we are what we....

My food choices are probably among the most unsustainable choices I make, at least from an environmental standpoint. I am a big time carnivore, even though I am fully aware of the amount of energy required to create a food-Calorie of meat. This is a lifestyle choice, but also a nutritional one: I am altogether too aware of how much careful planning it takes to replace all the nutritional value in meat, and have seen first hand too many vegetarians/vegans fail to pay close enough attention to their vitamin and complete/incomplete protein intake, to the detriment of their health.

To be honest, the only real driver of my food choices is nutritional value per dollar. I lead an active lifestyle that demands proper nutrition, but have a really limited budget. Since food is just about the biggest budget item after rent for me, I have to cut corners where I can. Given a choice between eating green and eating healthy, i choose healthy, given my economic constraints.

Also, I am unconvinced by the "organic" movement sweeping our fair nation. This term is almost devoid of standard, and seems like classic greenwashing in a lot of situations. I chuckle when I see environmentally conscious people paying extra for "organic" produce that is watered with toxic Chinese groundwater and shipped with fossil fuels around the globe.

I hope to embrace local when I have the funds, if not for green purposes for quality purposes. As the Brits say, you have to "eat your view": if you want farms and rural areas in your neighborhood, support those farms at the grocery store!

No, I don't really think about the environmental impact when I buy food.  I usually just think of how long it will last and if it will be good to eat.

The thing with the highest environmental impact I buy is probably coffee, but I don't actually pay for it.  I get a pound for free per week because of where I work.  Other than that, probably Snickers bars when I buy them (every other day)

What exactly am I eating?

I must say that I really like this class because it makes me re-evaluate my lifestyle. I try and make changes in my routine in hopes that I will help the environment, but one thing that I hardly ever do is think about the food I buy. I'm fully aware of the pesticides and fossil fuels which are used to produce and transport a lot of our food not to mention the damage the involved ecosystems face including issues of species endangerment. Still, this very rarely crosses my mind when I go food shopping which is troubling to think about. The main thing which I consider when buying food is the cost, whatever is the cheapest is what I bring home. I've thought about this issue before, but it always gets brushed to the side of my to-do list because in my eyes it's inconvenient. While attending AU my parents pay for my food but that means a limited budget that I have to spend wisely. Because of this it's hard to buy organic food because nine times out of ten that means more money. I have to say that I'm not extremely educated on this subject, so therefore I don't know all of my options, but I'm willing to bet there's a middle ground that I could be supporting instead of doing nothing.
In addition to buying my food, I also have a meal plan. I don't have as many options in the dining hall as I would if I were to eat all of my own food, but I can still pick and choose. From what I've seen, the dining hall has been pretty good about switching to locally grown produce and they support sustainable fishing. Even so, I find myself not choosing food based on what's best for the environment, but just by whatever looks good.
If I had to pick something that I've eaten in the past few days which has had the greatest environmental impact I would say it's been tuna. The reason I pick tuna is because of the huge trawlers which are used to catch the fish. Not only do they use large quantities of fossil fuels, but they disturb the ocean's ecosystems. Huge nets are pulled along the ocean floor killing and capturing everything in their path. Once the nets are brought to the surface, whatever isn't needed is thrown out as bycatch.
After discussing this issue for our blog I no longer feel I can go to the supermarket without reading the labels and finding out more information on where my food is coming from. Food is a serious issue not only concerning the environment, but with respect to our own health. I'm sure many people would rather eat organic if they knew just how many pesticides and GMOs were introduced to their food!

Food

When making food choices, I buy organic, pasture raised and fed, and chemical free. Partly, I do this because I care about the environment and I can afford it. I don't pay my food bills, my parents do and they don't mind me spending twice as much for organic food. However, the main reason I buy organic food is because I can't eat a lot of conventionally grown food. I develop allergies if I eat conventionally grown food, but I have few problems if I eat organic food. Over the years, I have developed a wheat allergy, a peanut allergy, and a number of fruit allergies, but once I switched to organic, these allergies went away . I can't be the only person in this country who has issues eating foods covered in pesticides and chemicals, that has been irradiated, and shipped from thousands of miles away. 

Ideally, I would also like to eat locally, but that is really hard to do in DC. When I go to Wholefoods, almost everything is from California, with the rest of the produce coming from Florida, Washington state, and other countries. There are farms in Maryland and Virginia, some of which grow organic food, but none of it is sold where I shop. It is frustrating, especially since I used to eat organically and locally, but it is easy to do in Florida. My parent's live across the street from a farm and every town has at least one farmer's market or farmer's co-op. I could get organic, locally raised chickens, shrimp, fish, lambs, and goats that were fed what they were supposed to eat instead of the industrialized wheat and antibiotic diet that is becoming the norm. 

I think its the fact that I can't eat locally in DC easily that has the worst impact on the environment, instead of a particular food I have eaten recently. I know that there are places to get organic, locally grown food in DC, but they aren't very easy to get to considering I don't have a car so I don't go to these places to buy organic, locally grown food. I realize its just laziness on my part as I could take a cab to get the food back to my apartment. I know locally grown food is better for the environment, but the environmental impact of driving the 15-20 miles to buy it has more of an apparent environmental impact, from my perspective, then buying organically grown food from 5 states away, as I would actively be taking part in the driving. I can easily ignore the impact of transporting the food as I had no part in it, especially since it means that I can shop at a local grocery store, instead of going out of my way to be environmentally friendly. 

Technology?

I am indifferent on whether or not technology will save us.  Some new technology is greener, but other technology is getting worse.  Maybe once everything is green, technology can save us; until then, technology can only do so much before canceling itself out as good.  Newer technology means using new resources, probably recycled when technology saves us.  This is good for the environment, , using old waste.  

Technology: Friend or Foe?

Technology is certainly a contributor to our world's current state of environmental destruction, but it's not the only one. It's linked to society's demand for bigger and better things. We do have to be realistic in the sense that we won't go back to using the horse-and-buggy as Rob stated in his blog, but we also have to acknowledge that the reasoning for this is because technology has managed to set our standard of living. When we have discovered a quicker and more efficient mode of transportation, what's the incentive to move backwards?
This is my main concern. Granted, some technologies are extremely useful in the sense that they save lives and even help the environment in some respect, but is a new model of ipod, cell phone, or computer really necessary every few years? If we want to address one of the bigger issues here, I think that it's our need to consume combined with technology. It's always a rat race between industries to see who can sell more which is a problem because our limited resources are being depleted at rapid rates.
On the other hand we have made great efforts in discovering technologies which work to minimize our environmental impact. Although, once again technology is not the only thing we must consider when evaluating this issue. Technology can only do so much before societal cooperation is called into play. If we have cleaner, more efficient cars but no one is buying them, what good will they do? In this respect people must be interested in fixing the problem before technology can start to minimize our footprint. That being said, I think technology can help us fix some of our problems in the future, but more importantly there has to be the desire for change.

Technology

I have to agree with Rob about being reluctant to condemn technology, but for different reasons. I feel that considering the current state of the environment, turning away from technology would do more harm than good. The pollution resulting from human activity will not magically disappear if we just suddenly stopped using technology. However, there are known techniques for getting rid of and reducing the pollution in the air and water that has resulted from human action, with better techniques being developed all the time. Not using these techniques would probably do more harm for the planet as the pollution would just sit there and slowly breakdown, possibly creating even more harmful by-products in the mean time, as opposed to the impact created by getting rid of pollution using technology. Technology has the possibility of reducing people's impact on the planet and even reversing it. 

I do understand where people who condemn technology are coming from. There is a real possibility that people could become secondary to technology or that technology will help people trash the planet even quicker than we are doing so right now. I worry about it too, especially with the number of movies and TV shows about a post-apocalyptic future where humanity, and the planet, are dying because of something really stupid people did, like building a computer capable of artificial intelligence that decides to destroy humanity [Terminator] or where men become sterile [Children of Men]. 

You don't even have to look to fiction to see the damage people can do with technology. The hole in the ozone layer, the destruction of habitats, acid rain, and countless other problems with the environment that technology and people have caused. However, here I would have to agree with Rob when he says that technology may not be a force unto itself. Every instance where technology helps destroy the planet, it does not act by itself [yet anyway], but is directed and used by people, usually to help people have more stuff or to cope with growing populations. Technology doesn't seem to be the problem even if it does help people destroy the planet faster as people seem to be the real problem. People need to want to consume less so that we destroy the planet less and hopefully reverse our effects. Don't blame technology for the impact people have, blame people. 

Technology

I have a real problem with condemning "technology" as a driver for environmental problems. The implication is that technological progress is bad, and that by reverting to simpler, less advanced technology we would improve our environmental footprint. While this might be technically true, it is utterly impractical and socially unpalatable, and is therefore driving environmentalism farther from the mainstream. Let's be serious: No one is going to go back to horse-and-buggy and give up their electricity, even if it means less fossil fuel use.

Frankly, I'm reluctant to even view technology as a force unto itself. Instead, I see technology as a manifestation of human will: it's our ongoing search for the best possible solution to the problems we encounter. I don't think it's fair to BLAME the chainsaw for deforestation, for example. Rather I blame our insatiable lust for clear farmland and lumber. Just as this desire drove us to invent a better solution for removing trees, a desire to achieve sustainable forest products could easily lead to a technological solution such as fast-growing genetically modified trees, or use of naturally sustainable materials like bamboo.

Simply put, "technology" is nothing more than us using our greatest resource, brainpower, to develop solutions to our problem. It is completely impractical for us to have LESS technology, and arguing for that is a good way to alienate pragmatists from environmentalism.

I agree with the Maniates article.  The time for easy changes is over, what needs to happen are drastic changes.  However, I don't think the political aspect is that moving.  The types of changes he is calling for are government level, and I think the government would stand to lose a lot of money.  It needs to be a public effort, community level, rather than government level for the changes he would like to see and that are necessary to curb environmental damage.

I completely agree with Michael Maniates article on America's approach towards current environmental issues. Often we hear politicians or even the president announce initiatives for things such as a greater transition towards cleaner energy by 2020, but many times the "transition" is so small that it's unnoticeable. Not to mention the possibility of the deadline year being pushed back. It's hard to have such a pessimistic view when there are positive actions being taken such as the incorporation of hybrid cars into the market. But at the same time, such actions aren't aggressive enough. If hybrids only consist of 2 or 3% of sold vehicles, we haven't been very affective in our message that global warming is an urgent issue.

Although I agree 100% with Maniates, the environment is an extremely touchy issue. There have been people who talk of the severity of environmental degradation, but often they are ignored because they're thought of being extremists. A large part of our society turn their noses up when they hear things like the melting rates of our glaciers and the extreme changes in our weather patterns which call for action NOW. They can't visualize environmental destruction in the future, and if they can't see it many think that it's not such a serious problem.

Now don't get me wrong, this isn't an excuse to not take greater action and call upon the people for their help, but the question that I continue to struggle with is how do we do this affectively? What tactics do you use to convince families to decrease their consumption rates and get rid of 3 of their 5 cars, or how do you tell someone that they don't really need that shirt their going to buy? This is an issue that's often pushed aside, but as Maniates says, "The time for easy is over."

Response to Maniates Article

Maniates brings up a number of valid points in his attempt to start getting people to make drastic decisions to their lives in the name of the environment. Following the 3 R's [Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle] and trying to cut back on energy usage on an individual level alone is not enough. We, as a country, need to change some of the basic tenets of our society. Consumerism and the American way of life, which includes the dream of a big suburban house and a few cars, are not sustainable in the long run given the number of people on the planet, our current methods of production, and the limited resources of the planet. 

However, the small steps that Maniates denounces as easy and not enough are about as far as many people can go in reducing harm to the environment. This is not because people are lazy or don't care, but because it is hard to think about people decades from now when life seems difficult now. Given the current worldwide economic slowdown, most people are more concerned about their jobs or living expenses than their carbon emissions. In times like these, small steps are better than no steps at all. 

Granted, the very institutions that can try to help people do more, like the government and all of its associated departments and agencies, are not helping, much like Maniates says. The EPA, for instance, fought California's attempt to set lower emissions targets than the EPA. We are living in a crazy world when the Environmental Protection Agency is stopping a state from doing all it can to protect the environment. It is much like the video "The Story of Stuff" by Annie Leonard says; the government seems more interested in protecting the vested interests of corporations and businesses than of people. If the government tried dramatically change this country in an attempt to reduce our impact on the environment, and reverse it, not just within our borders but by reducing the impact Americans have in other countries via industries, businesses would be impacted greatly. 

Our economy is based on the idea that producing junk that people buy and need to replace often will make you wealthy. Change this model and businesses will shrink, which I doubt they want and they have the money to prevent the government from interfering with this model. Citizens don't. We do have the ability to attempt to hold the government accountable, by voting and agitating for change. Of course, a popular figure to become a face for this movement and to help people care about the environment, like Dr. King did for the Civil Rights Movement or FDR for the war effort would help. 

I agree with Maniates when he says that people are, to an extent, willing to sacrifice to help the planet, but I think it is businesses that will probably end up sacrificing more than the common person.  

re: Maniates

I am not sure what the reader is supposed to take away from Michael Maniate op-ed "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It". A sense of doom? A feeling of powerlessness to create change? This is, in my mind, the worst face of the environmental movement: condescending, alarmist, and calling for some mystical change to come down from the heavens and rewrite the whole way we live our lives. The only way we can even dream of seeing real progress is to move incrementally, and align peoples best interests with those of the environment.

At the moment, there is no incentive except for altruism to make environmental change. We have displaced the costs of our unsustainable lifestyle across time and space, and in doing so have moved environmentalism upwards on our hierarchy of needs. The only way to make the big changes Maniates is pushing for is to make every individual feel these costs viscerally, in their wallets and their day to day lives, and let market forces do their efficient work. When you tell someone who's paid $10 an hour to spend an extra hour commuting to work on public transportation at a savings of $5, they do a quick cost-benefit analysis in their head and say "No, thank you."

Maniates, and environmentalists who share his views, shouldn't be surprised that people are only willing to make marginal changes to help the environment at the moment. It's human nature to ignore issues that do not appear to directly affect you, and wailing about that on the op-ed page will not change anything. Any environmentalist who is hungry for genuine change needs to approach these questions pragmatically, to cooperate with people and align their interests with those of the planet. Talking down to the small minority of Americans who are willing to start making change, even if it is just a few CFL lightbulbs and recycling their cans, is counterproductive and harmful to the movement as a whole.

McCain v. Obama

I decided to compare John McCain and Barack Obama for this assignment. After reading McCain's perspective on the environment, I would say that he's a market liberal. I say this because McCain talks about how the environment and the economy are "inextricably linked" and expresses the thought that, "a clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy." It appears as though he feels that we should work for a better environment by means of a stronger economy, and as Clapp and Dauvergne explain in our readings, market liberals see the way forward as promoting growth. McCain also talks about alleviating poverty which is a key aspect of the market liberal theory.

On the other hand, I would have to say that Obama is the closest to being a bioenvironmentalist. This is because bioenvironmentalists support limits to growth and reduced consumption which is illustrated in Obama's plan to reduce America's oil dependence as well as his cap and trade strategy. It was hard to place Obama distinctly in the bioenvironmentalist group because he didn't quite fit all of the descriptions. For example, he doesn't talk about limiting population growth, but overall I feel he fit best in this category.

In terms of talking the most sense on the environment, I would have to say Obama did a convincing job. A lot of McCain's claims for environmental improvements are broad and sound similar to many other politicians. I personally am looking for a different candidate with more dedication. Some of Obama's goals seem to be slightly traditional such as investing in clean energy, but he also mentions supporting next generation biofuels which shows more commitment.

Ron Paul vs. Hillary, environmentally

Based on the scale from Clapp and Dauvergne, I would say Ron Paul is a social green, while Hillary Clinton is a institutionalist.  Ron Paul wants to cut the size of government and government spending while still proceeding towards a greener society.  He does not rely upon institutions and bases everything on the constitution, saying environmental issues arise from a lack of respect of property rights.  Hillary, on the other hand, bases her environmental policy around the government and the market, and it heavily relies on institutions.  Her policies would require new institutions to be created in order to make America greener.

I believe Ron Paul talks the most sense regarding the environment.  He voted against federal funds for logging, actively works against government programs that harm the environment, and pursues means to encourage sustainable energy.

Vote Ron Paul....

Clinton v. McCain

For this post, I decided to compare Hillary Clinton and John McCain. 

When it comes to characterizing these two candidates, it is a little difficult. Very few people would fit entirely into one category, especially when they are trying to get elected. Clinton best fits the category of the Institutionalists as her environmental plan includes a number of government financed plans. She has a very thought out plan, including bonds, new power grids, and other incentive plans that all rely on centralized governments on the national, state, and local level. Yet, with all of Clinton' talk of empowering local areas in order to help them make better environmental decisions, she is also a bit of a Social Green. McCain, on the other hand, can mainly be considered a bioenvironmentalist as he champions environmental stewardship. He wants clean air, clean water, and sustainable land use. However, when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, he favors a Market Liberal approach, utilizing market forces to encourage better energy and fuel efficiency. 

The two candidates are trying to do the same thing, reducing Americans impact on the environment and energy use, but they do so in very different ways. The labels provided in the reading are useful in an analytic sense, but in practice, most people fall into multiple or overlapping categories making the labels less useful. I'm sure there are instances within each candidates' plans that would place them in even more categories. 

When it comes to choosing which candidates' policies make more sense, the labels do not really help much. I do not think that McCain's Market Liberal approach to lowering carbon emissions will work that well as such policies have not faired well in dealing with current environmental emission problems. Granted, with higher energy costs and different government policies, they could potentially work. I do, however, like McCain's Bioenvironmentalist stance when it comes to the environment as we should preserve, maintain, and promote growth within our forests, rivers, and such. Clinton's plans also sound very appealing, despite being dependent on cooperation on a number of levels and with a number of parties. 

In the end, a combination of their ideas would probably be best so as to get the greatest possible effect on the environment. Simply one of the approaches given by the labels wouldn't work as each label focuses on only part of the issue, and thus only gives a partial solution. If I had to pick a candidate based solely on their environmental policy, I would have to pick Clinton's as hers does not rely on Market Liberalism as much. I just don't think it works that well, even if it is paired with Bioenvironmentalism, which I think does work. I just think that, for the US, relying on institutes and empowering people will help protect the environment and reduce emissions. 

Ron Paul v. Obama

I've been following the Paul campaign with great interest, if nothing else because he's such a perfect case study of classic Republicanism with a genuine libertarian leaning... an individual rights guy to the core.

As a free-market, small government man, Ron Paul believes that private property rights are the key to sound environmental policy. He is not for centralized federal regulation, but says that polluters and over-consumers are intruding on the rights of property owners. In Ron Paul's ideal policy plan, afflicted parties would be able to sue polluters, driving their costs up and making irresponsible resource use and polluting economically inviable. This approach makes Paul a straightforward Market-Liberal.

Obama, on the other hand, has a blend of free-market and regulatory ideas to bring environmental harm under control. Perhaps the most interesting is the carbon cap-and-trade system, which would impose a regulatory cap on national emissions but then allow corporations to divy up allowed emissions on an open market. This would encourage innovation and punish backwardness, but not as harshly as some other measures.

Aside from this, Obama is a classic scientific stimulus/regulation environmentalist. He aims to invest massive dollars into energy science while mandating consumption standards such as CAFE. All the while, he promises to involve the nation more completely in international regulation.

Such a broad approach is more difficult to pigeonhole. Cap-and-trade is a touch of market-liberalism, international involvement is typical institutionalism, and all that scientific investment sounds like bio-environmentalism.

Who's talking more sense? Even though I'm a free market guy by default, I think it doesn't work with the environment. Even staunch deregulatory free marketeer F.A. Hayek conceded that environmental issues are thorny because the costs can be displaced instead of felt directly by the problematic party.

I like Obama's plan because it focuses so much on technology, but wish he had more lifestyle statements to make, even if that isn't the direct role of the President. Maybe if he set a sound example himself, he could use his station to demonstrate how it's WE that need to change, not just our science.