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.