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.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
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)
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)
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 23, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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
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...
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...
Monday, October 5, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 2, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)