Think like a cherry tree.

I believe in reincarnation. It is not because I am a Buddhist, but it seems making sense for explaining how the universe works. All creatures are in a circle of life in which beginning and end are the same; like the cradle to cradle.
I really like the idea of living like a cherry tree which suggest us a real sustainable form of life.
For cherry trees growth means more trees in the forest, more small and big animals that live with the trees and richer soils that offer nutrition to other species, unlike the humans’ growth in which only economic data increases, but rest of lives are degrading. Cherry trees “overproduce” their fruits more than what they need to reproduce. However, these overproduced cherries are served as good food for many animals including humans. If the fruits are not all harvested by animals it goes into the soil and decomposed to become nutrition for the soil; in this context, overproduce does not mean overproduce. All of the activities of cherry trees are in the circle of the eco-system; it only makes the eco-system richer.
On the other hand, now almost all stuff that we produce and consume is designed only for human consumption. It does not follow the rule of the nature; when it is decomposed it is no longer a part of eco-system because the purpose of the stuff does not include the benefit of other animals or trees.
It reminds me of God saying in the movie Evan almighty “I want to see my original design.” The universe is designed to self-sustain with other creatures. We should not just feel better with “eco-efficiency” which only serves humans, but think in a way of “eco-effectiveness” that become a part of circle of ecosystem. We might slow down the environmental degradation. However, the environmental problem will not be solved unless we deal with the part where the problem begins with.

"Reduce, Reuse, Recyle - and Regulate"

Bill McDonough and Michael Branugart do an excellent job explaining the fallout's of societies take on environmentalism and sustainability. He takes the societal norm that doing a little can save a lot and twists it showing that approach is not entirely feasible without a change in the current system that relies on the every growing function of a linear economy. The authors state that currently products are manufactured and sold, with most of the resources used ending up in a landfill. Producers are aware but ignore the facts as long as profit is still continuing to flow. The authors state that not only do we have to reduce reuse and recycle, but the most important component is to regulate.

This chapter really caught my eye. I have held this viewpoint for a while. Overtime I began to realize that no matter how many plastic bottles you reuse or recycle, the same amount of resources are still being used over a longer period of time. As the authors state, "it only slows them down, allowing them to take place in smaller increments over a longer period of time." Detrimental environmental effects can still occur. However, it is difficult as we have seen, to push regulation on industry, as it is seen as a "design failure".

In order for new processes to be successful, a realization needs to occur that resources need to be thought of not as a necessity for one product, but as a means to create a multitude of different things. It is this shift that will change the cradle to grave mentality to one that goes from cradle to cradle. What is difficult to comprehend after reading this book is that many of this solutions suggested are so often ignored.

Cradle to Cradle

The authors of cradle to cradle discuss the current system of economic production in that economic considerations are the sole focus and not on the environmental aspect. They lay out the way the current system works is one where goods and services are produced in a linear cycle with not much thought on how the cycle ends. The authors discuss possibilities in which the cycle which is currently linear becomes a circle so the waste of one product can be used to create another one.

The authors are on the right track especially when they discuss how something that is less of a damage is still damage on the environment. Those who consider themselves environmentalists and are environmentally conscious still are having a significant impact on the environment. They also mention how trying to be environmentally conscious can be tough when doing things to save the environment in one way can actually greater the environmental damage in another. The authors are able though to present their case in a way is easy for the average person to read their book.I feel that this book is a great start to the environmental conversation. I personally would rather have the shift go from how can we reduce our impact from how can we have no impact or even a positive one and I feel the authors would agree with me on this sentiment. Being concerned with the environment is great but sometimes you need to go further and actually change a whole system of doing things like the authors suggest.

cradle to cradle to cradle

William McDonough and Michael Braungart have written a wonderful and inspiring book which I feel makes a lot of realistic suggestions about how to reframe the thought process behind the environmental movement. It is refreshing to read a book about solutions rather than problems. I think that it’s clear that cradle to cradle design is not enough to save the world, but it does reflect the necessary change in thinking that can provide the innovative solutions that will aggregately tip the world into sustainability.

One of the main points in the book was about reprioritizing the system so that economics was no longer the primary goal with environmental standards as extra credit points. They called it the triple top line. They postulate that taking equity, ecology and economy into consideration in equal parts can produce profits in ways that designers never imagined. These designs even come with careful consideration about how aesthetically pleasing something is or how much fun it is to use. By this model, products are no longer designed with a single practical purpose but with a variety of objectives in mind. So many factors are overlooked when the only point of a product is to generate a profit.

The most meaningful section of this book for me is the section about the elegant design of the cherry tree. I think that the reflection on natural design is appropriate and acknowledges that technology isn’t the answer, the answer has always been a part of this world. This part of the book examines how barren the idea of efficiency is and how a product engineered to give back extra can be so rewarding. The concept of making things specifically so that they contribute to, or at least don’t detract from, environmental standards is brilliant and simple, yet also easily overlooked.

I don’t believe that the solutions offered in this book are enough to stop environmental damage or make up for what has already been done, but I do think that the points offered are incredibly valuable. Though depressing at first, I think I will ultimately remember this book in a positive light.

I agree that it is not only about the CO2, but....

First of all, I am already too biased in anyway, to look at those two websites. The “Friends of Science” just looks very sketchy and doesn’t try to make scientific sense, it just brings up arguments. The second website "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" looks more logical for explaining climate change, and it is a useful website that introduces lots of news about alternative energy and green movements.

The website "Friends of Science" shows a typical view of Market Liberals. They argue that the Kyoto protocol should be re-considered because it has a negative impact on economic growth. It is an obvious fact that sun heats the earth and this energy from sun made earth an especially viable planet among countless “lifeless” planets. However, this website implicates the sun and the formation of low clouds for the main factors causing global warming. The increase of CO2 on the graph they provided in the website is somehow very different from the scientific data I had seen in other websites.
I strongly feel that GRIST (“How to talk to a Climate Skeptic”) is more convincing than “Friends of Science.” If the GRIST only insists on the climate change due to the GHGs I will not be willing to support them rationally and emotionally, but they also have good articles and messages to change our lifestyle that has induced the climate change.

Climate Change

The idea of climate change is hotly contested for numerous reasons such as humans role in the actual causing climate change. The debate then can further expand to what is the role that humans play when they interact with nature. What is the proper role for humans is it to exploit the resources that the world gives us or is it to be stewards of the world protecting it and preserving it for the future. With a framework with that in mind there must be a determination of what values we have and what we place emphasis on. This conflict is manifested in the debate that there must be a choice between economic growth and the environment. In people who deny climate change they see environmental action as a limit on economic activity. Climate change deniers believe that this naturally occurring and we have nothing to worry about.

Each website should be taken with a grain of salt because both are designed to further their own beliefs. Neither website will produce data that is in contraction to their stated claims because that will undermine their argument. The websites do not offer much debate but rather an attack on the other to show that their side is right. The scientific data was chosen in order to confirm their already held beliefs but the how to talk to a climate skeptic did seem to have more data.

The how to talk to climate skeptic was more convincing because they refuted the claims better than their counterparts at friends of science did. I did take in my own bias towards believing climate change which I feel is true and not a myth. The how to talk website had more data in which they employ while the friends of science website had more talking points to oppose climate change. Both websites are biased towards their own position but I feel that how to talk to a climate skeptic stated their case better.

(Oops) In a Lonely Place

So, I'm pretty sure I got confused on the posting order of these questions, regardless, realized I missed a blog post unintentionally and last week's post maybe should have been about an awesome encounter with the non-human world instead. SO HERE IT IS NOW!

In high school for three years I worked at our local zoo as a camp counselor during the summer. Essentially, I was an unpaid babysitter for about 20 kids from 8-4 each day. But because of that, I got to other stuff outside of my counselor duties with the animals. I got to help feed tigers, create enrichment toys for the elephants, hold snakes, feed snakes (unpleasant), clean up after animals (also unpleasant) in general act as an assistant zookeeper whenever one of the zookeepers needed some extra help/didn't feel like cleaning up elephant poo. It was amazing. I learned a lot about animals, a lot about conservation/preservation, a lot about poo and added many reasons to my list of "Why I don't want to have children."

But one of the most amazing things I got to do with each year I would get to spend a night in the zoo. My fellow counselors and I would camp out in the second floor orangutan viewing area, which had a roof over it. While all of the times were wonderful, the first time I got to spend the night I decided I wasn't going to sleep at all, but stay up the entire night. And I did. Although this was probably a stupid idea, throughout the night I'd get up and walk around the zoo, chatting with the security guards and just looking at the mostly empty exhibits (many of the animals have indoor accommodations for the night). But around five in the morning, the zoo would come to life. First the howler monkey would start shouting, then the birds, then the big cats, then the elephants...it was like going from a world of stillness into a world of light and life in one orchestrated move. It was glorious, to say the least.

And that is largely why saving nature is something to care about. I said this in a previous post, but my favorite book, Last Chance to See, is all about finding the world's endangered species and showing how people have dedicated their lives to saving them. And I'm reusing this quote, because it is SO GOOD: "There is one last reason for caring, and I believe no other reason is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them."

I've been in the theoretical darker place. I was cold, and slightly downhearted, but when those animals woke up with the dawn and the zoo became alive again, wow. I want the world to always be alive like that, to always be filled with the sounds of animals being joyful to the morning.

Having grown up in a fairly rural part of the country, I like to think that I’ve had a number of meaningful engagements with nature. The most intriguing of these always comes after I’ve been in the city for a long time. I lived in Rio de Janeiro for a full year, the first time I’d ever spent any significant time in a city. After a few months I started to feel like something significant in my life was gone. Every time I examined the night sky, I could only find 6 or 7 stars at the most. For New Years, my host family took me out of the city to go sailing with some of their friends. We spent the night on the boat off the shore of a small uninhabited island. I have never been so entranced by my surroundings. The stars were simply phenomenal. The sound of water and the animals on the island at night were fascinating. The weather was a perfect balmy 85 degrees. My family had to show me the most magical part of the little place though. At about 9 o’clock at night they convinced me to jump off the boat and go swimming with them. When the first girl jumped in the water lit up and sparkled all around her. It was mind boggling; I had never seen anything like it. Every time something moved through the water little lights began to sparkle underneath the surface. It turns out, there was some sort of algae in the water that somehow reacted to motion with light, but for all I knew at that point it was fairy dust. I have a hard time using the word magical in a descriptive way, I prefer entrancing, but regardless I won’t forget the way that being outside that night felt.

I do think it’s important to concern ourselves with saving nature. However, I’m not completely sure that it’s necessary. It’s important because people usually don’t think of themselves as being part of nature and the only way to get them to notice it is to talk about saving it. The only reason people need to care is because the species is vulnerable as long as they don’t – it’s actually quite self serving. “Nature” will go on regardless of whether people fight it, flow with it, or disregard it altogether. The relationship is not reciprocal however. Nature is flexible enough to deal with our ignorance, but as it changes, our species may prove to be far less adaptable.On a more sentimental note - I personally hold the belief that life is valuable simply because it is life. I'm not convinced that human life is actually more valuable than any other life, and with that thought, concern over nature should happen simply because nature is inherently valuable.

What we should have realized by now about nature

I have not had a significant, “special” moment with the non-human world. I respect nature as much as human beings and I recognize humans as one component of nature. I love the morning birds’ chirping, the blue sky, falling leaves and the wind, but I don’t expect amazing things to happen between the human and non-human world. However, I feel warm and fuzzy inside when I see some unexpected human’s respectful love toward animals.
My mother values animals just as much as humans. She truly respects nature as a nature. A few years ago, we adopted a cat as a result my sister’s hunger strike for getting a cat. Since then, as we had expected, mom became the one who took care of everything for the cat. My mom became a total cat-person, and started taking care of every stray cat in the neighborhood. So within two years, we had more cats than people in the apartment. She never let her love for cats stop at the door of our apartment, but also took care of the street cats in our village. Now, she spends 1-2 hours a day feeding stray cats and helps people adopt orphan kitties. At first, she faced some troubles from neighbors who complained that my mom helped increase number of street cats of the village. But it should be okay, because since my mom feeds the cats, they don’t need to rummage through the trash anymore. Also cats don’t breed like rabbits. One of her goals is spaying and neutering cats and helping them get adopted when they are kittens. Some of the doormen of the apartment complexes around town now know my mom very well and they even started helping her feed street cats; sometimes they take orphan kittens in for adoption.
I never thought of her in this way before, but she is a true environmental activist that respects nature as much as humans and recognizes nature exactly the way it is.
The most important thing that we should think about for conserving nature is changing our definitions of the essence of humans and nature. We have traditionally defined and recognized nature as in service of humans’ needs. It seems that even the beauty of nature exists solely for tourism. As long as we keep this attitude toward nature and keep approaching environmental problems like a mechanic, we will eventually lose nature as well as our existence in the nature. We tend to make diagnoses of problems and try to fix the part where we see a problem like mechanics--for example, how preserving species will work if there is no habitat for them. Some species have gone extinct by direct humans’ activity, like hunting, but even more animals are disappearing from indirect humans’ influence, like getting rid of their habitat for our own habitat needs or pollution because we think that land and rivers exist for our own development. However, we should acknowledge that our asymmetric relation to nature has driven us to destroy it.
By now, we have learned that all creatures are inter-related. Other creatures are just as valuable to the earth as we are. We depend on each other and whether or not we fix the problem on one node of chains, we will be affected by the food chain. We might be able to exist longer than many other species, but at some point we will face the inhospitable nature unlike never before. We are not God, who is outside of the food chain and nature, but we exist within nature just like any other creature.
We will be able to fix the root of the environmental problems when we see ourselves as one of many components of nature. I believe that must be the ultimate enlightenment for human beings.

The Science of Climate Change

Ever since the first data came out showing that the Earth was going through a warming phase, two sides distinctly formed either in support or against this new scientific information. Although the exact cause of global warming and changes throughout our Earth's various ecosystems was not known, speculation formed that this so called "warming" was due to increased human activity.

It baffles me how people can go against raw science. Data doesn't lie, although it can be misconstrued. Normally, anti-climate change enthusiasts battle the subject matter with rhetoric, making their arguments weak. However, "Friends of Science" back up their ideals with science...to me it's a little ironic. The thing is though, their arguments are strong and their evidence is there. However, as Adrienne said, the jargin used in both websites is not written for the average person who only has basic knowledge on the topic. The Grist website works through the opinions of opposing sides through basic psychological logic. While intellectual and in my opinion correct, this website doesn't show the clear cut facts, but just deposes the arguments that "friends of science" make is a clear cut simple way.

No one wants to be wrong, but I also feel that anti-climate change enthusiasts don't want to admit there is a serious problem because that involves taking responsibility and placing blame on our human race. It is this opposition that causes such a great debate between the two sides. I myself believe in climate change and do find the subject matters of the friends of science website amusing. However, these two websites allow me to understand how much the media can misconstrue our ideas on climate change, and how much personal opinions can be swayed. Science is important in determining why such effects are taking place and why on such a large fast paced scale. It all comes down to how you interpret the scientific data that will determine how we will make sense and evaluate climate change. Unfortunately, science can only explain so much and when an issue like climate change is so large scale, it can be tough for data to be convincing.

Salt. It does the mind good.

First: Happy Halloween!

Second:
Taking things with a grain of salt is important. So, looking at the two websites, Friends of Science and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, I went in with grains of salt. Both are trying to convince me of something (and nothing is unbiased, so everything is trying to convince me of something) and will use, logically, like any other topic on the planet, the best evidence and research to promote their views on the issues they are discussing. While they may not use extremes to illustrate their points all the time, it certainly isn't their end-goal to make sure I follow the other sides' position over their own.

If everything is biased, then, how do we ever know what to make of any given issue? Well, bias, like Kool-Aid mix, is concentrated. You take a cup of water, you put a whole packet of Kool-Aid powder in it, you get one REALLY NASTY drink that's way too strong. You put more water in, you dilute the concentration of Kool-Aid, creating a better (but not really good tasting, because Kool-Aid isn't really that good) tasting, easier to drink beverage. If bias is Kool-Aid (any bias, not just bias towards one side of an argument), then water, that giver of life, is varied sources of knowledge. The more resources you use to figure out an issue (because an issue itself isn't biased: climate change is not biased. It's a thing to discuss. How climate changed is interpreted is where the contentions come in) the more diluted the bias becomes, the more hydrated and knowledgeable you are. So, take everything with a grain of salt.

Especially in the climate change debate. We have extremes on both ends, stuff in the middle and stuff everywhere else. It's crazy! It's a three ring circus and everyone is vying for your attention. But why? Well, basically, the most widely-accepted science behind climate change (or even just pollution. Environmental degradation. Holes in the ozone. Mass species extinctions. Established stuff people don't really argue about anymore but all relate to climate change.) is saying: OUR HISTORY, PAST AND PRESENT, IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP. Or: your life is making a mess of things. And your mom's life. And your grandpa's. And your great grandma's. So on and such until, at the very least, the Industrial Revolution. Now, for pretty much the entire world, that's hard to swallow. Our lifestyles and the lifestyles of previous generations have been filled with mistakes and we're now being told we have to fix them or face a very harsh punishment. But here's the other thing: WE CAN'T SEE THE PUNISHMENT! You really can't see climate change on most levels. Oh yes, we can see glaciers melting, migratory plans of animals changing, etc...but you can't see the temperature rising/falling (depending on where you are), or the CO2 messing up the atmosphere. It's like "out of sight, out of mind" and no one likes being told they've created something they can't even see and then being said they have to fix it. Makes people want to question it. And defend it.

And as for which site I think is more convincing, that's hard to say. I am already biased. Also, I do design in my free time so the grist site is just better put together than the FOS one, and for my visual brain that automatically makes it more reliable (kind of terrifying, but hey, visual learner = influenced by pretty things).

What's wrong with being warmer?

Competition about climate change is a simple question of blame and change. No one wants to be guilty, and no one wants to deal with the implications and necessary changes if climate change is the phenomenon that environmentalists claim. CO₂ emissions are something that we as a species have been very good at for our entire existence; it seems incomprehensible that it would become a problem now. The changes would include everything in our everyday lives from travel to food, as well as huge renovation to our government and the global economy. The scale is simply too grand. And, because it’s so impossibly difficult to change, no one wants to take responsibility. Admitting fault at this point is admitting defeat – it would be an admission that our entire system is a failure and that we are slowly killing ourselves. That’s a pretty big mistake to take the fall for.

Both the websites examined for today used very scientific rhetoric, making them slightly incomprehensible to the average reader. It also makes them both sound very well informed though. Either side seems to present clear scientific evidence that they are correct and, without the necessary background knowledge, the reader has to take the interpretation of the data at face value. Sadly, that is one of the things that makes this such a challenging topic. Essentially, one has to choose a side to believe and then run with it because comparing the two websites is like reading a chemistry text book – pretty boring.

Interestingly, I actually find myself more drawn to the climate skeptic webpage “Friends of Science.” The website itself was better designed and more easily navigated. It used a lot of graphics and charts (which made me feel like I was interpreting meaningful data, despite the fact that I couldn’t decipher it). Finally, it was less scary and came off as less accusatory. The climate skeptics “suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.” That’s a message I can actually feel myself getting behind – I mean seriously, every environmentalist should really acknowledge that we can’t control Mother Nature. Overall, the message was just more comfortable.

The “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website offered scientific data but definitely came off as being on the defensive. The data was presented as argumentative, not simplistic. The message was not about being impartial or interpreting “unbiased” data, it was set up specifically to change people’s minds. I do believe in climate change, but I don’t feel that it was well marketed by this particular website.

Save nature save yourself

The most thrilling engagement that I have had with the non human world would be a few years ago my family went on a boat trip down in South Carolina. The boat took us out into the various waterways around the Charleston area and we saw various aspects of the precious ecosystem there. The coolest part would be when the dolphins in the area were beaching themselves onto the shore. There were a specific type of dolphins that do that the conductor told us but I forgot what species they were. They had pink spots on their stomachs if that helps. This was probably one of the coolest things I ever seen because the dolphins would just jump out from the water and start beaching themselves on the shores. They would kinda gyrate on the beach and then somehow force themselves back to the water. This experience demonstrated that we do not need television or computers to entertain us but that there is fun from nature.

Saving nature is something that everyone must do because our world is a precious balance of numerous ecosystems and human actions are having a huge impact on this balance. If humans make one species go extinct it does not just harm that one species there are species that may rely on that species to feed themselves. There may be plant species that require that the species that is now extinct for pollination. There is only one planet and preserving nature is also about preserving our futures on this world. Saving nature is not about preserving the environment at the expense of economic growth but rather being good stewards of the planet that we have been given. Destroying nature is a short term focus but to be truly responsible inhabitants of the world we must take into considerations what we are doing and how they affect all inhabitants of the planet.

Toxic Political Will

This article is about “the Grand Korean Waterway” which is one of Korean president’s promises. “The grand Korean Waterway” is the biggest construction project ever in Korean history. This project has been a big controversy due to obvious potential environmental damage. Basically what this project does is expand the river’s size and dig it dipper so that big cargo ships can go through.
Some critics say it is not necessary because Korea is a tiny peninsula country. Korea is surrounded by sea and the distance between Seoul and Busan, which is the canal’s planned way, is only about 450km.
Putting aside the fact that the presidents’ family own huge property along the canal way, there is a huge environmental issues over this project. The Han River is a good illustration of how we can destroy nature with political will. The Han River, which used to be a healthy, diverse ecosystem, was totally destroyed after a big construction project to dig it deeper and widen it with a cement river bank.
Even though there have been so many small and big protests against the project it continues; the construction has even accelerated. It seems like the president wants to finish this historically gigantic controversial project within his presidential term.
It shows the worst example of the political will can affect the environment in a bad way, especially when it’s related to certain people’s profit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7202161.stm

Save the whales

The National Marine Fisheries Service recently announced plans to save the habitat for a species of wales that are currently threatened in the Atlantic Ocean. By preserving the habitat it allows for the whale species to survive and possibly expand their numbers to a sustainable number.

This is refreshing after the past eight years when endangered species were not a focus for the previous administration. The preservation of species is a good thing because it preserves a fragile ecosystem and allows for certain species to recover to certain levels. This may be a small step but it is progress for what needs to be done to protect all the species of the world. Here is a link for you guys to check out.

http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3523

Will wind be the future?

Everyday environmentally driven companies strive to create the technologies that will sustain our future. While ingenuity is present, the funds to back up renewable energy alternatives endeavors such as solar panels, hydro electric dams or win farms are not always there. Luckily strides have started to be made towards sustainable development.

Google and New York Financial have each agreed to invest in a 5 billion dollar transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms  along the Atlantic Seaboard. The wind farm will stretch 350 miles and make it easier for electricity to be brought onshore in the New Jersey, Virginia and Delaware regions. 

While offshore wind farms are more expensive than coal or oil, it will ultimately lower our nations footprint and hopefully contribute to the end of climate change. The trouble though, like other renewable energy plans is convincing the public and high powered industries to switch from a cheap abundant alternative to a new more technologically advanced resource.

Although it will take time, moving forward to a greener future is possible, especially with high corporate and government backing.

To read more about the proposed offshore wind farm visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&ref=earth

Zoo-p-a-zee-zoo-za...

In our many, varied discussions of environmental politics, we have yet to mention what originally, as a kid, made me care about the environment: the conservation of animals. On a very visceral level, I care about the environment not only because, we, as humans, must live in it, but because all creatures great and small (amazing TV show, and the books by James Herriot they are based off of were some of my favorite childhood reads) must live in this world too.

SO! With that in mind, let's look in our own backyard for an organization that is doing amazing work in animal conversation, and by necessity, habitat conservation: Smithsonian's National Zoo! The zoo, which if you have never been to before, what have you been DOING these years in DC, is not just a place to house animals. The National Zoo IS HUGE. The number of research institutions, programs and projects they are undertaking is amazing! And it is all for saving animals. By saving animals, which doesn't mean just stopping a species from going extinct, but increasing genetic diversity, preserving habitat, encouraging sustainable practices locally in animals' habitats and globally with people are the world, the zoo works to help not just lions and tigers and bears and fish and birds, but you and me.

The question though, that is brought into questions with zoos is the idea of preservation vs. conservation. Preservation essentially says get rid of human use of certain ecosystems all together, while conservation is saying we need to regulate human use. The zoo falls into the conservation category, realizing that we cannot get rid of humans, we're here to stay, but we can find ways to sustainably develop how we treat animals and their habitats, for the reasons I've already mentioned, but also, to quote from one of my favorite books, Last Chance to See (by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine): "There is one last reason for caring, and I believe no other reason is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them."

And now, pictures of the SEVEN, COUNT THEM SEVEN, lion cubs born within the last two months at the National Zoo!

(Click to be overwhelmed by adorableness)

Shera's four cubs

and

Naba's three cubs' first exam!

I am in overwhelmed.

I am an ordinary environmentally conscious college student

I would say that I think like other environmentally conscious college students when I make food choices. Here is a “model” list that any good college students should think about before they buy food: First, it should be organic or proven that the producers treated animals well in its production. Second, local is better.
First of all, I respect all life forms as much as humans--except roaches and mosquitoes. However, I don’t think that I should be a vegetarian. I admit that eating meat is natural. What is unnatural is raising animals inhumanely, like by feeding cows corn, feeding non-vegetarian forage to vegetarian animals, and squeezing them into a cell-like cage. I am more environmentally conscious when I am emotionally involved in an issue. That must be why I am not that passionate about organic vegetables. Second, I support local farms for less fossil fuel consumption and local communities’ development. I hope that eventually local farms replace the big corporations’ farms. I believe these things are the best practical actions for environment with my food purchases.
On the other hand, there are other factors that affect my food choices. First, it shouldn’t be irrationally expensive. I can take few dollars difference as investing in my health and for supporting organic farms. However, I don’t think I will ever easily buy vegetables that are double the price at Whole Foods. Second, it is hard to quit my favorite foods. It seems as if my favorite foods are sacred. When I have Korean food that I miss so much I will not even think for a second what kind of meat it is, or whether it is organic.
Overall, I try to make good food choices and make consider the environment. But I confront some obstacles that are deep-seeded in my mind. I am satisfied with my food choices and its impact on environment and that is all I can do as an individual consumer.

In the past few days, I ate a fancy hamburger at Chef Geoff’s, Korean pork barbeque at home, and a burrito at Chipotle. Among my last three food choices, my fancy hamburger must have had the greatest environmental impact. I am sure that my hamburger patty was made out of “good beef,” but not the one from the factory farm. However, in general our big beef consumption has the greatest impact on environment. First of all, cows take a lot of energy to become beef; this means they need a lot of crops or corn (that cows are not supposed to eat) to grow up and get fat. A huge portion of Amazon’s deforestation is attributed not only to the raising cows, but also to growing beans and crops to feed cows. Also, the methane that cows produce has 25 times stronger impact on global warming than carbon dioxide.
By the way, I don’t like to measure my consumption simply by thinking about environmental impacts without consideration for animal rights; it’s too selfish reason to think just about our (humans’) food.

Food Glorious Food

I personally do not think before I eat simply because since I rely on the school dining room for my meals I personally can not make the choices available. Honestly, I usually just grab the foods that look the best and I am in the mood for. Ideally, I try to cut down my intake of meats because they are bad for the environment since they cost more to make than other food sources. The environmental considerations for me are that I hope that the food being prepared is made in a way that reflects proper environmentally sustainability but I feel individually it is up to the food companies to make sure they are following enviromental standards. I feel indivually if consumers can exert pressure on the food producers but this can take a lot of organizing and willpower which I feel most people do not have the stomach for their food sources.

The past weekend I took the LSATs so I honestly did not eat or drink much this past weekend. I only consumed water because I do not drink caffeine. This decesion was made for health reasons because I feel caffeine is bad for you and messes up your body's natural way of doing things. This also could play a role enviromentally since water would be easier to make than caffeine products. Food wise I eat local foods since I was back home. I eat two Italian hoagies from Wawa with lettuce mayo, salt and pepper. These foods I feel have less of an impact since they are locally made. Lastly, I had a bowl of cereal frosted flakes for breakfast with that potentially have the greatest impact due to all the ways that the cow is maintained along with the methane gas that the cow releases.

Apple of My Eye

First: I am a foodie. I am a ridiculous epicurean who is living on a college student's budget. I love to cook, this weekend in fact, I had a dessert party where I served: dulce de leche cheesecake, brothers, cookie sandwiches with a nutella-chocolate filling, a fruit dip, bruschetta and cucumber dip (okay those last two aren't desserts but realized too many sweets isn't a good idea). All of that was made by me! I LOVE TO COOK! And not just easy stuff, like pasta, but crazy ridiculous stuff, like homemade dulce de leche for a cheesecake. Yeah, college student with aspirations of something bigger.

So when I shop, I shop with a mindset of a not-so-average college chef in mind. Meaning the frozen food (prepared) aisle holds little interest for me, unless maybe frozen veggies.

Here's how my brain prioritizes when grocery shopping: 1. Menu for the week. I plan out what recipes I want to try/make before I go shopping. Saves me from impulse buys. 2. Price. This is pretty much tied with number one, because I set a budget for myself each week of how much I can spend. At the store, unless I know of a noticeable taste difference between the brand-name and store-band items, I go for the cheaper store-band stuff. 3. Shelf life. I may not buy a head of lettuce if I think, "No, I really won't be making salad for the rest of the week, that'd be a waste." 4. How hungry I am when I shop. I try not to go grocery shopping when I'm hungry, because that's when I make impulse buys. "What? Dinosaur chicken nuggets for only $2? I MUST HAVE THEM!"...Situations like that I try to avoid. Just because I love to cook and in general don't go for a lot of "processed" foods, doesn't mean I don't find them delicious. Realistically, though, it's usually cheaper for me to make my food and have leftovers for the next few days.

Thinking of what I ate over the past few days...it's hard to determine what had the most impact. I'll pick something random, then, because at least I can focus on it. I had some apples from New Zealand this week. ('sup Professor Nicholson) I know that apple farmers in New Zealand actually have an amazing industry that's committed to growing the apples, if not completely organically, in an integrated system. Here's a pretty fun publication on agricultural exports from New Zealand: http://www.hortresearch.co.nz/files/aboutus/factsandfigs/ff2007.pdf.

Anyway, so despite the fact that New Zealand is doing this amazing sustainability program, all these apples to had to come to the US. I've been to New Zealand. It is a FOURTEEN HOUR FLIGHT THERE FROM LA. How long does a cargo ship take? How much fuel is burned in the transportation? And since I had this apple here, in DC, not only does it have to get to the US, it has to get to the other side of the US. So many fossil fuels burnt! Oooooooh no CO2 whoa!

But why do we have apples from New Zealand? The US has got the apple market covered, right? Johnny Appleseed and all that? Well. There's this idea of demand. Even if apples aren't in season (though they are here), people demand apples. So New Zealand, on an opposite seasonal system than us (hey spring!), can provide that, at the cost of the environment. Good times.

The apple was pretty tasty though.

You are what you eat....gross.

Over the years I have limited my diet, not so much based on the ideal of my environmental impact, but mainly due to food preparation. The media has a large role in this, and the way I look at food has never been the same.

When I was in my freshman year of high school, I saw super size me. Seeing how food was processed, where the food came from, learning the countless number of chemicals put into each meal and seeing the overall quality of the food made me quickly change my diet. I have not had a ounce of fast food since. The same ideal went with certain types of chicken. I saw the documentary Food Inc. That movie changed my life. It was horrifying to see how companies like Purdue and Tyson’s treat the animals. Conditions are horrible, pens are overcrowded and unclean, and there are vast amounts of runoff from animal waste that flows into the rivers and streams. Seeing this caused my to immediately stop me from eating chicken nuggets. The worst part, I had just bought some at the grocery store…that was money wasted. Because of this fact, I eat entirely organic, even though it may be expensive. It is important to me that by fruits and vegetables be pesticide free and that my meat is free range, grass fed.

Even though I mainly base what I eat off of the nutritional and health conditions, I do try and buy local whenever possible. While abroad I was introduced to the amazing culture of farmers markets. I loved how fresh everything was, how feasible it was to obtain and how remarkably inexpensive everything was. So, every Wednesday afternoon my roommates and I would walk to the market and get our fruits and vegetables for the week. Not until looking back to I realize how much this lowered my environmental footprint towards food. Food was grown naturally, decreasing the impact on the environment through runoff pollution. Food also did not have to be transported far unlike the millions of products people consume everyday that must be shipped miles and miles for consumption.

I try to instill these values on my roommates, family and friends and have been somewhat successful. Although everyone sees the importance of eating organic or local, not everyone can give up the processed unhealthy foods they love. The worst part is, they know exactly what they are eating, and they know exactly how the food is processed. However, the marketing and the long-term lifestyle of eating things such as chicken nuggets or McDonalds overpowers the ideals of what is really going into your body, or the industry you are contributing to when buying the product.