Our ecological intelligence & our ability to seek alternatives

Daniel Goleman, the author of ecological intelligence and many other outstanding books about how to save ourselves. One of his main concerns was about how knowing the hidden impacts of what we buy can change everything. Our innovations of green technology have become so interconnected and complex that it is difficult to find products, which do not leave a substantial ecological footprint. Ecological intelligence needs to be spread among the society and influence an increasing change. We need to recognize that everything we consume has a hidden price tag, which will in turn impact our lives. All the products have a hidden policy through its life cycle. Everything that is produced begins a life cycle. At the moment of the lifestyle the product goes through a life cycle assessment. This assessment will allow us to understand every step of the way- every single approach that is taken leaves a detemental effect of the environment.

Good guide will allow us to have a summarized outlook on the products impact and provides a radical transparency. Allow many may be mislead to believe that the “better” product is more expensive; this may in fact be false. Many precuts have be rated at low scores and yet they carry an incredibly high price. For example, another website which was launched, Skin-Deep is a site which provides information about chemical concerns in skin products and it has been revealed that the most expensive products have a high rate of carcinogens. Companies need to begin using the methods of life cycle assessment because overall the sellers know more than the buyers. Companies are created new forms and varieties everyday but they are not considering the danger they are forming. As a whole, we need to realize that “Green in such a mirage”. Even though having “green intelligence” may be the best way because of the minimal energy usage. However, we need to understand that every process adds to an ecological footprint.

We have entered a stage, which provides us with radical transparency where we are allowed to receive feedback from many as well as input our thoughts. Information will spread like an epidemic and allow us to be concerned about more important things. In order to get information, we need to take the time to seek for it. Although many of us are not capable of searching through a website for every product we consume- we can virtually search the good guide site and seek for alternatives for the popular products we consume. As humans, we are generally creatures of habit and consume the same products weekly. But should we change because of the issue of morality or for personal goodness. However, based on the change in the market economy “doing good has become the same as doing well”. One thing I found interesting about Daniel Goleman is his idea of living like insects. Perhaps he is right, his view suggest that we need to do everything together. Insects all follow a powerful pheromones so that they can find their goal.” If humans were able to work as a team together, we would be able to find the answers more efficiently. Even considering the action of living in a simplified lifestyle. We could be surrounded by less competition and less concern. But, every product that we create and consume leaves a social impact on each individual.

Take for example, simple items, which have been around for years and yet they are still using old methods, which use a lot of energy. Some examples are glass, sunscreen- which has been noted to destroy the coral reef in the ocean because of the pounds on sunscreen coming off in the water and the example I was intrigued by was cotton. I never realized the detrimental affect that cotton making leaves on the environment. However, it turns out that many toxins are extracted into the atmosphere. Also the process of cotton making increases chance of leukemia.

In earlier times cotton was produced by more sustainable techniques, which did not create as much of a health hazard as it does today. An increase in technology has transformed cotton making into a world of pesticides. The use of pesticides in cotton farming has increased the chances of threatening the health of people and increased the risk of depleting our environment. Just as seen in crop production and the transformation of nitrogen fertilizer, pesticides are life threatening! Organic industries have made an attempt to transform cotton production because conventionally- grown cotton is only taking about four percent of our farmland but pesticides are used at a rate of thirty to thirty-five percent. The worst part is that the plants only absorb about ten percent of the chemicals used and the rest eventually end up in our air, water and worst of all into our bodies.

We need to recognize that applying pesticides will transform into surface water and cause a greater imbalance in our ecosystems. Our man- made products take knowledge and power yet they are causing the major effects of the depletion of our ecosystems. Just as humans may become immune to certain medications or illnesses, animals and insects are capable of being resistant to pesticides. This may lead to an abundance of pesticides and generate danger to our diverse ecosystem. We have seen that biodiversity plays a large part of our environment because we are all interconnected. We each survive of each other. Therefore, we cannot put other species at risk because of cotton production that causes danger. EPA released a study in 1993, which states that almost one million birds are killed annually because of insecticides used in cotton production. I thought it was bad that thousands of crows died when the West Nile Virus broke out in the United States- but this is because of cotton! Cotton becomes a simple material that can be used in our soft shirts that we don’t think twice about. And yet, this simple soft “fruit of the loom” t- shirt may be killing species.

So I wondered, should we all start wearing organic cotton where there are no insecticides used? Granted organic cotton is portrayed as a better option because it is produced by safe and sustainable techniques. Also, it is believed that organic cotton farming leave a lower carbon footprint and consumes less energy and lets out less green house gases. It allows benefits an eco-friendly approach whiles omits the issues of toxic run off (which is killing thousands of species in our marine life everyday). Insecticides are really a form of poison to us and yet we consume and generally consume more energy. Daniel Goleman does remind us that organic clothing may still leave an impact on our environment because everything has a life cycle, but I believe that organic cotton production may be a safer bet. I believe that if we were to consume organic cotton, we would put our voices out there and add more words to the world about our environment.

The cotton is for your body, but the organic part is for the earth.

Our ability to have access to social networking is the key to change. The only way to find evidence of whether people are changing their way is to put our input out into the world. In earlier times, we were not concerened about the ecological footprint cotton may have left. We were concentrating of markets, trade and the ability to stay warm. However, today we have the knowledge and education to seek alternatrive to better ourselves. It is not the information that we are given, because those are just words- but instead it is the impact with make with the information that we world. We need to consider our option and our alternatives in a different way and approach a change of heart. Overall, there is no limit to our power and our moral value will always go hand in hand without economic power.

So, go to the store and walk through the aisles and take an extra second out of your day to make the better choice. Rather than consuming the product that you are accustomed to buying- buy something new and better. Not because it looked good last time, or anything of that sort. Try to make a change and realize that by supporting companies that produced hazardous products, we are only putting ourselves in more danger. The companies produce products and may not even know the effects it may lead to. BUT, we have the ability to write to Good Guide and request a change in ingredient and the process which is used in production. We can stop the killing of coral reef because an ingredient in sunscreen kills them. Perhaps, we were unaware that that sunscreen could have this effect of coral reef, but now we do. Now we have the information. So, now we can make that change.

1. Goleman- Ecological Intelligence
2. www.pbs.org/moyers
3. EPA statistics
4. November 30th, 2009- Professor Hirsch Lecture

We have the knowledge..Now all we need is a change.

“When we’re distracted our inhibitors for emotional impulse are weaker and we fall prey to what appeals right now, without thinking about the consequences.” As Daniel Goldman explains, when we’ve had a bad week and decide to take a trip to our favorite store, we just think about what will make us happy now. When we buy a new pair of jeans and a shirt and shoes to go with it, we really aren’t concerned with where they came from or the amount of carbon released to produce them. Consumers simply just want what will make them happy now, they don’t really think about what consequences buying this product could potentially have on their future. As he described, every product has a hidden price.

This, however, should not be the case today. We have grown up in a generation where issues about the environment and global warming have been basically engraved in our brains. Goldman discusses, basically how we have our grandparents to blame for these problems of today. When new inventions and technologies were coming around, no one was thinking, in fact even knew what global warming was, so why should have they worried about this. Unlike our grandparents, however, we have access to the knowledge to slow down, and even reverse the problems we as a society have created. We have so many networks and connections over which information can be spread at rapid rates and between millions of people. He describes how we actually need to act more like insects and share our information. Like we’ve been discussing in class, you need the help of others in order to succeed and be successful. Not everyone can do everything alone.

A carbon footprint is the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused by an organization, event or product. Even though many are working to decrease their overall carbon footprint there are so many products still being created that we don’t even recognize as being bad for the environment. One key example of this is sunscreen. Who would ever imagine that using sunscreen and protecting yourself from harmful UV rays could be dangerous for the environment? Well, actually many sunscreens contain a key ingredient that can wash off in the water. When this ingredient washes off, it is harmful and can kill coral. In the end, we are making products that we don’t even know are bad for the environment, but now there is more information available to us to help us know when things are good or bad.

Another example of this are things like organic cotton tees. As he discusses, yes they are a little better because they don’t use pesticides and fertilizers that can runoff into our limited water supply, but they still use dyes to color them that can potentially harm the environment. The more urban the setting the more surface runoff there is. As we know ground water provides >25% of the nations water supply and over 50% of the U.S. relies on groundwater for drinking water. Also, by not using fertilizers that may contain carbon and nitrogen, which may create explosive algae growth that in turn depletes oxygen in water possibly harming other species, these tees are a good cause. However, although organic cotton tees help with conserving one of our most valuable resources, water, they still affect other aspects of the environment in a negative way. Global warming is a problem but so is human activity that destroys natural resources such as leveling a rainforest. If lands are being destroyed by human activity to produce cotton for t-shirts this can be even more devastating than global warming. Global warming occurs over decades and can be slowed or reversed. Human activity that destroys so many valuable resources, however, causes immediate loss and is irreversible.

Today there are resources such as skin deep and goodguide.com that provide us with information on the truth about a variety of products. These resources provide us with the knowledge and power to know what is the best choice for us as consumers to purchase. They are a “for-benefit” corporation and help to give consumers product's back-story. They provide such things as the overall health, social, and environment ratings, along with things like potentially harmful ingredients and chemicals. Easy Mac for example, a food consumed very commonly among college students has an overall health rating of only 1.0 and is said to contain artificial colors that could lead to health issues such as ADHD. Without good guide, what do you think your chances of knowing information like that would be? My guess would be slim to none. These resources are creating radical transparency and creating a competitive marketplace “bringing squarely into awareness the actual impacts of what we buy.” It’s also interesting to learn that many of the very expensive products are actually much worse than the cheaper products. So when many say that can’t afford to help in saving the environment, they really just don’t know the facts.

Although these databases don’t contain information of every product, this is just the beginning. Hopefully, these will be able to expand and word will spread about them hopefully having an impressive overall effect. All the information is being handed right to us. If we don’t do anything now, then when will we?

At http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/, you can actually calculate what your approximate carbon footprint is. "Inevitably, in going about our daily lives — commuting, sheltering our families, eating — each of us contributes to the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Yet, there are many things each of us, as individuals, can do to reduce our carbon emissions. The choices we make in our homes, our travel, the food we eat, and what we buy and throw away all influence our carbon footprint and can help ensure a stable climate for future generations.

Use The Nature Conservancy's carbon footprint calculator to measure your impact on our climate. Our carbon footprint calculator estimates how many tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases your choices create each year."

Try it... you might be surprised and maybe even influenced to help to make a change.

• www.pbs.org/moyers
• Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goldman
• Class lecture, final water
• www.goodguide.com
• http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/

Climate Change

From December 7 until December 18 there will be a conference held in Copenhagen where 192 countries will come together to discuss climate change. “It has been billed as the last-chance saloon; a final opportunity for the world to seal a deal to prevent catastrophic climate change.” Their goal is to create a deal that will decrease global greenhouse gas emissions and also that will prevent a rise in temperature by more than two degrees Celsius. “Scientists believe that any increase above this level would be the tipping point for irreversible damage…” Even though this temperature increase is extremely small, it could have devastating effects for thousands of people.

“Governments want the new treaty to encompass more nations and more sources of greenhouse gases, such as forestry and changing land use. They also want to create a framework for wealthy countries to supply money and technology to poor nations to help them to adapt to and reduce the inevitable impacts of climate change. They are keen to refine a global trading regime for carbon emissions to help to cute greenhouse gases from industry.”

This new treaty not only calls for the large carbon emitters, to decrease their emissions but for the more developed and advanced neighbors to help those not as well off as they are.

The other day in class we discussed how it would take a drastic and large change to have any chance of “saving” the Earth. This meeting is a great example of how people are starting to realize this. Although the article did say that “Copenhagen may merely mark the start of a long period of uncertainty over global carbon regulation that may take years to resolve” at least someone is starting to make a change. This meeting may just be the beginning of making a change, but at least it is something.

The article, Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom, discusses how some think that the rapid population growth is leading to an increase in global warming. It is obviously true that humans do have an effect on global warming. As humans have increased their energy usage, they have also changed atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, Earth’s climate, increased population from the millions to billions, greatly increased per capita energy usage, and reduced available resources. Overall they have drastically changed their own overall lifestyle. However, it is also true that humans are the only ones who can solve this problem they have created for themselves. This conference is hopefully a key step to helping the population make a change and hopefully reduce emissions, and help control climate change.

• Help Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom by Maria Cheng

• Times online

20,000 people, 192 countries. Welcome to the carbon circus by Robin Pagnamenta

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6888246.ece

• The Human Side of Climate Change, Part 1, Class lecture

Are we really Recycling?

We all think that we are recycling and doing the right thing by going green. After watching a clip from 60 minutes in my public health class I quickly began to think differently. Victoria Harbor, Hong Kong is one of the most toxic places in the world. It consists of tons of Electronic Waste. Here at this location many of the things that we Americans recycle are found. This location was to be kept a secret and was not supposed to be exposed. The people in Hong Kong used American wastes to make a profit. These recycled electronics led to them having the highest cancer causing dioxins in the world, the women were six times more likely to have miscarriages, and 7 out of 10 kids had too much lead in their system. The people doing this research spoke to an individual that worked at this wasteland they said that it was really hard to breathe there they can feel it in their windpipes and it makes them cough all the time. They burn their hands and ruin their bodies working with this waste. When asked why do they continue to do this if they are damaging themselves they say because it makes them happy to have his job and make some type of money.

E-wastes is the fastest growing in the United States. We recycle 130,000 computers a day and 100 million cell phones per year. The government officials and gangsters that know about this wasteland do not want any investigations being done and after a while began to threaten the people to leave and to stop doing investigations. So though we feel like we are recycle and doing good and trying to save our country, our wastes are being sent to other countries like China and they are using these wastes to make a profit, while doing so are harming themselves but feel that its fine because they are making a profit. Investigation has been done to see where these wastes were coming from. In Denver, Colorado a company that took the wastes said that these wastes were not being sent anywhere, but items were traced in China from that company. So it happens. After watching this video I think about whether or not being exposed would change how things and wastes are being sent out to this area in China. Even China’s government knew about this place and did not try to make a change.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4586903n

Biodiversity- What world do we want?

A large percentage of the worlds needs come from biological resources. Therefore, we rely on diversity within our lives. Biodiversity allows us to have a greater variation in the products that we consume. Therefore, every single species in the world impacts the world. We need to understand that if there is a greater variety of species, we will be able to form a wider variation of crops and resources. Instead, as humans we take on a dominate figure and tend to forget the need to preserve the greater variation of our species. In order to maintain a well-sustained biodiversity, we must offer our maintenance. We need to learn how to protect our water resources and stop the effect of Eutrophication and preserve our soil formation. We should be concerned about how our nutrients are stored in soils and the effect recycling can take. Overall, most species have evolved to depend on each other, as we are in human nature. Take for example one of the earliest known methods of crop production. Consider the nitrogen cycle where soil, bacteria and plants rely on each other hand in hand. The process of soil formation allows the growth of plants for animals. Yet, the animals produce a source of manure for the soil to form and process adequate amounts of nitrogen. The organisms in the soil benefit from crops. Everything from bacteria, algae and earthworms all contribute to soil fertility. They allow soil structure and act as a small army for strong soil. However, our new industrial techniques continue to deplete the soil, deprive the species and depend on insecticides and antibiotics for further production. I believe the better bet would be to go with acts of nature.

Or take for example marine life. Fisherman worldwide have led decreased our fish population and greatly impacted fishing communities. Some of the largest fishing regions in Georges Bank and the Canary Islands have been “fished out”. Many fishermen have grown greed and grew furious when quotes were established. Many fishermen were forced to invest in larger boats, vessels and products in order to stay in business and keep up with competition. It is believed that many underwater organisms are the primary result of fish decline and may be a reason for global warming. Although some fishermen are trying to minimize the fish they caught, they are still plowing at the entire habitat. A practice called “Derby Fishing” allows for unlimited amounts of vessels and yet even though there are less boats seen because the water is not as productive as it once was. Overall, fisherman is going to eventually lose their jobs.

We need to begin to see a change in our styles of usage. There are many services, which we can provide to our environment in order to better the world. And yet, the United States spent close to $60 billion dollars of biotechnology in order to study microorganism with genetic resources (based on the Biodiversity policy makers of 2009, page 17). What is it going to take to make the United States dedicate their attention to proper needs? The price should not be the sole factor that we consider bettering our environment. We tend to wait until we are at a severe state to call it a crisis and them attempt to quickly change societies mentality. But we need to remember; just because a price is dropping it does not mean that it is in high demand we companies are producing more at a lower price. It may also mean that companies are looking for alternatives in order to hide from mistakes and to be rewarded for their immoral behavior. We will allow large companies to take charge and deplete our resources by finding a way out our their problems and the less wealthy will follow. Yet, what will happen to local producers, which rely on smaller areas of land- these producers will generally go out of business?

We must learn to benefit in long-term effects and capture the value of biodiversity. Biodiversity contributes to many aspects of human well being, for instance by providing raw materials and contributing to health. Biodiversity is very important for our ecosystems because they give us an understanding of how the human population will survive. Generally, biodiversity can provide us the concept of food security, which describes how much food is available in communities. It also contributes to health issues, where we may lose concern for infectious diseases spread to human. Whether we stop relying on so much meat product and reduce the amount of land we use for farming animals. We need to reduce of luxury wants.

Generally, biodiversity is decreasing faster than every seen in history. Most of our ecosystems have drastically changed through human activity. We are being to see that many land areas as transformed for agricultural or other miscellaneous uses- and it is only increasing with time. We need to figure out ways to protect our ecosystems because they are not renewable. Destruction of ecosystems is purely continued for selfish motives and we need to recognize the consequences that we bear on ourselves. Change in societies that affect access to resources can impacts on ecosystems. This may explain why some people living in environmental resource-rich areas rank low in well being. Many have suffered from the consequences of biodiversity losses and from restricted access to resources they depend upon.

There are no signs that the pace of biodiversity loss is slowing down. Issues such as climate change and pollution are expected to increased and they will impact of level of biodiversity more and more each year. We continue to see a loss of animals population and dwindling fish populations because of human activity. A research article in the journal,Science, warns that commercial fish and seafood species may disappear by 2048.

First the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the manatee, maybe even the leopard now? Humans cannot be next. We have evolved to a species which has survived through many changes. Therefore, I believe it is possible to survive through the changes we are being confronted with today. In retrospect, we may be the ones to blame for extinction and climate change (global warming).

Thanksgiving Reflections

As my large family gathered around the table to pray and give thanks for whatever it is was they gave thanks for, I could not tear my eyes away from the food laid out before us. There was so much of it. Too much for us to consume on one night. The staring had more to do with how disturbed I was than how hungry I was. But what was most disturbing was that there had to be at least four different kinds of animals on that table.

I began to wonder, how many other families in this country are standing or sitting around a table similar to this one? I'm no vegetarian, but after having learned about where our meats come from and what animals are put through before making it to our supermarkets, I've become a bit squeamish.

How many Turkeys are eaten on Thanksgiving? I did a little googling and found my answer at infoplease.com

"According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 45 million turkeys are cooked and eaten in the U.S. at Thanksgiving—that's one sixth of all turkeys sold in the U.S. each year. American per capita consumption of turkeys has soared from 8.3 pounds in 1975 to 18.5 pounds in 1997. Ten years later, the number has dropped slightly in 2007 to 17.5 pounds."

That is an incredible amount of turkeys. There is no way that many turkeys can be raised for mass consumption in humane conditions.

And so I came back to the table with the turkey and the roasted pork and the chicken and beef filled Empanadas and thought about what I was giving thanks for. Another day in the year when I can consume unnecessarily?

I am thankful for my health and my family and friends, none of which needs to be celebrated with such an elaborate feast. For Christmas I'll be asking my family to limit the animal sacrifice to just one.

Art for the World

I watched a video on Youtube that made me realize just how many ways there are to make a difference. I like to consider myself an artist. My medium is the stage. We were challenged to think of ways to save the world, and the task felt daunting. How can I change the world? I'm just an actress. Sure, I can do what we can all do; consume locally, limit my energy consumption etc etc, but what about truly making an impact by making people think? I try to do that every time I set foot on a stage but the effect can only be so big. I'm still working on finding a way to make an impact from the stage.

One of the most effective artistic mediums in the effort against global warming may be photography. There is something incredibly powerful about an image. "A picture is worth a thousand words" can't quite describe the effect an image can have on a person.

Paul Nicklen is a photographer for National Geographic. One of the most beautiful pictures he's taken is of a polar bear swimming in the cold waters of the arctic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbLzmvWwQmU&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=269684FB0239EC91

I love that this image raises the question: Can we "stand to live in a world without Polar Bears?"

Jeff Jacobson is another photographer that has used his art to raise awareness about environmental issues. One of the stories on his website titled California Environmental Landscapes, is a beautiful collection of how modern technology and nature co-exist. At least that is what I have gathered from it.

http://www.jeffjacobsonphotography.com/california-environmental-portraits

There are many more photographs on his website that raise environmental awareness. I encourage everyone to take a look at them and see what they take from them.
What comes to mind when you see these images?

I welcome all of your responses.

New discoveries- The deepest tunnel

Science Discovery: Build it Bigger- The Deepest tunnel where engineers construct an underwater tunnel in Istanbul, Turkey.

In the beginning of the 19^th century, the Turkish began a construction in order to connect Asia and Europe in the area of Istanbul. They had a belief that they could create a nine-mile tunnel, which may provide a railroad transportation system. A normal railroad system may be seen as what we are used to day in NYC or maybe even Europe. However, this is a completely different revolution. The engineers wanted to create a transport system in an earthquake zone. The area that they are working in,is long overdue and is expecting an earthquake shortly. Rather than creating a railroad which will be bored through rock, this one will be made in element sections that will be connected by flexible steel plates so that they can be absorbed during earthquake movement without being damaged.

During construction, they have developed problems of making the tunnels bend. They have developed a “bend without breaking” concept, which will provide great flexibility by rubber, that controls the amount of water. By controlling the water the element can be manipulated up or down. This underwater tunnel will be constructed out of eighteen thousand tons of steel and will withstand earthquakes up to a 7.5 level. Concrete casts must be floated into water by sections. In order to do this, the water must be flooded in by opening values with up with 250 cubic meters of water per hour leading to 8 thousands cubic meters of water in 36 hours. However, the elements have to be transported into water. The concrete element tube must be brought down into the water. However, with the differences of surface currents, the elements may not turn into precise alignment. However, these genius engineers have developed methods to place the elements into the water so that the elements can follow surface water currents.

During these test trails they were able to find archeological sites of over thirty shipwrecks and craters, which brought them to various new construction methods. These industrialists believe that everything can happen under water and will work best there.

There is a connection bridge, which leads to the axis shaft in order to bring the elements. The axis shaft is the entrance to the element, which is below the water. At the end of the element, there is a concrete tube, which pushes the water pressure dramatically. The tubes of the shaft are made of two concrete sections, and are stabilized- so that if they get hit, the people will be safely stranded underneath the element. There is an incredible comparison to architecture and design, which allows us to understand the new inventions of connecting continents.

The tunnel attempt will consist of eleven thousand pounds of tunnels. This tunnel will be able to carry one hundred and fifty thousand passengers at a time. It amazes me the industrial technologies that we see being attempted. This construction has been dreamt about for over a hundred years and is almost near its completion point.

How we can evaluate what discoveries will benefit us rather than hinder us? How can we make the right choices? I think that we should evaluate the benefits of what inventions can bring to the nation. For example, new innovations such as Good Guide allows us to recognize the progress and footprint we are leaving. I believe a virtue like this should show people that with the help of society and a source of hope and belief we can make accomplish our goals. As a society, we are capable of expelling our selfish motives and can create a sense of care for each other. I believe this thought of mind will allow us to conquer all.

We need new discoveries that shows more awareness and opportunities. Just like we are given instructions when we board an airplane, we need to be given instructions on what is going on in the world. Even though this is not a political debate where the government may hide certain things from the society in order to decrease levels of chaos. This is the work of the society.

Science Discovery Channel: Build it Bigger: The Deepest Tunnel

Folbre- Invisible Heart.

Transition of Intelligence and our path

Our nation has transformed our concern of production in two patterns. We have advanced our food production techniques in various ways. In terms of tool usage, we have transformed from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to slash and burn methods in order to increase land usage. However, overtime our land had become depleted. Though, through technological advancement we have been able to use methods with fertilizers, insecticides and legumes and the process of recycling. These forms have allowed us to increase our production. Although once the Haber Bosch process emerged and the idea of Green Revolution our usage of cheap energy increased drastically. These methods of machinery and more affordable techniques transformed us into a dependant country. As Berry Autumn believes that new knowledge would come from experience and that it must much better than just being given tons of information on a topic. We just are able to look at history and experience changes in order to project the future.

Overall, our concentration has merged from the idea of production and effectiveness to the impacts of production. Although efficiency can increase our production, we must understand the consequences that we are putting ourselves against. As population expands and demands increase, we lose the time and efforts to be concerned about the impact of our products. Yet, as we grow older and form families we grow more concerned about the products that we are purchasing for our families. We begin to wonder what is being put into our food and various resources. As a dependant nation, we are consistently consuming products from several different countries but we are blinded by what may occur in the factories outside of the United States. Yet, we need to stop and think about the changes that we can make as a society to grow awareness of our own understanding.

From the beginning as primates we have grown to adapt to our surrounding and are influenced by our surroundings. We continue to purchase products, which are greatly advertised because we believe that these are the best products for us. Yet, more products are being produced from different countries leading to an increase in oil usage and therefore a higher price in food demand. But how can we break this social norm of benefiting every nation besides our own? We have committed ourselves to lifestyles based on moral actions and have lessened our care for health and global concerns (Pinker). We continue to follow the Machiavelli quality approach where we as inhabitants have grown the ability to manipulate each other based on production. We follow social norms and we follow the “proper path”

Consider “Get Fat Without Trying”, this movie allows us to grasp an understanding on what determines the food choices we make. We have grown to be a nation, which relies on food that is drenched in corn fructose syrup- BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER. We cannot always rely on healthier options because it is too expensive. As a nation with the top five percent only being able to afford local and organic goods, we get pushed into a corner without choices to make. But, the question is how can we stop advertisements and new label on products from persuading us to make choices on what we buy? How can we break the habit of purchasing items because we “seem to work fine last time”? It makes it very difficult to fathom this since the government permits the usage of advertisement to make us consume products which will benefit our country but will not benefit the people.

We are subsidizing corn farms and using cheap methods to feed animals with corn products in order to make them grow to that more meat can be sold. We are feeding our innocent animals with anti-biotic to further the process of filling selves at the local Wal-Mart. Perhaps we should grow accustomed to purchasing products which are in season. Rather then searching and traveling long distances to get the products that we want, we should only consume seasonal local products. We should allow the government to take part in public health and influence the choices we make for the better, and not for worse. We should stop the encouragement of processed foods- because our trend in obesity will not end.

Where is our concern leading us today? Today we are worried about green house causes and the effect of climate change. We are worried about the level of carbon dioxide emissions and where we will stand as a nation. Overall, the United States is leaving an ecological footprint that will never be reversed if we do not call for a change.

Good guide has many pros yet some cons. The beta system allows us to get information and resources, which we are deprived off. When we purchase an item, we can look at the label for various nutritional facts, place of origin and perhaps fancy approachable labels. Yet, this is what our society has become. We approach a label that we are accustomed to. We have grown to believe that the product which has allows suited our needs will be okay for the future. However, when a new “green” product hits the shelves with a label that states “green and re-usable”, we alter our desires. Good guide will allow consumers to understand what they are buying.

As a fast paced nation we are accustomed to walking down the supermarket aisle and purchasing what seems familiar. Although I believe good guide has very good motives, I have a fear that it may contribute to a domino effect. If minute information is released about every product on the shelves, whether it is good or bad, it might also take away from businesses. People will finally see what companies are slowly degrading their environment by the habits they practice. It will greater more focus of companies which are committed to environmental safety. And as consumers, we quickly recognize change in products. Therefore, I believe it will allow us to omit consumerism in the wrong places.

“ The mindfulness of a shopper marks a shift in mental functioning from running on automatic, going through long practice routines to an active awareness that allows new learning and therefore a new choice”. As people, we have the ability to create direct every day routine, where we do not think before doing because are accustomed to our lifestyle. But, if we are able to recognize the changes, we will alter our preference and will be more likely to buy “better products”.

The information that we will be provided will allow us to have a better understand on what environmental and ecological footprint these products left. It will also allow for consumers to give their direct input to various companies around the world, so that these companies can better themselves based on consumer’s preferences. Take for example Nike, which was so blinded that their factories were in perfect conditions. However, when legitimate information was brought upon them, they finally realized that their companies were far from perfect.

And even though Good Guide does not provide information for all products and may have gaps in some of their information, it is still a start. Everything that we produce is interconnected and has a start but it seems as if there is never an end. All techniques start with a beginning and rely on further advances and finding for improvement. Therefore, my belief is that Good Guide will be able to expand him or her and will create awareness that each and every single consumer needs to be provided with.

Perhaps if we stopped consuming everything that is thousands of miles away, we could limit our concern on our ecological footprint. But will our country ever stop? Will we ever fully promote local?

-Goleman- Ecological Intelligence Chapter 5-7

-Partys Over- Chapter 3

-Get Fat Without Trying Movie

-November 16^th, 2009 Professor Hirsch Lecture

- Pinker Moral Article

What Exactly is a Hippie?

A hippie is a person who rejected established institutions and values and instead sought to create love and understanding for everyone. This is indeed an interesting view on the world and seems to be kind of what we as a class are trying to accomplish ourselves. The established institutions of today run on money and greed for its stability and this causes a lot of pain and suffering for others and for our planet. Wouldn't a world that was peaceful and provided a healthy world and healthy living be a nice place to live in? Hippies have been portrayed as burnt out crazies who contribute nothing to society but wasted space by the media although they seem to have a pretty good idea.

In the movie "The Men Who Stare At Goats" a secret military organization created by Jeff Bridges character teaches non-violent solutions to war situations. Called the "New Earth Army", the soldiers are taught psychic powers for non-violent combat which is pretty ridiculous. They are also taught to communicate with nature and the military personnel chosen for this new organization who had never thought about what people were doing to the world were then enlightened. The soldiers were taught about preservation of natural resources, our impact on the world, and how we should be able to coexist with all other creatures, even our enemies.

This movie reminded me of our class and how we are being taught of our impact on the environment and how to exist in this world without being so destructive. Is the hippie mentality that idiotic and wrong? The characters participating in the "New Earth Army" in "The Men Who Stare At Goats" were made out to be crazy in the eyes of outsider Ewan McGregor due to their belief in psychic powers. During the movie I asked myself "why must the people trying to save the Earth be the crazy ones?". If people were introduced to an environmentalists viewpoints in a better context than psychic warriors then I believe more people would be open to the ideas of a hippie, at least the good ideas. In my opinion if the preservation of our world was conveyed in a context that appealed to peoples own ideals and beliefs then we can change the way people treat the Earth.

Green Revolution

I found this website http://wparks.myweb.uga.edu/ppt/green/tsld001.htm while looking for information and opinions on the green revolution. The website was interesting it was in the form of a slide show. Walt Parks provided the information found on this site.
Parks starts the off with, Byzantine Proverb: He who has bread has many problems He who has no bread has only one problem. Parks explains what was the green revolution as follows:
A planned international effort funded by:
Rockefeller Foundation Term coined by U.S. Agency for International Development director William Gaud (March 1968)
Movement to increase yields by using:
. New crop cultivars
. Irrigation
. Fertilizers
. Pesticides
. Mechanization
Ford Foundation
Many developing country governments
Purposed to eliminated hunger by improving crop performance
Important figure Norman Borlaug

Norman Earnest Borlaug (1914 -) is Considered father of Green Revolution he is a U.S. plant pathologist/plant breeder and Joined the Rockefeller Foundation in 1944
Assigned to the international maize and wheat improvement center (CIMMYT) in Mexico
Won the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize. He feels we are in the Aftermath because Rapid increases in yield greatly diminishing Population is still on the rise and modern practices have Caused many environmental problems also increases in the cost of production have had an impact.
Then the next bunch of slides cover the history of agriculture which we have covered early this semester although it goes a little deeper with about ancient civilizations and technologies and there advancement. After the history lesson three reasons for the need of a green revolution are state, they are More urban people, Population increasing rapidly, Food production not keeping pace. Thomas Malthus' Population Predictions from his “Essay on the Principle of Population” he states"
Population increases geometrically
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128
Food supply increases arithmetically
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
Malthus predictions where not accurate because he failed to consider Birth control
Technological advances and The Green Revolution.
I believe the site is trying to link the fact that population is a driving factory in the success and failure of the green revolution. It says that in the 30 years of the green revolution has had some failures such as not eliminating famine, Population still increasing, Increased cost of production, An increased negative environmental impact and the green revolution has not worked for everyone.

The Green Issue & the Need for money for training

"There is no energy shortage, there is no energy crisis, there is a crisis of ignorance"

Green technology has become interconnected with every source of living. Whether it be about cars, new power devices or even a simple light bulb. However, we need to consider how cost will effect all these advancements. Changing to green and numerous building practices has a created a new financial reliability. It is believed that even though it may be more costly to initiate green technology, that the savings will return in the long run. We believe that we will benefit from being "green" because it will allow us to lower of energy expenditure, waste disposal and most importantly lower environmental emission costs. Though it needs to be considered whether all these changes will be produced. We may be able to assure the public that our energy will be saved and that waste will be disposed properly, but are we certain about the changed in productivity and health care benefits it will bring us?

New green buildings have become more sustainable by using new energy, water and land methods. The hope for green buildings believe that the new upcoming changing will bring healthier environments to the public and the workers. But, there have been many concerns and insecurities about the cost of going green. We should recognize that the issue of cost has not been deeply advertised or recognized by the public media. Our sole concern is to get the green word out without mentioning costs. We are provided with promises for changes in high cost of electricity, water shortages, global warming risk and of course the issue of health among the people and the workers. The promises are easy to rack up, but at this point we are not sure how much work and money must be expended into the changes.

This chart shows us that building green is cost- effective and will eventually make sense financially.

I believe with all these green technology advancements and financial promises, we should be able to develop a new field of work. We begin to see new real estate titles such as a "green broker", majors in colleges for green technology, green experts and etc. We are beginning to create all these new titles for people to help to advancement of "green". My concern is the security of these titles. In desperate times, many jobs are held at high demand because of our economic situation. The United Nations Environment Program says that there are currently 2.3 millions jobs worldwide in renewable energy. However these only supply two percent of the worlds energy. It also mentions that the amount of jobs in these fields will probably grow as more renewable energy capacity is installed.

I believe we are creating a job field which will consistently be unstable whether it rise or fall because we are still unaware of the efforts needed. Congress I now working on a legislation that can make major investments in job training for a clean- energy workforce. The senates Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act currently includes funding for the Green Jobs Act which will act as an essential investment to skill up Americans workforce.
We need people back to work on this- before our fear of climate change rushes quicker than we expect.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf4f3142-d9e6-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html

Partys Over

Cartoon Guide

The Holiday Season

The Thanksgiving holiday is upon us. And with that comes the day after ("Black Friday")which kicks off the Christmas buying period. In my 32 years of life I have never went out on Black Friday and shopped, but this year I am looking at this day as well as the holidays in general a little different. For a very long time I have felt that the holidays for the most part no longer carry their original meaning. Now they are a tool of Capitalism. It is what it is and its up to the individual to determine how much they spend and get involved in this aspect of the holiday. However this year being that I have been taking this class and now work in a new industry I am seeing things a bit different.
At work all see all the trucks bring in food products among other things. That's a lot of trucks a ton of diesel fuel and lots of stuff from far away places. I now kind of see it as a waste. We are consuming a lot of extra energy on top of what we use on a day to day basis just to increase the amount of product brought in to accommodate a few day of "Big Eating" and one day of opening presents during the holidays. I see how much fuel the trucks use for normal daily capacity and now we are working at more than double the volume for basically one or two days of family dinners. It doesn't really seem worth it to me.
As far as Christmas and all the toy gift buying/giving, all I can thing about is how much fuel it took to make and get those goods to our hands. It brings back thoughts of the video we watched on our very first class. Also as Folbre pointed out the fact that caring gets lost in the shuffle. Think of all the people who are being exploited in some way shape or form in countries like China, just so we can go to Walmart and get everything on every ones wish list. Most of the stuff is junk anyway and will end up in a land fill harming the environment anyway.
I look at my children's Christmas want lists, then I walk by their rooms and see all the crap they already have most of which is on the floor and I say what the hell have I done. Most of the stuff my 9 year old wants is cheap crap made over seas. I have to say that this year the holidays for me have a very different feel, perspective and realization. Just something to think about! Happy Holidays to all!

Population and Global Concerns

As we develop new green technologies we begin to consume more and in turn use more energy. As a population we begin to require more energy for our production. However, we are consistently ignoring how our population size has an effect on our global concerns. In developed countries, we have the opportunity to seek help from medical facilities in order to limit the amount of children we bear. This gives us a sense of freedom where we may choice to precede our lifestyles in the which ever we please. However, it needs to be considered that the population growth has become unequal. The United States has become the fastest growing developed country and in turn in using a greater percentage of energy. However it needs to be recognized that countries population size varies in density. We are beginning to see that smaller countries have larger densities and are consuming more energy than larger developing countries. As a nation we are beginning to see a population decrease in many countries because of alternative contraceptives, advancement in occupations and the given opportunity of choice.

Our environmental degradation is originating from the issue of population size, the level of consumption and the damage that we are inflicting on our environment by the resources we use to consume products to maintain our lifestyle. However the world’s population has increased more than double and is estimated to expect double the amount within the next fifty years. How will our environment sustain such a large increase in population? We believe that increasing the population size will allow more consumers into our environment to help our ecological system. Although, it will take a heavy toll because we will exceed the size that the world can sustain. Granted, I believe that green technology will allow us to adapt to less energy consuming lifestyles but adding people into the population will increase more consumers and unbalance our level of consumption. In order to change our lifestyles, we must adapt to a less consumptive lifestyle and decrease our population rate.

Although many of us may think that population rate does not affect our level of degradation, I believe this is false. It does. We need to recognize the pattern of growth that we are seeing across different countries around the world. We cannot just assume that countries that have declining birthrates because they have access to contraception- will in fact help decrease energy usage. Areas of the world are condensing with people and these are the regions that are impacting our overall environmental degradation. Take for example the United States; we currently have the highest rate of population among the developed countries. And even though we have access to most forms of contraception, we are still coping with population size. Our cities have become flooded with inhabitants to the point where we are reaching our maximum capacity.

We also need to take into consideration the amount of immigration that comes into the United States. Many peoples are migrating in order to seek a better environment because their land has become inhabitable. However, large amounts of immigration will increase our level of environmental destruction. We are reaching a point where the “bomb is ticking” and our growth is only enhancing the problems that we will in. but the idea of consideration population size in relation to environmental damage has disappeared from articles, papers and journals written about global warming. “ Green peace” has debated that the amount of people in a population does not act as a worldly threat. Think about it in the long-term perspective. How can we consider new policies, which will better over level of conservation without considering how many people we are dealing with? Regardless the amount of green products we put into our society, the increasing population will continue to demand more each year. We need less people in order to decrease our risk of global warming.

However a stronger argument has been brought up which considers where the excess energy consumption is coming from. About thirty percent of our green house gases are being produce by RICH DEVELOPED countries that maintain high consumption lifestyles. Although we only documented a three percent usage in Africa. Consider the size of Africa and then consider why their consumption percentage is so low. It is claimed that much of our problems are due to “just large populations and how we choose to life” however, the poor are numerous and consume far less resources than the rich. But we cannot blame the poor- they lack fertility options and are unable to seek for help. The poor, immigrants and the people that are impoverished take up more room in population statistics than the percentage of the rich. Yet, the rich are having fewer kids and spending more energy. It seems like a double standard irony to just blame large population. We cannot make the poor people the victims. Even though the poor may lack fertility options and may be the cause of population increase, they are still not consuming the energy.

One way to look at this situation is to consider the density their population and how inhabits those regions. In the United States we have the highest percentage in states like New York, Texas and California. These states are filled with so many people that we need a lot of energy to maintain ourselves. Our concern for climate change has become a catastrophe. We see released articles daily, which entail that “the end is coming” and that we need to change our behavior patterns in order to put a stop to destruction. We need to recognize that large population in general is NOT a bad thing. Instead the patterns of rich countries habits are a bad thing. That is what is causing our increasing concern of global warning.

So the idea of “Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom”. I do not think the problem is about wearing a condom and protecting yourself from population growth. Clearly, we understand that energy consumption is not coming from the large populations that are poor. The increasing energy is evolving from rich population-keep in mind how low the percentage of rich people are in the United States and the world (around five percent).

The calculated number can only help us yield how many people we are dealing with. But we cannot ignore what regions this number is coming from. Thomas Malthus once argued, “Without “moral restraint” and other checks to control fertility, populations will increase, use up our resources and result in things like famine, war and disease to balance resources and population.” There is a belief that the poor remain poor because they continue to reproduce and are unable to sustain their family needs. Regardless whether the poor may not be able to have “control” over their fertility rates- it is wrong to blame the poor for overpopulation and blaming them to using excess energy for resources when they cannot even afford them.

I believe it is foolish to tell anyone to limit their family size if they are able to maintain their well being. Perhaps a larger family will eventually bring in additional wages and will eventually gain access to a better life.

Size of Economy (GNP) from Table 1.1, World Development Report 2000, World Bank

Albert Bandura- Moral disengagement

Professor Hirsch- November 16, 2009 Lecture

Population growth and climate control, are they linked?

The article, Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom discusses how some think that the rapid population growth is leading to an increase in global warming. Although people do seemingly play a large role in global warming, I think that the link between population control and climate control is a rash one. The article discusses how the majority of the population growth over the next 40-50 years will be in developing countries.

Developing countries actually release less CO2 into the atmosphere than countries that are already developed. So an increase in their population growth probably wouldn’t have as large of an effect as if say the U.S’ population grew the same amount. When a developed nation’s population grows there is a much larger effect than an undeveloped population. This actually is a very sad situation because the more developed nations affect CO2 levels and global warming, they are not the ones affected, developing nations are. If the average temperature increased only ten degrees Celsius, 35-50,000 deaths would be associated with this in developing nations because of an increase in diseases and living conditions, such as dengue, and schistosomiasis.

It is true that people and agriculture have an effect on our over all climate. The climate began to change approximately 8,000 years ago, the same time agriculture was introduced. However, agriculture is more highly used in developed nations, like our own, so population growth in developing nations would not have a huge effect overall.

It is known that for every one acre of trees removed, 26 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. This is equal to the amount of CO2 released from driving a car for one year. Most developing nations don’t even have cars or the improved and advanced technology developed nations do. Because of this, they contribute much less to the overall CO2 emissions and global warming than developed nations do.

I do believe that global warming exists, I think it’s almost impossible to say that it does not. I also believe that the population is growing as a steady and fast rate. However, I don’t believe controlling the population is the only solution to the climate control issue. It may be one solution, however, if we start trying to control the population, we will have to start controlling almost everything else as well.

• Fight Global Warming: Wear a Condom, Maria Cheng, AP
• Human Side of Climate Change II, Class lecture on October 28, 2009

Negative effects of nitrogen-based fertilizer

It has been calculated that more 2 billion people today survive because of the use of synthetic fertilizers. This is a staggering number because the availability of synthetic fertilizers relies on a non-renewable, cheap energy resource that continues to shrink every year. By the year 2050 the world’s population is projected to increase by 2 billion. A population increase of some 2 billion (or more) people would be made possible solely through the exploitation of cheap energy to manufacture synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers. This would create even more stress on an agricultural system relying on ever-increasing amounts of synthetic fertilizer. This population increase simply would not be possible without the use of synthetic fertilizers. It is very likely that the availability of synthetic fertilizers will decrease over the next century and if sustainable farming practices, which rely less on cheap energy and petroleum-based fertilizer, are not already in place there will be food riots and war on a global scale. The prospect for a type of scenario like this is very real and if these shortcomings are not addressed before it is too late, there will be catastrophic consequences on an unimaginable scale.

" As Seen on TV "

After getting involved in the role of preserving the environment. I have begun to notice small factors, which did not spark my attention until today. We are consistently reminded that we need to save our energy and continue with the path of “going green”. However the more articles that are put out, the less efficient it seems to be. Regardless whether you look at it in Jeff Dardozzi’s point of view where we consume more energy with energy efficient sources or whether you just watch TV for 30 minutes. I had my TV on for about 30 minutes between the 2:30-3:00 and I had noticed that every single channel was promoting a new sale that will “make your life better”.

I have been convinced that educate people around the world such as Heinberg, Muller and Szasz (just to name a few articles which I have been able to review and understand) are promoting the usage of more appropriate technology. We are trying to make a change in our environment by omitting energy consuming technology and sources with more efficient strategies. However, after watching a few infomercials I had noticed inventions which as the “swivel seat “ and the “smokeless car ashtray”. These are products that they are trying to export out to the society in order to make our lives better. How in the world can these products help our overall society? In fact, they will dwindle our progress in preserving the environment. If people become interested in these items, they will begin to fall into the consumer trap and continue to benefit the producers. We must realize that consumerism is a trap away from helping the environment. We are attempting to escape the threat of depletion. Yet, we do not continue to purchase items which are not beneficial nor will they help us progress. Instead of investing our money into various items that are seen on TV in the middle of the night- we should invest that money into ecologically friendly items.

Minjeong Kim of Ohio State University conducted a study about the effect of television shopping. She has learned that TV shopping is misleading and lack customer service information. Presenting these products of television reveal that the amount of information perceived from a television shopping segment selling useless sources influence a risk. A risk that we find ourselves battling everyday of our lives. Many of use continue to purchase these goods and believe that they are are efficient because of the five minute short-term relationship that we experience. However, we need to recognize that we are being hindered rather than helped.

Heinberg-Partys Over

Ohio State University Articles

As Seen on TV advertisements.