Ewing and O'Toole, Wheeler and Owen

Ewing vs O'Toole:
Ewing's article discussed how compact development will help with urban development, travel distance, and even CO2 emissions.  If compact development is instituted and more commonly implemented, then the miles that people drive to work/recreation will decrease.  Also, people might instead walk or bike to work, also creating better health conditions.  Some of the things they wanted to implement include:

• cap and trade
• greenhouse gasses being federally regulated
• state spending will align with climate and smart growth goals
• pedestrian and bicycle facilities will increase

O'Toole disputed Ewing's claims.  He thinks that more compact development will result in higher densities, which will decrease productivity, create less affordable housing and higher taxes.  O'Toole also argues that there is no problem in need of the solution presented by compact development.  Also, he argues the following costs of compacting:

• loss of property rights
• reduced geographic mobility
• higher house costs and lower home ownership rates
• higher taxes or reduced urban services to subsidize compact development
• increased traffic congestion
• higher consumer costs
• reduced economic mobility

Wheeler and Owen:
Both of these pieces argued for more environmental activism and planning of metropolitan landscapes per sustainability.  They argued for a deep history of sustainability, and the input of regional and political perspectives.  Finally, they argued for more public transportation and life in cities, which is more environmentally sustainable.

LEED standards

The LEED article was concerned with potential population growth and how that will have an impact on the planet, and its ability to survive the pressures.  The landscape and environmental conditions are the focus of LEED.  One way to conserve the environment and landscape is by looking at the ecological species community.  These communities are studied by biologists and they can be supported through correct neighborhood management.  Wetland and water body conservation is another way to manage natural areas.  If the water bodies are near neighborhoods they could be incorporated into the landscape.  Also, the LEED article emphasized the importance of key agricultural land in maintaining crop production.  Finally, flood plains and steep slopes need  to be carefully managed, as they also have impacts on water resources and water flows.

To sustain these natural areas, and to build strong communities, planners can develop existing developmental areas instead of expanding into virgin lands.  Also, they can try to minimize auto emissions in a particular region through careful use of roads and signage, and by increasing bike networks and storage areas.  Housing also needs to be located near jobs, thereby also decreasing emissions and increasing community connectivity.

Other design ideas want to implement walkable streets, compacting development instead of expanding into new regions, connecting diverse communities, including integrating communities instead of intentionally separating them, or creating regions where people feel accepted no matter what their economic status or race.  Also, access to public spaces and green spaces, including tree-lined streets, is important to ensure.

Finally, landscapers need to consider water and energy efficiency and landscape water efficiency (including parking areas).  They can also attempt to create venues for local food production, and to create buildings from recycled materials.  The Green Community Criteria included checksheets and lists of changes similar to the LEED list.  For example, it advocated for renewable energy sources and the use of recycled/salvaged materials.

Food and Planning

FOOD
The US food culture is very ingrained into most Americans.  From the minute we wake up and flip on the morning news, and witness commercials about James Dean breakfasts, to our afternoon study sessions at cafes, to our evening tv programs, with commercials about frozen appetizers and instant side-dishes, we are surrounded with food.  In most cases, however, the food being pushed our direction is both unhealthy and highly processed food that covered great distances to get to our mouths.

Roberts discussed how factory farms are being redesigned to imitate the mass-production scheme of factories.  Also, farmers are being pushed into a "technology treadmill" complete with the latest and most pollutant technologies that produce a greater crop-yield at a high cost to the environment and their pocket-book.  However, if they stop to examine the costs, they might risk being run out of business by their neighbors who purchased these machines and pesticides.  We have become, through these farming technologies and the distance from the farmer to the grocery store (with all the stops in between) a petroleum-fueled economy, with agriculture consuming the most in both fuel and water resources.

Further, Roberts points out that we have not developed new technology that drastically changes (and updates) the agriculture economy, both in terms of crops and animals.  The future of agriculture could rest on the shoulders of ancient and diverse agriculture systems, but we seem to not want to take that risk.  Instead, we continue to push non-sustainable food systems that are draining our natural resources and the environment.  In addition, "local" and "sustainable" food adds extra costs to customers that most won't be able to pay.

As the Wren article points out, the climate has always been an important factor in agriculture.  Plants are limited by temperature, seasonality, moisture and soil quality.  In addition, the Lobell article highlights sensitive regions across the globe that might be unable to produce crops if not assisted, given that they are risky places to grow crops.  With the increase in droughts and climate changes, the marginalized places will become more marginalized.

PLANNING
Campbell's article highlights the role that planners play in sustaining the environment.  They try to solve both environmental and economic injustices through their building projects.  Instead, they seem to head toward vague sustainability ideals with no planning for true inequalities or economic injustice.  Planners also struggle to coordinate property, resource, and development angles into their planning schemes.  Frequently, low-income areas have to decide whether to value their economic survival or the safety of their health/environment.  As a result, they often settle for short-term economic benefits, which will negatively impact their overall health for years to come.  Therefore, Campbell argues for a redistribution of the wealth allotted to the financially secure individuals, who get to pick their poisons and not settle for the negative health consequences, to insure the survival of lower income populations and neighborhoods.

People and Food

Anderson's article was by far the most controversial piece that we read for Thursday.  The article discussed how technology can be tailored to create "ideal humans".  The article reminded me of much that I recall from Holocaust literature.  People can choose what sort of children to have, and they can pick the characteristics that they deem "best" and delete (in one way or another) those children that do not have those desired characteristics.  For example, someone who favors the environment might choose to have shorter children that have an aversion to meat and great empathy for others around the globe who have to suffer through the effects of their Earth pollution.  One other suggestion broached in the article is that people could be limited to one or two offspring.  However, as China's one-child policy has illustrated, if people are forced to only have one child, they tend to get rid of female offspring (in one way or another).  If the same could be done for other characteristics, think of how the world would look.  It would lack the diversity of phenotypes and genotypes that makes the world such a cool place to live and reproduce in.

Somerville's article addressed how developed countries try to institute their own morals on developing countries, often by insisting that they not follow their practices.  Now, we are trying to get our own pollution down, and we are also realizing the errors of pollution in general.  However, the pollution problem mainly stems from Western greed, in one way or another.  Western greed has led to a massive number of new power plants and factories, putting out waste that has resulted in greenhouse gas pollution.  Western greed has turned rainforests into banana plantations, logging land, and cattle farms, resulting in more greenhouse gas pollution.  Through this, we have gotten rich, at least some people have, and these rich people are now trying to pass international laws to make sure that others don't follow their example.  However, they have already reaped the benefits of this, and they are not willing to share any of the wealth that they have earned at great environmental costs.  It seems like, and is indeed, a double standard.

FOOD
The Chicago food pamphlet highlighted that many neighborhoods, particularly the poor and minority communities, have unequal access to local grocery stores and non-fast-food restaurants.  These people are at an extreme disadvantage, and suffer negative health consequences.  In fact, these people, through obesity, diabetes and other diseases, can even have their life shortened. In the US, 6 in 10 people are overweight, and 1 in 3 are obese.  In addition, an average American consumes half of their meals outside their home (i.e. in restaurants).  Finally, race, education level and income are the biggest indicators of future health.  These statements alone define how much class distinction really effects America.  As I told my students while discussing Hinduism, the US has a far more stringent class system than most Americans realize, particularly those privileged enough to attend the U of I as an undergrad.

Pollan discussed the changing food culture of our world, particularly the change from hunter-gatherer society, where food was an integral part of life and we had to work and care for each meal, to one where food is a by-product, something that is disposable, we take for granted, and never see the origin of.  The closest we get to gathering and hunting food is shopping for food in one of the supermarkets in town.  These establishments provide many different food options, regardless of the season, all in one location.  We no longer have a relationship with wild animals and plants, instead we crave McDonalds french fries and TV dinners.  Through this, most Americans have distanced themselves even from the raw ingredients through which their food emerges.  Finally, corn plays too important a role in the US food economy.  We have basically become a monocropped society, where everything from flour to animal feed to syrup and starch comes from corn.

Climate and Market Solutions / Collapse

Climate and Market Solutions

These readings encompassed a lot of discussion on how markets impact the climate change discussion, and how they influence emissions and policy decisions as well.  Rood and Thoumi discussed how the economy influences carbon emissions, specifically discussing the "carbon market".  Carbon production seems to indicate economic success, at least in the minds of economists.  Carbon emissions indicate a thriving energy system.  All of the articles seemed to emphasize a cap on emissions, which would allow companies that are regular emitters to have a certain amount that they can emit, and if they use under their allotted amount, they can sell their emission credits to bigger emitting companies.  One of the drawbacks to any change in the policies, especially those that just limit emissions without trying to stop it in total, is that the effect of cutting emissions is not realized until years after the action is taken, making companies and countries delay action until their reign is over.

Jasanoff reading:

This reading emphasized the problems with climate science.  One issue with it, is that it goes against social institutions and ethical commitments in four different concrete ways: (1) communal, (2) political, (3) spatial, (4) temporal.  It tends to deny anything to do with social science, focusing instead on graphs and diagrams and predictions that distance itself from anything that a lay person would be able to relate to.

Science used to mirror nature, but now it has become impersonal, distanced from meaning.  Those meanings would have been derived from shared experiences and glimpses of a shared environment.  However, science paints the environment as a system that seems to need science and technology, while distancing itself from social and cultural settings, thus creating a dichotomy between natural and cultural worlds.

Climate change, as mentioned in the economic papers, does not exist over lenths of time that we perceive.  

(1) Community: Science does not relate to human existence, or living.  Instead, it distances itself from everything to do with social sciences.

(2) Politics: People live in defined territorial boundaries, with different governments, different regulations that have different rates of production, power, pollution, etc.

(3) Space: People have gradually come to realize private property, spawning the "not in my back yard" movement.  However, climate change encompasses whole earth, not bending or dividing itself between nations, spaces or political factions.

(4) Time: People seem to only think in near-future, and short-term time increments, not in longer, earth-like times.

Rees:

The ability of planet to sustain life should not be taken for granted.  This article emphasized that humans are products of evolution, with ingrained behaviors that we evolved to solve problems, which also end up not being helpful to todays world.  Genetically, we are inclined to expand to occupy all habitats and use all available resources.  Through energy use, biomass consumption, etc. we have exceeded our original constraints and taken over the planet in remarkable and destructive ways.  We have exercised our evolved need to keep up with others, using evolving technology.  Now, everything is accessible, we are beyond carrying capacity.  The article ended with the dichotomy of a conflicted humanity: reason/moral justifications for saving the earth and inborn, destructive survival mechanisms. 

Markets and Solutions

As the articles we read for this section emphasized, most significantly in Klein's piece, climate change does not jive with a right-wing worldview.  In fact, decreasing numbers of conservative voters even acknowledge the existence of global warming.  Klein's reasoning behind this increasing ignorance is the defense of capitalism and the free market.  These ideologies emphasize the jobs created through free market enterprises, while ignoring the negative impacts of the raw material mining, the energy usage, and the emissions behind these enterprises.

Companies that export products like oil, food, and other necessities are making money off of the ever increasing price of these resources.  Since the prices continue to climb, the eventual result of this inflation will either be to exploit increasing areas to extract these resources, or that these resources will run out, leaving the world without its raw resources (NY Times).

Lovins and Hawken's chapter 12 discussion focus on the significance of fossil fuels and the possibility of energy efficiency.  Hawken specifically emphasized co and tri-generation, which are different levels of energy reuse.  Co-generation makes use of heat, instead of adding that to the atmosphere, increasing the global temperature.  Tri-generation reuses the heat and uses it to provide a number of services.  Hawken further emphasized that, from a capitalist perspective, these new forms of energy efficiency would create new jobs instead of just killing old ones that fueled deleterious energy economies.

Chapter 5 of Superfreakonomics discussed the movements behind climate change arguments.  They argue that the climate change movement feels like a religion of sorts: that people are the source of this problem and the solution is to repent of our energy sins and return to a minimalist lifestyle.  One of the main arguments of the chapter is that too little is being done too late and that we are too optimistic about the outcomes.  One example of this is that people buy more energy efficient cars, and drive them to the supermarket to buy meat and dairy products, that are obtained from animals that emit methane gases on a massive scale.  People need to internalize the external costs of energy use.  These costs are not easily perceived, and might not be immediately felt, but they are present nonetheless.

Economics and Environment

Constanza:
      Constanza looked into the value of ecosystems, and how ecosystem functions are a natural capital source.  The article examined how people attempt to place values on nature and ecosystems, mostly by solely seeing them as categories of services and supply and demand curves.  The given estimate was $33 trillion.  However, this estimate does not consider how much nature plays a role in our lives beyond the economic value.  Ecosystems deserve to exist independent of human need or want, and they deserve the respect and care that every organism also needs.  Humans are not the sole inhabitants of this planet, and the sooner we realize this, the easier life will be.  When other life forms are allowed to live and exist in harmony and symbiosis with us, our own life will improve.

Wackernagel:
     Wackernagel discussed how much humans depend on nature.  The major focus of this article was on the ecological footprint of populations, specifically the national footprint.  In some cases, most notably in the U.S., the national footprint exceeds what is available for this nation.  This excessive use of resources and excess in waste production forces other nations to compensate for this usage.

Daly (whole book):
     Daly's book was neck-deep in economic jargon, making it difficult for me to wade through.  The beginning and ending arguments (the flow from North -> South, and the influence of religion) were easier for me to grasp, in contrast to the formulas and theories presented in the middle of the book.  The economic flow from North to South has been documented across different disciplines with different interested parties taking note of different angles of this flow.  For the purposes of this book, Daly focused on how this economic flow puts the South at an extreme disadvantage.

Daly also discussed how the economy interacts with the ecosystem, and how models focus more on either the economy or the ecosystem and usually not on both equally.  Daly discussed the pre-analytic vision of the economy as a subsystem of the ecosystem.  Nature really doesn't care too much if, through a hurricane for example, it destroys the economic center of a country (such as what happened in Belize for years until they moved the capitol city inland).  Another example of the economy being a subsystem of the ecosystem is that the economy is often shaped by resources, such as oil/natural gas/coal, that are natural products of the earth.  Again, nature does not depend on economics, but economics on the ecosystem.

In terms of ethicosocial limits, he outlined four different options: (1) desirability of growth, financed by geological capital, is limited by the cost to future generations, (2) desirability of growth, financed by the takeover of habitats, is limited by extinction or restriction of species, (3) desirability of growth is limited by self-canceling effects on welfare, (4) desirability of growth is limited by corrosive effects on moral standards.

The GNP (gross national product) is a distorted measure based on the value of some services + the value of throughput + the value of change in accumulated stocks and funds.  This is not a good test of overall wealth, but it is what has been used to measure this, via economics, for years.

The Plimsoll Line is the absolute optimal scale of a load, or a load that does not result in a sinking ecosystem.  This is built on allocation, distribution and scale.  Scale refers to the size of the economy relative to the ecosystem.  Welfare is the service of want satisfaction.  Often nations do not realize that their natural capital, or ability to satisfy population welfare, is based on a source that is taken for granted.  This allows some nations to prosper and others to fall into the debt of other nations.  However, nations need to realize that the natural capital comes in both renewable and non-renewable resources.

Finally, the book discusses family planning and religion in relation to environmental challenges.  Population pressures weigh on natural resources, reducing what might already be a limited source.  In addition, religion could help environmental causes, since their sources often insist that God has credited them with sustaining and maintaining the environment.

Water and McHarg readings

Water
In the readings on water, I found a great amount of similarities in topics among authors.  For example, all the authors stressed the anthropogenic effects on water resources and how this goes on to effect other systems, including our own one.

Jackson focused on how important it is to have fresh water systems, that maintain different lifeforms (including shellfish, freshwater fish, and water fowl).  This is a very important aspect of the changing water table and the pollution that is getting emitted into the atmosphere and water systems daily.   These impacts do harm other organisms that are important to the overall ecosystem.  We need to look out for these other organisms, and not think just about our selfish desires.  Jackson further addressed how humans have modified natural water sources, erecting dams and building reservoirs.  These anthropogenic changes have impacted natural systems and the organisms that have used them for millennia.  This summer, I helped survey natural areas around the state.  Because of the droughts, farmers have repeatedly encroached on native habitats, and have even destroyed wetlands that were there not 5 years ago to plant crops that will be gone in one season.

Gleick focused on how water management and planning could help the current water situation, insisting that basic water needs (for both ecosystems and all humans) in addition to institutional recommendations could help turn things around.  He used backcasting to aid his case.  Finally, Vanderwarker addressed social justice issues of water rights, highlighting the fact that those who use and abuse water resources are frequently those with the most monetary resources.  This piece highlighted not only the need for water, but also the communal desire to observe and enjoy access and views of water.  The recent spring of high-rises surrounding lakes and oceans inhibits the view of others.


McHarg
He began by pointing out that life is a superorganism, and man is only one part of that.  He documented how man, over time, changed his environment via fire, domestication, agriculture, settlement and eventually sprawling cities.  McHarg appears to have a very minimalist or deep ecology approach to mans place in the world, insisting that man needs to construct a world just to meet his minimum requirements and survival.  We fulfill our role in a specific niche, and, through technology and other means, we have subdued nature and are living in areas that are not suited to us.

Nature in cities is often romanticized, resulting in sprawling gardens and green grass in areas more suited to cacti and sand dunes.  However, the real waste is not creating an Eden in a desolate place, but rather destroying the Eden that was there before we bulldozed it.  Forests are being destroyed, wetlands and marshes are filled in, and the land is sterilized and water-proofed.  The organisms that used to call that land home are cast aside and new ones are brought in.  McHarg feels that man cannot maintain his current use of the environment and needs to return to a more simplistic life, complete with a man-nature symbiotic relationship.

McHarg concludes with a solution to the problems presented in previous chapters.  He feels that we need: an ecosystem inventory, a description of natural processes, identification of limiting factors, attribution of value, determination of prohibitions and permissiveness to change, and identification of indicators of stability or instability. These returns to our roots will help solve the crisis we are facing today.

Kunstler (the whole book)

This book was an interesting take on the architecture of the US. He states that 80% of American structures were built in the last 50 years, and those consist of the most depressing and uninteresting buildings. I can relate to that for sure. In the city of Champaign, I am surrounded by bland and poorly constructed apartment complexes that, even though they must have been constructed not 20 years ago, look dilapidated and grimy. In contrast, I live in a house that was transformed into a girls cooperative house around 40-50 years ago. The original wood molding surrounding the walls is a style that has been lost for awhile. In addition, the large wooden window frames and unevenly stuccoed walls add a character that cannot be found in modern buildings. Indeed, the vast majority of buildings today simply do not have the character and design that the house I inhabit does.

Kunstler began with a journey back in time to when Europeans first reached the shores of the US as Puritans. The idea that a god had given them the land allowed them justification for all the negative actions that they inflicted on the animals, plants, landscape and even people of this "new world". For the purposes of the book, he skipped some of that and discussed, instead, the national grid system that divided up land into townships and individual farm plots. In addition, industrialization and the introduction of factories, slaughterhouses, and lack of sanitary systems created a city environment fraught with diseases and crumbling structures of all kinds (family, moral, buildings, etc.) Therefore, people began to live in intermediary places, between the city and rural communities, in areas soon to be labeled "suburbs". When I discuss the class system present, but mostly ignored, in the US, I remind students that most of them are products of rich suburban families. They don't understand what it was like to be raised in the country, where the nearest town was about 30 minutes drive from your house. Nor do they understand what it is like to live in the city, where schools have intensive metal detector systems and children learn to not go to the bathroom for fear of being stabbed, raped or worse by the delinquents that hide out there. The privileges that they take for granted every day, including being able to attend the UIUC, should be better acknowledged.

Parks in the city were designed for a glimpse of country life in the midst of bleak buildings and smog. In fact, recent studies have determined that this type of "green space" really does raise moral among people that are faced with the bleakness of the projects or poor housing in the city environment. Part of the bleakness originally resulted from a lack of zoning, which allowed factories to go up next to a residential district. Other parts of this bleakness include modern American architectural styles, high-rise buildings, and race politics, which included allowing certain people, but not others, to escape this bleak city life and move to the suburbs.

Other damaging effects of the modern life include the shift from agriculture to agribusiness, which leaves little room for the cultural knowledge that used to get passed down through generations. I attended an archaeology meeting last month, which included graduate students that study historical archaeology (or archaeology since the 1800s). They wanted to promote this branch of archaeology by bringing a milk goat to the quad and making butter from her milk. It surprised me that I ended up being the only one who knew anything about taking care of goats, much less how to milk one. This form of cultural knowledge, lost even to those who study these topics, is appalling.

In addition to losing shared cultural knowledge, we are losing shared interactions. Cars have created a supposed "need" to drive everywhere we go. It is considered a right of everyone to own a vehicle and drive it to every destination. The buses are seen as vehicles for the poor members of society who don't like to take regular showers, so why should we have to share a space with them when we can drive our own vehicle that will play our own music and allow us to forget about other members of society other than our own social class? In addition to taking away a broader view of society, today's shopping structure has no shared sacred spaces or shared experiences. There are no community markets in the US, and there are no unifying buildings that people flock to. Especially as we turn to an online world where products can be shipped to your doorway without you ever having to see the seller or even the delivery man, the world is closing itself off to human interactions. I further appreciated the estimate, given in the book, that for people who commute one hour each way to work, they spend 7 weeks of their year sitting in a car.

I appreciated the acknowledgement of the downfalls of modern advertising. I did an undergraduate research project on advertising for a history professor that I worked for. It was amazing to me that all the products we "need" are actually constructions of the advertisers of the western culture.

Kunstler examined different cities around the US, and their handling of architecture and space. Los Angeles probably got his worst critique. Because my boyfriend moved there, I have visited this "damned" city full of freeways and lacking good mass transit system. Indeed, it has boxy, cheap, flimsy, commercial architecture centered around a commuting mindset with a resulting bad air pollution. My boyfriend rents a house near enough to his work that he can bike there, which sometimes has negative consequences. As one of the only bikers on the road, people seldom pay attention to him, and late last year he was hit by a motorist that forgot to look before surging forward. Detroit also got scorn from Kunstler for being a city full of race politics and having an extreme loss of momentum and moral after the car industry took a turn for the worst. Finally, Portland (home of the fabled "Portlandia") was seen as the ideal city in the US, with good shopping districts, bike-friendly roads, water fountains and parks, and an environmental focus.

Kunstler concluded the book discussing Disney World, which he really hated, and potential fixes for the mess we have made of communities and buildings in the US. He concluded that we need to rebuild communities and create buildings centered around people and not cars.

Scientific American 2006

The first surprise I had, when reading this text, was that it was written in 2006, the era of the Bush administration.  The tone and content of the piece appeared to reflect the timing of the writing.  It was straight-forward and still fairly optimistic.  Given the content of the other articles on climate change that we have been reading, specifically MacKay's book, it seems like this had a bit more optimism about the future.

The reading starts out by pinpointing the obvious: the Bush administration was more focused on the economy than the environment.  During that time, nearly nothing positive happened in terms of the environment, mostly because they were highly optimistic that technology would improve.  What I found slightly ironic was that, in the reading itself, after criticizing the Bush administration for its overly optimistic push for future technology, the article went on to push for similar goals.  The article seemed to hint throughout that the future was not as dim as climate scientists might suggest and that technology would indeed present positive environmental solutions.

After stating another obvious point, that carbon is bad, the reading pointed out that we cannot wait any longer to deal with this problem.  They presented the "wedge method" for dealing with the carbon problem.  It seemed to be to be overly ambiguous and did not have a good basis in scientific fact.  However, the solutions presented, including a population decrease, halting deforestation, improving agriculture methods and setting an emission cap, did seem viable.

The reading then presented some potential changes that need to be made in the energy sector, including changes to transportation, the wastefulness of current energy consumption, coal, nuclear power and renewable energy sources.  Like I stated earlier, the reading did seem to depend a lot on future technology developments and even ended with a discussion on future technology changes that would greatly benefit the energy system. 

Six years later, we are still digging ourselves into a climate mess, and energy usage has not decreased as the article had hoped.  Instead of focusing more on renewable energy sources, we are sticking with what we know best - carbon-based fuel sources.  I think it is safe to say that the healthy optimism presented in the article has been turned into hopeless despair not six years later.  We have encountered a more liberal Obama administration, seen a rise in environmental awareness, and yet still persist in degrading the environment to a very taxing point.

MacKay Pt. 2

I had mixed feelings about MacKay's statement that "every BIG helps".  As he stated, little bits of change will only reap little benefits, and big changes will have big effects.  However, this can be disheartening to those of us that are trying to make those little changes.  We justify our little actions by thinking something like "but I know lots of people who are not doing ANYTHING!"  And, to some extent, I think that those of us who are making small efforts should not be squashed under the weight of trying to fix the world.  We are, indeed, doing our part, every little step of the way.

The big changes that he discussed were mainly for whole countries, like Britain.  I hardly think that I am responsible for changing all of Britain's energy usage and child-birth rates!  The changes he discussed need to be addressed at the national, or federal, level and cannot just be the product of a few individuals deciding to not have kids, or to just have a replacement number of kids.  In addition, the lifestyle changes he discussed are also national issues.  If I decide to sell my car and commute only via public transportation, bike, or my feet that will not fix the national carbon crisis.

He suggested some personal changes that could help.  Those would be (1) transforming the private and public transportation mechanisms, which could only be done by companies or governmental laws; (2) making your houses more energy efficient, a personal change; (3) paying attention to your electronic devices, another personal change; and (4) trying other energy sources, which could be accomplished by changing the energy source of devices (which costs consumers) or by governmental regulations.

Finally, he addressed several different energy solutions, including a mix of energy sources, more solar or wind, all or no nuclear power, etc.  These different solutions are interesting, but I don't know how willing governments will be to totally switch their energy systems.  It is a lofty, but hopefully soon manageable goal.

Climate Policy Statement

Background
Part 1's reading presented energy options, along with specific sources of energy issues. The videos specifically focused on the ills of mountaintop coal mining and the resulting pollution.  I felt that all three sources made good cases for changes in energy use but, as I will explain below, I don't know if this will actually fix anything or just serve to depress an already depressed minority of environmentally-friendly Americans.

My thoughts
While I was reading the piece on energy use, I calculated my carbon footprint via an internet source.  Being a vegetarian that recycles most things, started the compost bin at my cooperative house, has a very DIY mentality, shops mainly at thrift stores and disposes of my unwanted "stuff" to other girls at my house or to local ministries that redistribute to the needy, and tries to buy locally, I thought that I would be fine.  As it turns out, I am not doing as well as I had hoped.  It seemed like, according to the website I accessed, the majority of my emissions come from my car, a 2002 Toyota Echo that I bought outright, keep in good running order, and makes around 35 miles to every gallon.  In addition, I try to visit my family (that live in Southern Illinois) about once a month, fly to see my boyfriend (an engineer in Los Angeles) about once every three months, and my dissertation field site is in Belize.  For me, this was a bit discouraging.  It seems that no matter how well we think we are doing, we aren't doing so great after all.

The article did a great job of highlighting specific trouble spots in our energy use, such as cars, planes, heating a cooling, lighting and gadget, pets and food, disposal and transportation of "stuff" and public services.  He coupled that with discussions of alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, wave and tide, and geothermal energy sources.  This did a great job of highlighting problem areas and potential alternative energy sources, but really did not give a clear picture of a potential solution to the emissions crisis.

Climate Policy Statement
For many years, politicians and big businesses have danced around the issues of climate warming and the negative effects of increasing carbon emissions.  For the most part, discussions of "clean coal" and the ability of consumers to place plants and disposal sites far from their living locations has distanced these consumers from the impacts of the problems, and silenced the minority that has protested this.  This can go on no longer!  No longer can the rich live in luxury and ignorance while the taxing weight of health consequences and low-paying, decreasing, hazardous jobs working for companies that produce energy befall those that have muted voices and few ways to escape these dangers.  We must decrease the carbon footprints of all Americans, especially those that pollute the most.  It is no longer good enough to just talk about "clean" energy sources and a future technology that will solve current problems.  We must act now to correct the mistakes of the past, to change current wastefulness and ignorance, and to create a better future for this whole planet and all of its inhabitants.

Climate Science and Politics

The articles posted in this section highlight the dissatisfaction toward Obama's administration and the way they have not reacted to climate change. Obama promised the US voters that he would address climate change and make progress toward improving the US carbon footprint. Instead, he has not made any noticeable steps toward this end. As addressed in the politico.com article, Obama will not see the end results of positive climatic impacts. The next administration will most likely end up taking credit for any of these impacts. As Orr would appreciate, King Hezekiah from the Christian Bible committed a fatal error, revealing the total of his treasurers to another ruler. As punishment, God decreed that his kingdom would fall, however, the king selfishly asked that it not be during his rule but during that of his descendants. Obama will suffer the opposite of this: any good impacts of his climate policies will not be realized until his descendants take office.

Another issue with Obama's rule is that, although he has addressed a carbon cap and other positive climatic changes, he has not made any specific goals or promises. In addition, several Congressmen have to please their constituents, many of whom do not believe in climate warming, or at least support carbon fuels like coal. In Southern Illinois, many people are in support of the coal industry, that gives many people jobs that would otherwise not be able to support their families or be forced to work in lesser-paying jobs. As one Congressman stated, the climate laws need to be "reasonable" and "for the times". By this, I am assuming they mean that the laws need to be tailored to people who want to sacrifice the environment for the economy. They want more compromises and less tailoring.

Al Gore's Ted Talk was very predictable, addressing the evidence of the ice cap shrinking, the worldwide droughts, and issues with deforestation and fossil fuels. The issue with the increasing carbon footprint and the decreasing ice on mountaintops. However, the comments following the video were very interesting. The comments demeaned Al Gore because he was a politician. Another commenter stated that Al Gore apparently plays by "do as I say not as I do" rule; living in large houses (in different expensive locations) with fireplaces and by the beaches he feels will soon be flooded. I checked this through snopes.com (which I see as a valuable source) and it seems that the Gores do live extravagantly compared to most Americans; however, they are trying to live as sustainably as possible given their status. A more recent New York Times article discusses more details of the Gores houses and extravagant spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/fashion/the-end-of-the-line.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).

Finally, the Politics and Global Warming pamphlet addressed how the Tea Party views the world, based on some recent statistics and surveys. Most are distrusting of scientists in general, which leads to their doubts about global warming and evolution. Some of them think that scientists have skewed their data about climate warming, and they also have deceived the nation into thinking that God didn't create the world. They are not worried about climate warming; therefore, they don't think that any effort needs to be made to reduce our environmental impact. Tea Party members also have strong opinions that will not change, which is evidenced toward their strong views about abortion, gay rights, evolution, and other high-profile issues. They also distrust the government, despising taxes and valuing the economy over the environment. Finally, Tea Party members tend to be older, white males who own their own houses, are married, live in the South, work, are conservative evangelicals, and don't believe in evolution. This is a scary group of people that have unfortunately greatly influenced the populace and placed fear in the heart of die-hard liberals. I went to a Rick Santorum rally in Southern Illinois, which was mostly attended by Tea Party members. I listened to him dispute the government and the "political science" not "climate science", or basically doubting the science community. It was discouraging, but not as discouraging as preachers telling their Facebook friends that God wanted them all to vote for Santorum.

Journalism engages climate change

As a former journalism major, and someone who wrote for newspapers from age 14-21, I appreciated this branch into how the mainstream news media views climate change, and further the impact of even one damning story on the perceptions of a nation or even the world.

The Guardian article addressed the negative implications of the release of private information emailed by some top climate change scientists. They viewed this not only as a breech of privacy, but also as evidence for a few emails being misrepresented as a coverup for the true nature of climate change. They correctly addressed the fact that other scientists had corroborated this information and it is not a big hoax.

The Telegraph article was written by someone who obviously has it out for the climate change scientists, especially since he wrote a book about his skewed view of this. He correctly points out that some of the correspondence is not flattering of the scientists and indicates that they did not want to release their data to those who might have found fault with it. They further tried to silence their critics, and even made very hateful remarks toward them, to colleagues. These emails were never supposed to reach the publics eye, so they are not censored to only reflect neutral emotions toward those who were trying to discredit them by any skewed means possible.

The Science News article does point out that the emails are evidence of unethical behavior, but nothing more. However, none of these articles could be used to disprove climate warming. They also make a good point that there are more important concerns that we are dealing with right now than whether or not someone made fun of someone else or was hateful to them.

I think that the purpose of these articles is two-fold. First, they should present a warning to people that think that private conversations will remain that way. If you speak badly of someone, you have no guarantee that it will not make it back to them. Further, there are more important issues in life than whether or not you are currently arguing with someone. It should not be a huge shock that scientists are upset with naysayers that try to turn people's attention to consumerism and away from real problems, such as global warming and world hunger, etc. Strife between people and personalities and nations exists and has existed since the dawn of man. What is more important is that we filter ourselves to brush aside the unnecessary issues in life and focus on what matters.

Policy makers summary

The policy-maker summary was written by climate change scientists with the goal of reaching the politicians that could best create alternatives and make changes that would positively impact the climate. They highlighted the worst possible anthropogenic land changes that impact the environment and then cited evidence of how this is causing massive shifts in climate, more than what could be expected if natural forces were the only ones in play.

However, the scientists failed to create a unified goal for policy makers, and they further failed to present potential scenarios that are even relevant to future scenarios. The assumptions presented were that the whole world is going to react in one way to global climate change, and that these reactions will not only be unified, but will also be very predictable. If anthropology has taught us anything about cultures and people's, it is that they are very distinct and not as predictable as one would expect. Languages that could have, and arguably should have died, still exist. People groups that could have coexisted peacefully with any other nation were driven to extinction by a rival group that had bigger weaponry and an unhealthy sense of moral superiority.

Further, there is no one solution to problems of this magnitude. As the "green revolution" demonstrated, the solution to world hunger is not by trying to transport large farming equipment, pesticides and herbicides to countries that already have problems with erosion and bad forest management. Instead, each area or region has to produce individualized solutions that cater to the specific needs of their populace. An example of how this sort of individualized solutions can create positive change could be the current status of some homeschool families. As a product of one such household, I know both the positives and negatives of this form of individualized learning. However, it gave my siblings and myself a chance to start "adult" behavior and take on individualized, specific and meaningful projects and activities at an early age. It allowed me to take a college entrance exam at the age of 15, and it allowed my brother to graduate with two bachelors degrees (mathematics and civil engineering) as a fifth year senior at the age of 20.

Just as one solution does not work for every agriculture project or every school curriculum, there should not be, and cannot be, a unified solution for climate warming. However, I also feel that one needs to be addressed, starting with those countries that are the biggest contributors of greenhouse gases.

Orr 2011

"We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

This Native American proverb speaks to the main sentiments of the author.

The first chapter that we encountered in our reading focused on the declining vocabulary of the youth of the world, in conjunction with a declining interest in real issues.  Just as the news media presents information on the potential homosexuality of Justin Bieber with more consistency and greater attention than the rape crisis in India, popular culture also consumes more of the attention of an average US citizen.  As a recent Facebook post clearly states, what would shock people of the 1950s about today is that we have pocket devices capable of tapping all the known knowledge in the world, and we use it to look at cat videos and start online arguments on trivial matters.  The chapter argued for a common literature to be reintroduced in the US, for people to begin to use language directly, and for a reintroduction of philosophy and religion into conversations.  While I think that philosophy and religion are indeed great subjects of inquiry, I do not know how much they influence the current shift in the mainstream culture toward increasing disinterest and stupidity.

Although I agreed with Orr's conclusions that climate change is happening, and that people are systematically ignoring it, I did not appreciate many of his examples and felt that some of them were particularly offensive.  In chapter 29, he outlines Pascal's Wager as a justification for reconsidering climate change.  While the premise is honorable, the argument is flimsy at best.  Pascal's Wager is fraught with religious issues that needed to be addressed before he tried to use this argument to justify why people should reconsider their view toward climate change.  First, Pascal's Wager is very offensive to people who do not hold to a religious belief system, and even offensive to those that do.  The wager holds that all religious individuals are better people, nicer and with long-term goals, while those who aren't are focused on frivolous pursuits and instant gratification.  This is wrong on so many different levels that to address them would be a major deviation to the goal of this post.  Suffice it to say, as a teacher of religion and as a child of very religious individuals, I have my doubts that Pascal is anything short of a fraud.  Regardless, the points made in the course of the chapter, mainly that no one can foresee the future implications of climate change and that we, therefore, need to be prepared for the worst and hope for the best, are good.

Perhaps my favorite line in the book was from chapter 30, during which Orr discussed the coal industry, which has dire effects on surrounding populations and settlements.  "Coal companies' efforts to plant grass and a few trees here and there are like putting lipstick on a corpse."  These companies destroy natural habitats, disrupt ecosystems, subject the surrounding humans to negative health effects, and yet any monetary gains from this exploitation end up leaving the state.

Again, as an anthropologist, the connections drawn between global warming and slavery were enough to make me very indignant.  The thought that anyone could compare the atrocities suffered at the hands of US slave-holders, to those enacted by the corporations and governments that ignore climate change is insensitive to say the least.  A quote was even presented (on page 303) that basically said that the slaves could be freed, but the victims of global warming can expect no reprieve.  I don't understand how this statement passed the editors, and I further don't understand how someone with such a coherent and thoughtful explanation of the detriments of climate change could expect to use this as an example and get anyone to listen to him!  The cries of those subjected to slavery for centuries need to be louder than those who are subjected to the negative effects of fossil fuels!  I cannot begin to decry this comparison enough.  The subject of slavery is one that holds great emotional power, so I can see why so many different groups looking for a change in the way that they are treated or viewed have created a comparison between their movement and slavery.  However, many of those groups, and this chapter included, have only served to alienate anyone who might have listened to them.  This is a misuse of comparisons, a misuse of the power presented to Orr through the publication of his words, and a misuse of the power afforded to Orr through his status as a white man living in the US.

To the defense of Orr, he brought up a point that Lester and Hart failed to make, and that was acknowledging that climate change often effects those least able to adapt.

In chapter 33, again, I feel that Orr overstepped his bounds as an author.  He compared climate change to abortion, in that abortion kills a life that has the potential to live, while climate change kills many humans and other animals that might otherwise have lived.  To say that abortion kills a life is a very subjective statement that needs more documentation.  Abortion disposes of cells with the potential to someday form into a human, if it continues as a parasite for about 9 months, and as a baby with limited means to sustain itself for many years after.  On the other hand, climate change negatively changes the lives of many species that have the full potential live, and have been living independently for many years.  These are not equal comparisons at all!  Again, I do not understand why this comparison, which merely served to boil my blood, was even brought up.  Fully functional animals with clear quality of life and success as an active member of society cannot begin to be compared to fetuses with no distinguishable quality of life who are not members of society.  I understand the comparison as it should have been made, between potential life and potential death, but it does not belong in an academic setting and should never have been addressed in the course of this book.

Americans, as Orr correctly states, are both addicted to greed and consumption and have not been told the total picture of the climatic state.  They are told to replace devices and recycle, not to reduce their overall carbon footprint and to stop using and consuming as much as they desire.  The solutions presented by Orr, which I see as viable, include a focus on local goods, community outreach and cooperative interactions, and a return to incorporating nature in our daily life.  As a product of a rural hobby-farm, I am aware of the vast benefits of being raised with a healthy exploration of the great outdoors.

Finally, Orr discusses non-violence, bringing up Gandhi.  He states that wealth and weapons only serve to make us cowards, and that we need to move away from our dependence on weapons and the military.  As an advocate for non-violence, I tend to agree with his conclusions.

Lester and Hart Pt. 1

This section focused mainly on energy and ways to make the US create less carbon emissions.  The section makes a great point that warmer temperatures have an impact on both agricultural yields as well as coastal dwellers.

This past summer, I had the privilege of working at the Illinois Natural History survey assisting in botanical surveys across Illinois.  The crop situation in much of the state was dire.  In fact, yields of key crops were so low that the corn and soybean yield was the lowest in decades, and the drought was declared as bad as the 1988 drought (which was, coincidentally, the year I was born).  Fortunately for botanical surveys, this meant that there were less mosquitoes and ticks to keep us company.  Unfortunately, that also meant that an increasing amount of the vegetation was either dead or wilting under the strain of the heat.  In addition, areas that had been active wetlands just five years prior were now planted with crops that would hopefully fare better than those planted in drier regions.  In this way, the drought was not only impacting domesticated crops, and thereby yields and the returns of Illinois farmers, it was also impacting the native plants that used to thrive here.  That was just the news from Illinois.

Over the winter break, I traveled down to Belize for a few short weeks of dissertation research between semesters.  I was prepared for daily rain and a constant humidity that would make even 50 degree days seem incredibly chilly.  Instead, I was met with temperatures that climbed into the 90s, but with humidity that made you sweat in the shade.  The taxi drivers and my field assistants informed me that this weather was very unusual for this time of year.  When I arrived, it had been so dry that my field assistant, who is also a farmer and owns cattle, had been forced to switch irrigation ponds to one that was no longer dry.  This is the beginning of the classic "dry season" in Belize, with little rain expected for the next several months.  Of course, before we left the rain returned with a vengeance, but with little of the potential accumulation and none of the colder temperatures.

These personal experiences pair nicely with Lester and Hart's examples, leading me to also conclude that the climate is warming, and significantly at that.

The solutions presented in the book were focused just on US energy, and mainly on reducing the carbon footprint.  The solution to the fuel-driven economy of the US were nuclear and coal, wind and solar power, and even natural gas.  Personally, I was shocked that someone would suggest that these are viable solutions, even for the short-term.  As a biologist and anthropologist, I know the impacts that these alternative energy solutions have on multiple different species, including humans.  Besides coal, fracking is perhaps the most disputed of the proposed alternative energy options.  Fracking uses trillions of gallons of water along with billions of gallons of chemicals, and can contaminate nearby watersheds and, in turn, the many species that consume this water.  Nuclear energy has many distinct drawbacks, as recently demonstrated clearly in Japan.  In addition, the waste produced has very dire consequences both in the short and long term.  Finally, wind energy often exploits areas that are key biologically, and also tends to disrupt bird migrations and other important biological processes.  As mentioned in class, some people do not feel that these problems are enough to outweigh the benefits of these forms of energy.  However, with some of the most brilliant minds ever evolved able to connect and share information and technology at rates and scales never before imagined, surely the future of energy does not have to involve as many sacrifices.

Another issue that I had with the Lester and Hart reading was with their disregard for countries and individuals other than human beings living in the US.  Again, this greatly disturbs me.  There are many more species living in the US besides humans.  Just because we tend to have the greatest say in our own existence, and tend to negatively impact other species without caring much about it, does not mean that this is a viable way to exist!  We do need to care that other species co-exist in our spaces.  They do not need to be thought of as expendables or even as secondary to our own needs.  The reason that we are able to exist as we do is because of the other species that we co-exist with.  The sooner that more people realize this, the more protection can be afforded to other species.  In addition, there are many more places on planet Earth besides the US.  As an anthropologist, I am extremely offended that this section merely addresses other places in the world without giving it much thought or concern.  The US is one of the most highly-industrialized and richest nations in the world, and even we cannot react quickly enough to natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.  If this is the US reaction, please stop to think about other countries that have far less resources and whose people are far less prepared or able to pick up and move given the increasing difficulties presented to them via climate warming.

Finally, the reading tends to suggest that the best method of proceeding forward in the energy innovation process is to employ competition, ie Capitalism.  While this is, unfortunately, the mindset of many Americans, I do not feel that an innovation system focused on competition and backbiting is the best to solve this very global and very diverse problem.  If anything, we need more cooperation and understanding between the different researchers and scientists who are working to make energy less carbon-dependent, thereby decreasing the negative impacts that are currently being felt through any energy usage.