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.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, February 4, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)