goods or has it been shipped from another country?” I try my best to shop at farmer’s markets and select the local option whenever I can. Another big thing I have been trying to cut out of my diet is high fructose corn syrup, which is found in almost all soft drinks. High fructose corn syrup has little nutritional value and also fuels the massive overproduction of corn, a plant which requires high amounts of fertilizer and therefore also has a high price tag for the environment. Lastly, I try to eat organic whenever possible. Although I’m not as well researched in the matter as I’d like to be, something tells me consuming foods with chemicals and preservatives may have a bigger impact on our health than we can comprehend now. Being a vegetarian has introduced me to issues about my health I have never considered before, which is why I advocate vegetarianism so adamantly. It has literally sparked a revolution in the way I think about food, forcing me to realize that choosing some foods is simply irresponsible in our current economic and environmental system.

That being said, I think the poorest food choice I have made in the last few days was either eggs or Coca-Cola. The production and shipment of the eggs I ate probably carried a high environmental impact. Coca-Cola is high in sugar and full of high fructose corn syrup, obviously not a good choice for me. But I have done my best to refrain from drinking Coke and other carbonated sodas (according to some reading I’ve done, Coca-Cola is also responsible for human rights violations in Latin America) and I am also attempting to phase out eggs with the hopes of being a vegan at some point.

Convenient, Cheap, Necessary?

It really sucks eating food on campus, or anywhere away from home for me. At home it’s convenient because my mom I like to believe enjoys feeding me with quality food that is mixed with a healthy balance of carbs, protein, and vegetables, topping it off with lentil soup mixed in. I don’t have to think about what I’m eating; only that it is good and that the few times I stop to appreciate my bites and think about it, my eyes water with joy.
Here, it’s convenient to use a meal swipe ($11.00) to eat chicken tenders (yum, more bread than chicken) with barbeque sauce. I don’t have to think about it, and when I do, my throat gets a sick feeling from realizing that food sucks, or at least here.
Since high school I’ve made the conscience decision to eat much healthier than the cheese fries I used to eat for a whole semester Freshman year. I usually go vegetarian every Thursday, refuse to eat fries, eat much less red meat and force myself to eat salad (even those dreaded tomatoes). I do it because of health rather than the environment because my supposed Id takes over the Superego and I care to keep myself fit subconsciously a bit more than check where each ingredient from each food product I choose to eye comes from. I understand that need to eat locally, and I wholly support that, but as far as I’m concerned, businesses haven’t really cared to provide that option, and as a result, I eat what’s convenient.
I’ll drink things that sound healthy, for example, I drank that pomegranate juice from Odwalla because it seemed nutritious and healthy. Plus the thought of juice, not soda, makes me thirsty, so I indulged. I’m sure those organic cranberries came from fruit thousands of miles away, because they certainly don’t grow them in DC. As for that Slim Fast, there are so many chemicals in that I’m guessing it was made from all over the world. But to me, it was healthy because it had protein, calcium, and the energy I needed from dance and martial arts.
That one Slim Fast alone probably travelled thousands of miles in gas, was on lands drenches with pounds upon pounds of pesticides, which in turn probably leached into some river, and injected with so many preservatives that I would shudder to think of the impact, but I drank it because it was convenient, cheap, and healthy for my body.
I’m an active member of AU society, I dance 9 hours a week, 3 hours of martial arts, 4 hours of desk duty, a lot of RA work, President of the MSA, and a student foremost, so does that give me the right to want convenient goods for a price I can afford so I don’t collapse from lack of nutrition? But my foot print is high, so what am I supposed to do? Again this brings more questions to me than answers.

Food Choices

Honestly, I almost never consider the environmental impact of my food and beverage choices. I do not buy bottled water or many paper products because I think they are unnecessary but, beyond that, the environment is not on my mind when it comes to food. When I am at the grocery store my main focus is the price. I shop for what I like and what is on sale and cheap. Because of financial constraint I have limited options when it comes to food.

Another factor that influences my food choices is availability. I shop at the Safeway grocery store down the street from my apartment. The food that is there, available in the store, is the food I buy and eat. I do not go to specialty stores like local bakeries, seafood markets or vegetable stores. The primary reasons for this is because they are often more expensive and are not close to my apartment.

I am sure that most of the foods I consume daily have pretty large environmental impacts so it is difficult to determine the worst one. I think that when I went out to eat last Saturday, the food I had there probably had the greatest environmental impact. Restaurants get their food from all over the place in mass quantities. The transportation of these foods in bulk has a great impact on the environment. Also, restaurants have to supply a wide range of foods and they all have to be fresh. Its also important to note the energy these restaurants consume to keep everything refrigerated and heated/air conditioned. This is way more than the average household.

DC 2210

I’m going to try to do my best to not go overboard with the apocalyptic clichés when envisioning Washington, D.C. in 200 years. Assuming the city is not completely underwater by 2210, the landscape would still not be a pretty one. There would be not a single tree in the entire district, all of them cut down to make room for new housing developments, roads, shopping or other by products of suburban sprawl. The Potomac river would most likely be dried up, the result of drainage because of overpollution and erosion or perhaps just for the sake of having more building room. The sky is noticeably more cloudy, the temperature warmer. The relatively low skyline that the city once had is now peppered with a few skyscrapers, with more on the way. These are massive apartment buildings for D.C.’s population, which is now closing in on 3 million people. The streets are filled with traffic and pedestrians battling for space on the road. The relatively suburban area of Tenleytown where American University once was is now a heavily congested, commercial area comparable to downtown D.C. now. The metro is constantly packed with people, usually unable to provide enough transportation for the city’s swelling population. Food prices are through the roof, processed foods being the main intake for most people. The native wildlife of D.C. has all but disappeared. Water shortages and outages are frequent and there is a cap on the amount of water a person can use in a day. It is not a pretty site to say the least.

Let’s now envision Sustainable D.C. in the year 2210. The roads on which cars once drove are now thin bike paths. The metro still exists for those looking for quicker access to other parts of the city. Plant life has increased considerably and is still expanding, the wildlife now flourishing in these expanded habitats. The Potomac River is clean, the levels of fish and amphibian species are on the rise. The city skyline is lower than before, with most massive energy gobbling buildings being remodeled or refitted, solar panels can be seen on most rooftops. The food selection, of course, is mainly vegetarian and vegan, a lifestyle choice chosen by most citizens as a way to fight overconsumption and climate change on a national and global level. Water use is restricted but still manageable and bottled water is a thing of the past. Citizens mostly live in smaller communities consisting of small, environmentally friendly living arrangements, with most people living with 2-3 roommates. The weather is sunny, the landscape is green and the future looks bright. This is the Washington, D.C. I’d like to see.

The Future of Society

When I imagine Washington D.C. 200 years from now, I picture skyscrapers encroaching upon the downtown area with the occasional small tree decorating sidewalks. Aside from these strategically placed, aesthetically pleasing trees, I don't anticipate much foliage in and around town (specifically the trees and wildlife in Rock Creek Park). I believe that the transportation system, as well as housing structures will engulf most of the space that is currently occupied by forests.

I'm feeling optimistic today, so I could foresee these new buildings and structures having green rooftops and utilizing sustainable energy sources. People and companies today seem to be assuming more responsibility for the state of our air quality and other aspects of our environment.

However, it would not be ideal to replace our current forests and natural environments with buildings and transportation systems. I think it would be in our best interest to preserve the trees and ecosystems that we have today. The trees surrounding Rock Creek Pkwy and the GW Pkwy should be preserved by any means possible.

Because I think that locals and legislators in the Washington area take the environment into consideration when considering new development projects, I believe that a sustainable future may be easier to obtain than we may think. There will always be people advocating for the preservation of natural systems and it will be important that these people remain vigilant in voicing their opinions.

Unfortunately, if we begin to disregard the advocates for environmental sustainability, we may reach a catastrophic end to our city.

DC and the next 200

Should we continue on our current path, consuming and reproducing at the same rates, DC will be completely different in 200 years. If DC is even inhabitable in 200 years, it most likely will be a huge waste land.

Today, Washington DC is already overcrowded. It the population continues to grow, what little empty space there is now, will be wiped out to put up more housing and more shopping centers. Places like Rock Creek Park would not exist anymore. The DC area is already short on open space and places when people can go and interact with nature first hand. To accommodate all of the additional residents and commuters, major roads like the Beltway would have to be expanded. These kinds of expansions would lead to more pollution. The metro and bus systems would also have to be expanded. Public attractions, like museums and historical sites, would deteriorate. As more and more people would come to DC, these kinds of places would be exhausted, unable to handle the volume of visitors. The Potomac would become more and more polluted because of all the additional waste from the city.

Hopefully, none of this will happen! I would really like DC to maintain, if not improve, its aesthetically pleasing appearance. It would be such a shame if all of the museums and places open to the public were destroyed. I hope DC will always find a way to maintain these historical places. DC should start by "greening" all of its public transportation. I also would hope that DC can work on preserving/creating more parks and recreation areas.

To address the housing problem that DC will definitely face (if its not already facing it) the city should not increase housing developments - there is simply no room. Expanding housing could only come at the expense of the little empty spaces of greenness that DC has left!