Conversation with my roommate

After my return from Germany this past July, I returned much more aware of the environment and living a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, simply by living the mantra "everyone can do something to save the environment." My roommates however do not have the same ideas as me about environmentally friendly living.

I spoke with one of my roommates this past week about the environment and everyone doing their part to help save the environment. My argument basically was that turning off lights, keeping a close control over the heat/AC, and recycling cardboard/paper/plastics/glass is the least that someone can do to help the environment. None of these things take very long, a few minutes, and do produce some noticeable results. My roommate agreed that these recycling was important, but often would forget to recycle items after use. As for turning off lights, since she was scared of the dark, she often kept lights on in order to feel safe. While I respect her fear, I tried to explain that one small night light would suffice, instead of having all the lights on in the bottom floor of our house. As the for the heat/AC, my roommate was more concerned about being comfortable, than with energy use or costs.

Although we disagreed over some of these issues, my roommate and I were able to have a civil and calm discussion about the environment. She did believe in global warming and climate change, however she was not convinced that all climate change was man made. I realized that when speaking with people about particularly sensitive or "hot button" issues such as global warming or gay marriage, the best advantage you have is your attitude. By approaching the other person with an open attitude and by allowing everyone to formulate their own opinion, and not getting upset when someone disagrees with you, you are better able to have a civil conversation about important topics, in order to create a learning opportunity for both parties.

Amanda

eco-conversation

i decided to have this blog conversation with my boyfriend, knowing he has little to no interest in anything SIS related, although it had some interesting results.

i think background on the topic is a crucial element of consideration going into such a conversation, because my conversation partner is not only not american, but from a region not very versed in eco-leadership; he grew up not only outside the US, but up in the well forested mountains of his homeland. this served to be an interesting counterpoint. to me, growing up in an industrial suburb, i almost struggle with eco-remorse at earlier practices, and actively promote eco-friendly practices now. he on the other hand grew up using less energy, walkiing more, etc. so it was not that either of us cared more or less about the environment before, but he hasnt seen a need to change his practices or attitude much because before, he was already living rather sustainably.

That said, he doesnt see the risk of not changing his ways; leaving lights on, forgetting to turn off the television or AC before leaving, things i scramble around doing before we leave anywhere. Ultimately though, he explained to me that it is not a misunderstanding of the fears of global warming for him, he knows and understands this, but in fact, not just a case of thinking that one persons changes make a difference (YES! they do!!), but more a matter of all people learning and practicing changing their daily habits...

one more thing

Also, I just finished reading the Norhaus and Shellenberger article about environmentalism, and another important lesson I took from it was that years of environmental destruction is not a result of people wanting to physically destroy or get rid of nature, just as conservation laws are not always a direct result of environmentalist-sentiment. Instead, its historical, social, and cultural conditions that give rise to these movements.

A Conversation

I was fortunate enough to have my conversation with my Dad, who is not a climate change skeptic and fully supports any legislation that benefits the planet; however he does like to play devil’s advocate to my environmentalist rants. We had a really great conversation about an Op-ed in the Washington Post about wind and solar energy as a solution to fossil fuel dependency. The article, written by James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hurst essentially argues that while wind and solar energy are seen as the primary answer to solving our electricity needs, they aren’t the only solution, and possibly not even the most feasible.

So of course, after my Dad said all this I immediately jumped the gun and tried to say as much as I could about the benefits to solar and wind energy – job creation, sustainability, etc. Hence the first lesson I learned from trying to present an issue to another person: it’s best to stay calm and rational, and to hear the full opinion of the opposing side before making any conclusions. But in all seriousness, my Dad brought up a lot of good points, things that I've never really considered when talking or thinking about how to tackle the environmental problems we face. I definitely don't want to be the kind of person that converses without listening, and so I've learned that its really important to talk about your issues truthfully. In the case of a conversation about the environment, you have to be honest about the fact that the challenges we face are huge, and they are very real, but there isn't just ONE right solution.

I think that is the biggest lesson I took from my conversation with my dad - "generating constructive change" definitely does not come from conversations where your ideas are shot down. You can make a really good point and be provocative, and learn something that you might not have known before. Finally, conversation is a great catalyst for constructive change, but it isn't the only way to attain it. We have to seriously reflect on what we know and what we've heard, and from there decide what is achievable.


This is the link for the piece in the Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042303809.html

Cradle to Cradle

The authors of Cradle to Cradle, McDonough and Braungart are definitely optimistic about the future of the environment and the ability of science and technology to adapt to solve the difficult climate change problems. I think because both authors are leading the new development for environmental design, it is easily for them to see creative solutions all around them. While the authors admit that these solutions may not be simple or easy to do, they both have such faith in the ability to change the earth through technological advancement.

One of my favorite examples of their eco-friendly design was their description of the remodel of the Ford Motor Company's plant in River Rouge (Chapter 6). With the help of an eco-friendly design, Ford was able to use the existing plant and adapt it to be more environmentally and worker friendly, without abandoning the old plant and simply building a new one. I thought the authors environmentally conscious ideas for the Ford plant were really interesting, innovative, and creative.

CRADLE to CRADLE

i actually beleive they have a great, and potentially very realistic concept in mind. reading this selection, i found myself thinking back often to "the story of stuff" (oh c'mon, of course you did too). that said, it is definately important to not only look at multiple usage cycles that our products take, but how to create them in the first place to have as many as possible. while i think technologically this and some of their suggestions/examples are completely plausible, as a bit of a realist, i must admit that the global market today (despite a handful of eco-friendly brands) simply would not let this happen - it would cost too much. too bad the irony of worrying about profits now will cost us ALL so much in the future......

climate change comparisons

While i found that the purpose of both if the sites, "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" and "Friends of science to have a similiar purpose, of dispelling confusions about what climate change really is, there are some more simple difference between them as well. I went in assuming things about what they would both be about based on their titles and concepts, but i was actually quite surprised about both.

First of all, Friends of Science completely threw me. I was anticipating some sort of eco-warrior type cause. In actuality though, it is poking whole is some of the most common assumptions about climate change. what i think is scientific aand friendly to nature about it thought is that they provide quite a bit of scientific and reasonably persuasive evidence about why the claims are incorrect (as well as giving an alternative response).

World Wildlife Fund's page took a similar approach, that is looking at and examining different common questions in regards to climate change. They take a sartorical almost approach to this though; its not about saying "you are wrong, this is right" but they are suggesting, in a throughly well organized manner, how to give a sort of "eco-intervention" to your climate change ignorant friends!

both are a unique and neccessary component to the important efforts to help as many people as possible understand the current and potential effects of climate change; whichever works, who kknows, but every effort helps!

The Carbon Footprint of SPAM

Spam 'produces 17m tons of CO2'

Percentage of green house gas emissions per spam message

A study into spam has blamed it for the production of more than 33bn kilowatt-hours of energy every year, enough to power more than 2.4m homes.

The Carbon Footprint of e-mail Spam report estimated that 62 trillion spam emails are sent globally every year.

This amounted to emissions of more than 17 million tons of CO2, the research by climate consultants ICF International and anti-virus firm McAfee found.

Searching for legitimate e-mails and deleting spam used some 80% of energy.

The study found that the average business user generates 131kg of CO2 every year, of which 22% is related to spam.

Unwanted traffic

ICF say that spam filtering would reduce unwanted spam by 75%, the equivalent to taking 2.3 million cars off the road.

However, the ICF goes on to say that while spam filtering is effective in reducing energy waste, fighting it at the source is far better.

The report highlights the case of McColo , a US web hosting firm that had ties to spammers. The day after it was taken offline by its two internet service providers, global spam volume fell by 70%.

Although the respite was only temporary, McAfee said the "day without spam amounted to talking 2.2 million cars off the road" and that tackling spam should be part of the campaign to reduce carbon emissions.

Richi Jennings - an independent spam analyst who helped produce the report - told the BBC that the figures were based on the extra energy use spent dealing with spam.

"The PC on our desks uses more power when they do work, so the numbers are based on the additional work they use when dealing with spam," he said.

The Spam Report follows only a few days after Symantec's bi-annual Internet Security Threat report, which found that spam had increased by 192%, with bot networks responsible for approximately 90% of all spam e-mail.

Mr Jennings said that while McAfee and Symantec had different ways of measuring spam, he was in total agreement with the bot network figure.

"Our report was based on mail that spammers attempt to send, including ones that are blocked by an ISP at source. Symantec only measures spam that is successfully sent.

"The vast majority of spam is sent via botnets. We've got Conficker building a fantastic network and you can bet your bottom dollar that it will wind up being used to send spam.

"There is speculation that the botnet Conficker is building up is owned and run by the owners of another active botnet - Waledac, itself probably connected to the classic Storm botnet - and the theory is that the owners are keeping their powder dry at the moment and will activate it once Waledac goes down."

Comparing Climate Change Websites

Not only were both websites set up completely differently but they each had their own goals in their approach to climate change. The "Friends of Science" website was aiming to clear up some of the common myths surrounding climate change, with their "facts" as written by their volunteers and Scientific Advisory Board. Their points were simple, without a lot of deep science, and clearly the Top 10 list was an easy format for those environmental novices out there. However reading "Friends of Science's" "About Us" selection of the website made me highly suspicious of the material published on the website. "Friends of Science" is apparently a non-profit organization of volunteers, who with the assistance of a Scientific Advisory Board, write on the website regarding climate change. The main goal of the "Friends of Science" website is to combat the political mistruths surrounding climate change, brought on because of the Kyoto Protocol. This philosophy reminds me of Wikipedia, also not the most reputable website, where any volunteer (or member in the case of Wikipedia) can go onto the website and make changes. Therefore the scientific credibility of the entire website, in my opinion, is called into question.

On the other hand, Grist's "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website follows a completely different model. First of all, and most importantly, is the website is backed up by a very credible organization of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The recognition and support of this organization for this website, lends itself to the credibility of Grist's website. "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" also is much more thorough and tackles any possible attack on the possibility of climate change, with scientific fact. Each answer is written in a detailed yet understandable manner, yet it is clear that the authors of the website actually are leaders in the scientific community and have years of educational and practical experience in the environmental field. Based on the overwhelming sense of credibility and scientific knowledge from "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic", I believe that this website is not only more convincing but also most accurate.

One major issue I had with Grist's website however, was the fact that you had to click into every topic to see the answers for the various issues. The excessive "clicking" becomes tiresome and takes away from the great wealth of knowledge being presented. In this one regard, I feel as though "Friends of Science" had an easier to navigate website, in that it did not take so much additional "clicking" and new pages to read the information. That said, "Friends of Science" did not have nearly as much information as Grist's website, however I felt as though the website could have been better formatted to suite the user's needs.

Overall it is amazing to see the differences in two websites regarding climate change, both of which claim to be written by the scientific community. However in the age of the Internet, after a little investigation, it is very easy to tell which website has the real knowledge and which one is just grumpily denying science.

Amanda

Environmental Websites

The Friends of Science website claims that their goal is to help engage Canada in debates about the validity of climate change science and the Kyoto protocol, and to do so by educating the public about the so-called “science” of global warming. FOS believes that the main cause of global warming is the heat from the sun, and that like any other natural process, the best way to respond is through adaptation and not flawed attempts at changing the process.

The Grist Magazine website approaches climate change skepticism by simply answering claims made against the existence of global warming. Its purpose is much different than the FOS website in that it takes a less serious approach, acknowledging the fact that the world is full of tree-hugging environmentalists, and what we need instead is a light-hearted approach to an extremely serious issue.

I think that in trying to evaluate the scientific claims that these websites make, you have to understand the purpose of spreading the information in the first place. For FOS, they're goals are to have the government of Canada re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol, so they obviously have some sort of political agenda. Additionally, its important to question the sources of their science – it specifically says on the FOS website that although the body is comprised of highly educated scientists and professionals, they do not do any original scientific research but instead research works already written by scientists.

I think this definitely makes the site way less convincing and a lot less valid, because you can't even trace their claims back to any valid body of work. Instead, their claims seem like opinions that they push for their own agenda, using words such as “significant”, “mild warming”, etc., to provide the rhetoric that climate change is not a real threat. They do however, in talking about the importance of “adaptation” note that warming is a) something that cannot be ignored and b) something to which we do, to a degree, need to respond.

I appreciate the approach of the Grist website because its fronted by the WWF, which makes it seem a lot more legitimate, and also it makes no “claims” for climate change – instead approaches its existence as merely common sense. “There is no evidence”, well in fact, “yes there is”. The website also includes numerous links to other scientifically-recognized organizations such as NASA, the Climate Research Unit, etc., to back-up the claims they make.

Corn is everywhere!

I found this assignment incredibly challenging due to the fact that living on a tight budget often means I shop in advance and try (as best possible) to plan meals in advance. Therefore when I was at home I was limited to eating what I had already purchased, and as we all know, there is corn in pretty much everything in the U.S. I had no idea that everything from my sandwich to my pasta would be affected. So needless to say I did not succeed very well.

But I do eat at least once a day on campus. Here there is not the pre-planned problem, although I am limited to the food choices on campus that I can pay cash with, since I don't have a meal plan. Again most foods (that I would choose to eat from AU food services) have some element of corn in them. I try eating salads, but even the dressing has corn product in it. And basically anything from The Tavern is going to have corn in it (and I don't even eat their burgers).

Overall I was really surprised at how all encompassing corn is in the American diet, and in my opinion for seemingly no reason. Do we need corn in our tooth paste, salad dressing, or bread to make it taste good? I really don't think so. I begin to question what incentive does the food producing company have for adding just one more ingredient to their food, especially one that is so seemingly useless in terms of taste and quality. Although I failed at the NO corn for a week assignment, it was a great learning opportunity to see just what is inside American food products. Surprisingly corn is everywhere!

Amanda

There is corn in my beer???

This was pretty hard, seeing as how I already have to check food labels often for any meat product, and also just can't eat meat in general. But that is just with the food that I eat – not to mention the things I drank, the medication I took. I thought a lot about a good friend of mine who is allergice to peanuts, and how hard it must be to have to check labels of everything you eat, and how additionally hard it must be when your food is prepared for you, so you are never really sure of what it contains. And THEN, I started thinking about labels, and what is actually in food. A huge percentage of the list on the corn allergen website contains words that I've never heard of, ending in -ine, -ate, acid, etc. What is all this crap? Why is it in our food? How does corn end up in vanilla, or baking soda, or confectioner's sugar? It doesn't belong there!

This was a really hard challenge, nearly impossible, seeing as how even the cab that I drove home in had corn in it. But, it brought full circle everything that we've learned about the contemporary US food system. When we can really cash in on a commodity, like corn, we abuse it to the max. There isn't any reason for corn to be in everything we eat – its hardly a vegetable, and it has little nutritional value. But corporations can make a lot of money on it, and pump millions of dollars into aid campaigns about how high-fructose corn syrup is “just like sugar” (see http://www.sweetsurprise.com/) . Our food system has absolutely nothing to do with growing and selling food that humans need to live a healthy life. Just like every other aspect of our consumer society, it has become a way to make the consumer ignorant and encourage bad habits.

Food

When trying to decide what food to eat there a quite a few characteristics to consider. Besides the obvious nutritious factor, taste must also be considered. I try to eat as healthy as possibly and after living in Europe where there are more organic food options readily and cheaply available, I try to eat organic if possible. However, given my status as a college student, without a sizable income, it is not entirely realistic for me to be able to afford to buy organic food, even if I really would like to eat completely organic.

Of the foods I've eaten in the past few days, the foods worst for the environment would have to be something that is very processed, definitely not organic, that has chemicals added to it and is then produced in an environmentally damaging way. Processed foods such as fruit snacks or peanut butter, would probably be very environmentally damaging, along with such natural products like grains that are grown with excess chemicals which are environmentally harmful.

Amanda

Your Water Footprint

This is the link to the article I mentioned earlier about your "water footprint" from Good Magazine (which is a totally awesome magazine, btw):

http://www.good.is/?p=16356

FOOD

So, I’m a vegetarian, which means that food is always an issue for me. I have to be really picky about where I go out to eat, what I buy, etc. Before interning at the Greenpeace office last fall, I always thought that stores like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods (health food stores) were the best places to shop as a vegetarian – plentiful amounts of meat substitutes and lots of alternative options. I started shopping at these places partly out of diet changes but also because I was concerned about the environment. But in researching the practices of grocery stores, even ones like Whole Foods, I’ve found that it is nearly impossible to shop at a supermarket that doesn’t inflict environmental harm in selling its products. So when I shop, I try to buy things that are a) vegetarian, b) remotely healthy/good for me and when I can afford it, making sure that it’s local. But it’s definitely hard to do all those things!
Thinking about what I’ve eaten in the past few days, the food that I would guess has had the greatest environmental impact would be eggs maybe? I eat eggs a lot because they are a good source of protein, and their cheap, but I found an article on water consumption, and it takes a ridiculous amount of water to produce eggs. Not to mention the land and food it takes to maintain chickens. Also, I had some strawberries this morning, and I bet that eating out of season fruit is also pretty bad for the environment because it takes shipping and resources that aren’t always readily available. For example, it has a way bigger impact to ship strawberries to D.C. from California in the middle of March when they are out of season, than from Maryland or Virginia in the middle of June when they are in season.

discussion question #6 - FOOD!

This was an interesting topic for me to consider for many reasons. Firstly, as a former athlete and the daughter of a fitness trainer, it would be safe to expect that i may have a lot of nutritional considerations when it comes to food; ironically, this is just the opposite, becuase in fact i eat fairly unhealthy.....

....on the other hand, it was also an interesting topic for me because last summer, i took an interesting seminar course, all about food. the predominate theme of the course, particularly seen with the semester long reading of Michael Pollan's book Omnivore's Dilemma. The book, among various food matters, examines the origins of food, the food production process (i mean literally, from hunting a deer or squeezing the egg from the chicken yourself!) to the paths our food takes to reach our plates, as well as animal rights questions. Since reading Dilemma, i certainly keep many of the considerations i took from it in mind when i am out eating. For example, i have a secret craving for McDonald's chicken mcnuggets and fries now and then - i wont fool myself and pretend that their are healthy, but, mcdonalds does something right if you look at the food labels which they give. But by Pollan's account, i am literally eating corn, corn corn (and maybe even some fake corn); the chickens were fed corn, then their meat was mixed with corn, which was coated in some corn and fried in some corn oil (and served to me with some corn and potato fries and some corn-syrup sweetened soda). now if this bothers some consumers, so be it, but it is how it is made. it is understanding the origins of the food though which allows a consumer, such as myself, to adjust the content of the rest of their daily diet to accomodate this corn intake. PLUS....I JUST LIKE NUGGETS SOMETIMES!

The second question of this weeks blog question is especially relevant for me actually, becuase in the past weekend i have encountered a few food situations where these exact issues came up! i was recently at a local deli/market, and i noticed that they had signage explaining how their fresh roasted chicken was not only hormone free, but also local sourced (driven in from maryland). upon further questioning it turns out the deli used the practice to cover many of their merchandise, such as the meats, vegetables, as well as dairy departments. this and my meal were interesting in the environmental impact concern because it covers some of the strongest aspects of the issue, the organic or non-chemically-altered element to the food, as well the distance factor, locally grown often being ideal becuase there is usually a high economic AND environmental cost associated with your pomegranates and grapes flying in from chile yesterday night. these such issues, when i have an active control over following them, are ones i highly agree with and try to stick to often. personally, i am not too too crazy about utterly non-natural means of say, getting my meat (feed-lots anyone? eww), and also, unless i am just dying for some raspberries one day, i try to shop and cook foods that are in season, locally grown, although ultimately, i will admit price is a MAJOR factor in some of my purchasing decisions.....

-amy

interesting report

hey guys, i was reviewing this report, the ATLANTIC COUNCIL'S GLOBAL TRENDS 2025, and i felt it had some interesting points which were relevant to our class as well. take a look - ENJOY!

http://www.acus.org/publication/global-trends-2025-transformed-world

Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World

November 20, 2008

Download Publication PDF

The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors. By 2025, the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power continuing to narrow between developed and developing countries. Concurrent with the shift in power among nation-states, the relative power of various nonstate actors—including businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks—is increasing. The players are changing, but so too are the scope and breadth of transnational issues important for continued global prosperity. Potentially slowing global economic growth; aging populations in the developed world; growing energy, food, and water constraints; and worries about climate change will limit and diminish what will still be an historically unprecedented age of prosperity.

Executive Summary

Historically, emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones. Despite the recent financial volatility—which could end up accelerating many ongoing trends—we do not believe that we are headed towards a complete breakdown of the international system—as occurred in 1914-1918 when an earlier phase of globalization came to a halt. But, the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks. Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries.

This is a story with no clear outcome, as illustrated by a series of vignettes we use to map out divergent futures. Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength—even in the military realm—will decline and US leverage will become more constrained. At the same time, the extent to which other actors—both state and nonstate—will be willing or able to shoulder increased burdens is unclear. Policymakers and publics will have to cope with a growing demand for multilateral cooperation when the international system will be stressed by the incomplete transition from the old to a still forming new order.

Economic Growth Fueling Rise of Emerging Players
In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power now under way—roughly from West to East—is without precedent in modern history. This shift derives from two sources. First, increases in oil and commodity prices have generated windfall profits for the Gulf States and Russia. Second, lower costs combined with government policies have shifted the locus of manufacturing and some service industries to Asia.

Growth projections for Brazil, Russia, India, and China indicate they will collectively match the original G-7’s share of global GDP by 2040-2050. China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country. If current trends persist, by 2025 China will have the world’s second largest economy and will be a leading military power. It also could be the largest importer of natural resources and the biggest polluter. India probably will continue to enjoy relatively rapid economic growth and will strive for a multipolar world in which New Delhi is one of the poles. China and India must decide the extent to which they are willing and capable of playing increasing global roles and how each will relate to the other. Russia has the potential to be richer, more powerful, and more self-assured in 2025. If it invests in human capital, expands and diversifies its economy, and integrates with global markets, by 2025 Russia could boast a GDP approaching that of the UK and France. On the other hand, Russia could experience a significant decline if it fails to take these steps and oil and gas prices remain in the $50-70 per barrel range. No other countries are projected to rise to the level of China, India, or Russia, and none is likely to match their individual global clout. We expect, however, to see the political and economic power of other countries—such as Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey—increase.

For the most part, China, India, and Russia are not following the Western liberal model for self-development but instead are using a different model, “state capitalism.” State capitalism is a loose term used to describe a system of economic management that gives a prominent role to the state. Other rising powers—South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—also used state capitalism to develop their economies. However, the impact of China following this path is potentially much greater owing to its size and approach to “democratization.” Nevertheless, we remain optimistic about the long-term prospects for greater democratization, even though advances are likely to be slow and globalization is subjecting many recently democratized countries to increasing social and economic pressures with the potential to undermine liberal institutions.

Many other countries will fall further behind economically. Sub-Saharan Africa will remain the region most vulnerable to economic disruption, population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability. Despite increased global demand for commodities for which Sub-Saharan Africa will be a major supplier, local populations are unlikely to experience significant economic gain. Windfall profits arising from sustained increases in commodity prices might further entrench corrupt or otherwise ill-equipped governments in several regions, diminishing the prospects for democratic and market-based reforms. Although many of Latin America’s major countries will have become middle income powers by 2025, others, particularly those such as Venezuela and Bolivia which have embraced populist policies for a protracted period, will lag behind—and some, such as Haiti, will have become even poorer and less governable. Overall, Latin America will continue to lag behind Asia and other fast-growing areas in terms of economic competitiveness.

Asia, Africa, and Latin America will account for virtually all population growth over the next 20 years; less than 3 percent of the growth will occur in the West. Europe and Japan will continue to far outdistance the emerging powers of China and India in per capita wealth, but they will struggle to maintain robust growth rates because the size of their working-age populations will decrease. The US will be a partial exception to the aging of populations in the developed world because it will experience higher birth rates and more immigration. The number of migrants seeking to move from disadvantaged to relatively privileged countries is likely to increase.

The number of countries with youthful age structures in the current “arc of instability” is projected to decline by as much as 40 percent. Three of every four youth-bulge countries that remain will be located in Sub-Saharan Africa, nearly all of the remainder will be located in the core of the Middle East, scattered through southern and central Asia, and in the Pacific Islands.

New Transnational Agenda
Resource issues will gain prominence on the international agenda. Unprecedented global economic growth—positive in so many other regards—will continue to put pressure on a number of highly strategic resources, including energy, food, and water, and demand is projected to outstrip easily available supplies over the next decade or so. For example, non-OPEC liquid hydrocarbon production—crude oil, natural gas liquids, and unconventionals such as tar sands—will not grow commensurate with demand. Oil and gas production of many traditional energy producers already is declining. Elsewhere—in China, India, and Mexico—production has flattened. Countries capable of significantly expanding production will dwindle; oil and gas production will be concentrated in unstable areas. As a result of this and other factors, the world will be in the midst of a fundamental energy transition away from oil toward natural gas and coal and other alternatives.

The World Bank estimates that demand for food will rise by 50 percent by 2030, as a result of growing world population, rising affluence, and the shift to Western dietary preferences by a larger middle class. Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching critical proportions, particularly for agricultural purposes, and the problem will worsen because of rapid urbanization worldwide and the roughly 1.2 billion persons to be added over the next 20 years. Today, experts consider 21 countries, with a combined population of about 600 million, to be either cropland or freshwater scarce. Owing to continuing population growth, 36 countries, with about 1.4 billion people, are projected to fall into this category by 2025.

Climate change is expected to exacerbate resource scarcities. Although the impact of climate change will vary by region, a number of regions will begin to suffer harmful effects, particularly water scarcity and loss of agricultural production. Regional differences in agricultural production are likely to become more pronounced over time with declines disproportionately concentrated in developing countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural losses are expected to mount over time with substantial impacts forecast by most economists by late this century. For many developing countries, decreased agricultural output will be devastating because agriculture accounts for a large share of their economies and many of their citizens live close to subsistence levels.

New technologies could again provide solutions, such as viable alternatives to fossil fuels or means to overcome food and water constraints. However, all current technologies are inadequate for replacing the traditional energy architecture on the scale needed, and new energy technologies probably will not be commercially viable and widespread by 2025. The pace of technological innovation will be key. Even with a favorable policy and funding environment for biofuels, clean coal, or hydrogen, the transition to new fuels will be slow. Major technologies historically have had an “adoption lag.” In the energy sector, a recent study found that it takes an average of 25 years for a new production technology to become widely adopted.

Despite what are seen as long odds now, we cannot rule out the possibility of an energy transition by 2025 that would avoid the costs of an energy infrastructure overhaul. The greatest possibility for a relatively quick and inexpensive transition during the period comes from better renewable generation sources (photovoltaic and wind) and improvements in battery technology. With many of these technologies, the infrastructure cost hurdle for individual projects would be lower, enabling many small economic actors to develop their own energy transformation projects that directly serve their interests—e.g., stationary fuel cells powering homes and offices, recharging plug-in hybrid autos, and selling energy back to the grid. Also, energy conversion schemes—such as plans to generate hydrogen for automotive fuel cells from electricity in the homeowner’s garage—could avoid the need to develop complex hydrogen transportation infrastructure.

Prospects for Terrorism, Conflict, and Proliferation
Terrorism, proliferation, and conflict will remain key concerns even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Islamic terrorism is unlikely to disappear by 2025, but its appeal could diminish if economic growth continues and youth unemployment is mitigated in the Middle East. Economic opportunities for youth and greater political pluralism probably would dissuade some from joining terrorists’ ranks, but others—motivated by a variety of factors, such as a desire for revenge or to become “martyrs”—will continue to turn to violence to pursue their objectives.

In the absence of employment opportunities and legal means for political expression, conditions will be ripe for disaffection, growing radicalism, and possible recruitment of youths into terrorist groups. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long-established groups—that inherit organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks—and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized. For those terrorist groups that are active in 2025, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. One of our greatest concerns continues to be that terrorist or other malevolent groups might acquire and employ biological agents, or less likely, a nuclear device, to create mass casualties.

Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, other countries’ worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear-weapons capable Iran. Episodes of low-intensity conflict taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established.

We believe ideological conflicts akin to the Cold War are unlikely to take root in a world in which most states will be preoccupied with the pragmatic challenges of globalization and shifting global power alignments. The force of ideology is likely to be strongest in the Muslim world—particularly the Arab core. In those countries that are likely to struggle with youth bulges and weak economic underpinnings—such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Yemen—the radical Salafi trend of Islam is likely to gain traction.

Types of conflict we have not seen for awhile—such as over resources—could reemerge. Perceptions of energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regimes. However, even actions short of war will have important geopolitical consequences. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue-water naval capabilities. The buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water becoming more scarce in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to become more difficult within and between states.

The risk of nuclear weapon use over the next 20 years, although remaining very low, is likely to be greater than it is today as a result of several converging trends. The spread of nuclear technologies and expertise is generating concerns about the potential emergence of new nuclear weapon states and the acquisition of nuclear materials by terrorist groups. Ongoing low-intensity clashes between India and Pakistan continue to raise the specter that such events could escalate to a broader conflict between those nuclear powers. The possibility of a future disruptive regime change or collapse occurring in a nuclear weapon state such as North Korea also continues to raise questions regarding the ability of weak states to control and secure their nuclear arsenals.

If nuclear weapons are used in the next 15-20 years, the international system will be shocked as it experiences immediate humanitarian, economic, and political-military repercussions. A future use of nuclear weapons probably would bring about significant geopolitical changes as some states would seek to establish or reinforce security alliances with existing nuclear powers and others would push for global nuclear disarmament.

A More Complex International System
The trend toward greater diffusion of authority and power that has been occurring for a couple decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential expansion of regional blocs, and enhanced strength of nonstate actors and networks. The multiplicity of actors on the international scene could add strength—in terms of filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions—or further fragment the international system and incapacitate international cooperation. The diversity in type of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational challenges facing the international community.

The rising BRIC powers are unlikely to challenge the international system as did Germany and Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries, but because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, they will have a high degree of freedom to customize their political and economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They also are likely to want to preserve their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with such issues as terrorism, climate change, proliferation, and energy security.

Existing multilateral institutions—which are large and cumbersome and were designed for a different geopolitical order—appear unlikely to have the capacity to adapt quickly to undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—concentrating on specific issues—increasingly will be a part of the landscape, but NGO networks are likely to be limited in their ability to effect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater inclusiveness—to reflect the emergence of the newer powers—may make it harder for international organizations to tackle transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the agenda of organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted.

Greater Asian regionalism—possible by 2025—would have global implications, sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs: North America, Europe, and East Asia. Establishment of such quasi-blocs would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Regional clusters could compete in setting trans-regional product standards for information technology, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other aspects of the “new economy.” On the other hand, an absence of regional cooperation in Asia could help spur competition among China, India, and Japan over resources such as energy.

Intrinsic to the growing complexity of the overlapping roles of state, institutions, and nonstate actors is the proliferation of political identities, which is leading to establishment of new networks and rediscovered communities. No one political identity is likely to be dominant in most societies by 2025. Religion-based networks may be quintessential issue networks and overall may play a more powerful role on many transnational issues such as the environment and inequalities than secular groupings.

The United States: Less Dominant Power
By 2025 the US will find itself as one of a number of important actors, albeit still the most powerful one, on the world stage. Even in the military realm, where the US will continue to possess considerable advantages in 2025, advances by others in science and technology, expanded adoption of irregular warfare tactics by both state and nonstate actors, proliferation of long-range precision weapons, and growing use of cyber warfare attacks increasingly will constrict US freedom of action. A more constrained US role has implications for others and the likelihood of new agenda issues being tackled effectively. Despite the recent rise in anti-Americanism, the US probably will continue to be seen as a much-needed regional balancer in the Middle East and Asia. The US will continue to be expected to play a significant role in using its military power to counter global terrorism. On newer security issues like climate change, US leadership will widely perceived as critical to leveraging competing and divisive views to find solutions. At the same time, the multiplicity of influential actors and distrust of vast power means less room for the US to call the shots without the support of strong partnerships. Developments in the rest of the world, including internal developments in a number of key states—particularly China and Russia—are also likely to be crucial determinants of US policy.

2025—What Kind of Future?
The above trends suggest major discontinuities, shocks, and surprises, which we highlight throughout the text. Examples include nuclear weapons use or a pandemic. In some cases, the surprise element is only a matter of timing: an energy transition, for example is inevitable; the only questions are when and how abruptly or smoothly such a transition occurs. An energy transition from one type of fuel (fossil fuels) to another (alternative) is an event that historically has only happened once a century at most with momentous consequences. The transition from wood to coal helped trigger industrialization. In this case, a transition—particularly an abrupt one—out of fossil fuels would have major repercussions for energy producers in the Middle East and Eurasia, potentially causing permanent decline of some states as global and regional powers.

Other discontinuities are less predictable. They are likely to result from an interaction of several trends and depend on the quality of leadership. We put uncertainties such as whether China or Russia becomes a democracy in this category. China’s growing middle class increases the chances but does not make such a development inevitable. Political pluralism seems less likely in Russia in the absence of economic diversification. Pressure from below may force the issue, or a leader might begin or enhance the democratization process to sustain the economy or spur economic growth. A sustained plunge in the price of oil and gas would alter the outlook and increase prospects for greater political and economic liberalization in Russia. If either country were to democratize, it would represent another wave of democratization with wide significance for many other developing states.

Also uncertain are the outcomes of demographic challenges facing Europe, Japan, and even Russia. In none of these cases does demography have to spell destiny with less regional and global power an inevitable outcome. Technology, the role of immigration, public health improvements, and laws encouraging greater female participation in the economy are some of the measures that could change the trajectory of current trends pointing toward less economic growth, increased social tensions, and possible decline.

Whether global institutions adapt and revive—another key uncertainty—also is a function of leadership. Current trends suggest a dispersion of power and authority will create a global governance deficit. Reversing those trend lines would require strong leadership in the international community by a number of powers, including the emerging ones.

Some uncertainties would have greater consequences—should they occur—than would others. In this work, we emphasize the overall potential for greater conflict—some forms of which could threaten globalization. We put WMD terrorism and a Middle East nuclear arms race in this category. The key uncertainties and possible impacts are discussed in the text and summarized in the textbox on page vii on relative certainties. In the four fictionalized scenarios, we have highlighted new challenges that could emerge as a result of the ongoing global transformation. They present new situations, dilemmas, or predicaments that represent departures from recent developments. As a set, they do not cover all possible futures. None of these is inevitable or even necessarily likely; but, as with many other uncertainties, the scenarios are potential game-changers.

• In A World Without the West, the new powers supplant the West as the leaders on the world stage.

• October Surprise illustrates the impact of inattention to global climate change; unexpected major impacts narrow the world’s range of options.

• In BRICs’ Bust-Up, disputes over vital resources emerge as a source of conflict between major powers—in this case two emerging heavyweights—India and China.

• In Politics is Not Always Local, nonstate networks emerge to set the international agenda on the environment, eclipsing governments.

GLOBAL TRENDS 2025 SERIES:

• Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World
• NIC Chairman Thomas Fingar Presents "Global Trends 2025"
• Predicting the Future is Hard - And Necessary – James Joyner
• U.S. Dominance Ending – James Joyner
• Terrorism Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? – James Joyner
• Asia's Ascendency Seen in Intelligence Forecast – Joseph Snyder
• Climate Change Will be More Severe in 2025 –Erica McCarthy
• Economic Rise of the East – James O'Connor

Midterm Study Guide Cont'd....

Global Environmental Politics--examines the relationship between global political forces and environmental change, with particular attention given to the implications of local-global interactions for environmental management as well as the implications of environmental change for world politics.

Nitrogen cycle—transformation of nitrogen in nature. Nitrogen in atmosphere is used in soil with bacteria and then used by plants and animals. (not a great definition, but a simple understanding. I'm not a science person so this is my basic understanding of it)

Pollution--the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem.

Cornucopian—amount of creativity in ppl will save the world so humans will always find a solution. People are the best resource. (This is the same as Promethean, I believe.)

Precautionary principle—even if we don’t know all the science but there’s a danger we should be cautious, and create binding legislation. Better to be safe than sorry. Used for the CFC legislation deals.

I don't have a ton of ideas for the sustainable development either, I'm planning on looking over some of the reading. I would be good for a study group tomorrow night. I'm free after 8pm.

Amanda

Weedy species: plants, animals, and other organisms that thrive in continually disturbed, human-dominated environments. They are adaptive, and will flourish in a world where only the human species survives, so much to the point that we often deem them “pests”. For example: raccoons, milfoil, rats, the white-tailed deer. Significant to global environmental politics because author Stephen Meyer says these are the only animals that have any chance of surviving if we continue on the same path of destruction.

relic species: organisms that live on the margins in ever-decreasing numbers and contracting spacial distribution. They do not thrive in human-dominated environments, and have largely survived through benign neglect. Meyer says, “little on Earth is remote anymore” and human pressures are threatening these relic species. For example: African elephant, the giant panda. Significant to global environmental politics because these animals have no hope of survival if we continue on the same path of environmental degradation, and often we will never recognize that the species is a relic until it is too late, says Meyer.

extinction debt: With a high number of extinction, you have a debt that is represented – a future ecological cost of current habitat destruction. Many decades can pass between the start of the decline of a species and the observable collapse of a population structure, especially where moderate-to-long-lived life forms are involved. There is a “debt” or a gap between appearance and reality. In the past century we have accumulated a vast extinction debt that will be paid in the century ahead. The number of plants and animals we discover to be threatened will spiral as the extinction debt comes due. Significant to global environmental politics because it represents the costs of not taking action to prevent the environment, and also what our future may include if we chose not to act.

Here are the things that I'm a little unsure of so far, if anyone could help!
- A good definition for:
Global environmental politics
nitrogen cycle
pollution
Promethean???
precautionary principle
-How are people thinking about tackling the short answer question on sustainable development? I feel like we didn't really talk about it enough to be able to answer a whole question..Any ideas?

Also, if anyone wants to get together on Monday night to review I would be down for that...

Midterm Study Guide

I was working on my midterm study guide today and couldn't find a few of the vocab words in my notes and was wondering if anyone else had the definitions.

Weedy Species
Relic Species
Extinction Debt

Thanks!

Amanda

Will Technology Save Us?

I think technology certainly is a positive force in our lives, one that without which much of humanity would be radically different. Specifically in terms of the environmental crisis, I believe we have the technology but not the ideology. I view the saving powers of technology the same way as any other force preventing us from resolving the climate crisis – we have the tools and capabilities, however our past trends have paved the way for the future, and technology has come to represent things like faster computers. This is a sign of habit; out of habit, we consume and spend, and out of habit we use technology for personal pleasure, when really the capabilities are far more reaching.

I don't think technology can “save” us, but the ability to transfer solar power and wind power into energy didn't become a plausible solution until the technology behind it was researched. The great thing about the environmental movement is that it has the support of science behind it, which means that the ability to apply that knowledge to technology is very simple. I'm not completely optimistic about any solutions to the climate crisis – but I think technology is certainly a major force for change.

Technology

Technology has its benefits. Innovation and invention have been the driving forces in creating a lot of change in the past hundred years. Not all of that technological change has been good, in fact many argue that most of the ecological harm created in the past century has been due to the technological advances. Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren, the creators of the I=PAT equation, were not believers in the benefits of technology, pointing to all the harm caused by technology throughout the past decades.

While I tend to be more of a cynical person, for some reason I have this uncanny ability to be hopeful about technology "saving us" from our environmental harm. Since humans are so innovative and creative, I can only imagine that the human mind can be put to some good use, and be able to come up with some creative solutions to environmental issues. While I do not expect a miracle or a solution which will take away the century of destructive environmental human behavior, I do believe (or maybe hope) that technology may help solve some of the environmental issues currently facing our world today.

I do not believe that technology can necessarily "save us". Technology can help prevent further problems and additional harm caused to the environment, and perhaps come up with some creative solutions to problems already harming the earth. Unfortunately nothing can fix the immense amount of damage humans have already done to the environment, and therefore technology will not be able to "save us", as many environmental problems are so beyond repair that they will directly affect future generations. Hopefully technology will be able to help improve the lives of our grandchildren while still maintaining the environment.

Amanda

Discussion Question #5

Hmm....will technology save us? i think that in some ways, technology has proven to be both the cause and solution to many of the world's problems (use your imagination). I like to think that technologies can be grouped into adaptive technologies and convenience technologies (some both...but work with me here..). I think that depending how you assess which way to characterize a technology, has an impact on whether a technology is "good" or "bad", whether it will save us or not. While this assumption would technically apply to any technology, for the sake of our class lets make an environmental example --- FISHING: a convenience technology of the fishing industry is how commercial fisheries have developed net systems which allow them to trawl long stretches (of nets) and keeping them cast till as long as it takes to fill them. This is not a technology that will save us becuase although it is highly efficient and cost-effective for fisherman, it may result in overfishing, species extinction and loss of biodiversity for everyone else. On the other hand, i consider an adaptive technology for this industry to be the adoption of net systems which target the intended species of marine life to be caught; that is, there are nets which (and i am unclear how) but manage to allow species like dolphins and crustaceans to escape from the nets while keeping more intended fishing targets. the results of this would be quite the opposite from the first example....biodiversity has the opportunity to be preserved! As well, depending how you look at alternative fuel source arguements, you may see how some portray the arguements of decreasing dependency on fossil fuels, but others argue that dependence on ethanol would result in destroying good, natural agriculture soil. I guess...it's just how you look at costs and benefits, gains and losses from any respective eco-technology.

Also on the note of stratospheric ozone depletion, i assessed from our reading that the ozone-depleting chemicals which are in controversy on to the environmental community are again ones which fit into that characterization of making our lives easier (at an efficient or inexpensive cost); from the Global North's past use to the South's necessity to do the same now, there are certainly conflicts in place - for the North, how do you come to terms with harming the environment? do you change it? do you FIX it? do you find a way to do what you need to to, without harming the environment? ETC. with the South, how do you reconcile your opportunities to have the same abilities or achievement as the North? i think that there are conflicts of interest on many different levels here, and it is whether good or bad choices are made in response that will decide whether world society will be saved from environmental destruction or not -- that we need to all cooperate is a major necessity.

"Americans asked to pay for climate change" - from BBC

Can markets save the earth from climate change? That is the question I posed yesterday. Today the answer came back loud and clear from none other than the President of the United States himself.

"To truly transform our economy, to protect our security and save our planet from the ravages of climate change" President Obama told the US Congress yesterday, "we need to ultimately make clean renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America".

Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that the President has been reading my blog (though I don't rule it out) but the cap and trade system that he referred to last night is exactly the kind of market-based carbon pricing mechanism that I was discussing yesterday.

He could not have been more forceful about his commitment. It was top of his list of priorities: "The only way this century will be another American century is if we confront at last the price of our dependence on oil", he said.

It is a truly radical policy. Europe has had a limited cap and trade system for years but what Obama is proposing is an economy-wide system.

The idea is this: the government sets a cap, a limit, on the total amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted. It then issues permits to emit that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The permits can be bought and sold on a market - that's the trade bit - and companies can only emit carbon dioxide if they buy a permit.

The reason President Obama supports cap and trade is because it harnesses carbon reduction to the most powerful motivating force ever developed - the power of capitalism, the power of human ambition.

Businesses won't seek to cut carbon emissions to save the earth they will do it because it will save them money and therefore increase their profits. Cap and trade creates the "carbon price" we were discussing yesterday because it makes emitting carbon just another cost in a business' production process.

Just think how powerful a change that could be. What it does is enforce the principle that the polluter should pay for the damage they create.

Tackling pollution is a subject close to the hearts of many of the residents of Muskegon, the little city in Michigan I have been staying in.

Discussion Question 4: Obama's "Green" Stimulus?

It appears as though the Obama stimulus package signed last week has a lot of environmental components, specifically a lot on energy policy. There are new incentives for renewable energy, in the form of tax breaks in the bill, used to encourage Americans to buy cars using alternative energy. Energy transmission and efficiency is also emphasized in the bill. President Obama also wants to create new clean energy and adapt this to the power grid in the U.S.

One of the major goals of the bill is to create large scale improvements on the different sectors of the American infrastructure, relating to the environment. This includes the electrical grid system, as well as the America's water and sewer systems. Many of these systems are nearly one hundred years old, and need to be replaced with new technology. The stimulus bill proposes that the new technology not only be advanced but also environmentally friendly.

While many of these ideas are good in principle, many are also lofty and may in fact take many years to complete. The goal of the stimulus package is to stimulate the economy as quickly as possible to get America out of the recession, however, many of these energy projects are long term projects which will take many years to make. Even creating the new technology for the changes, and then manufacturing the parts for production will take a few years. Therefore while it is great that there will be new green jobs created from this stimulus package, it is hard to see the immediate benefit of these environmental developments. Due to the technological and scientific advancement which must take place, before such drastic changes to America's energy supply and water and sewer system structures takes place, years of research and development followed by manufacturing will need to occur before any of the changes are implemented. I'm interested to see these new environmental energy solutions, however I fear the economy cannot wait the time it will take for these technologies to develop.

Amanda

Part 4 of the Biotech Reading

Here are my notes on the final section of the Biotech reading:

Pages 215 – 222
Consumer rights: putting labels on all food that indicates it is genetical modified
If there is nothing wrong with biotech food, then companies should have no problem labeling them
These labeling rules set a new standard in international law, where the rule arose out of consumer curiosity
labels inevitably produce fears that biotech foods aren't safe
labels: won't satisfy the goal of completely separating organic and biotech growing
regulations like that could cost the gov't around $4 billion
such regulations could lead to legal nightmares, and significantly raise the prices of processed foods
Any strict regulations on labeling could interfere with the workings of the WTO, and put a serious strain on a free international trade system
labels are “unjustly stigmatizing and costly and offer no consumer health or safety benefits”
regulations based on societal values can never be harmonized internationally
activist campaign against biotech → what they really don't like is free markets and globalization
Genes are resources, just like copper for example → beneficial genes are being wasted if we don't use processes like biotechnology
the REAL issue is inequity in food distribution
biotech companies will catch on in developing countries, and will help produce more food

Discussion Question #4

Of course, most Americans are looking forward to Obama's Stimulus Package, for one reason or another. In regards to its effects for the environment? I imagine that based on some of the projects i have heard would be included, it could be both helpful OR hurtful to the environment, so i did some research to take a closer look.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1

Based on CNN data as to how the taxpayer funds will be alloted, here is what i am figuring out.

Energy and Environment - This section seems to be getting a pretty big chunk of the money pie. At between $50-98 billion being invested here, what i am assuming is that a heavy influence on this investment would be in the research and development of more sustainable, and thus eco-friendly, energy sources (YAY Earth!). As well, perhaps beautification and cleaning projects will come into the mix, returning America to her reputation of being beautiful.

Agriculture and Rural Development - I am not sure whether the $16-34 billion investment in this area will end up benefitting the environment. While agriculture can be eco-friendly, I worry that this Stimulus investment will likely figure into farming subsidies and crop shifting or expanding, which ultimately aren't so great. Rural development, to me, means in some cases we will be disturbing nature to make room for more American families...so....??

Commerce Justice and Science - This section is getting around $15 billion. I mentioned it because as it includes science, perhaps scientific investment will lead to breakthroughs in ecological and medical research, which, in turn, would have prolific good (or bad?) effects on the environment. That would likely be a long ways away.

PART 2 of Bailey reading 194-203

The first area of bio-tech industry examined in part 2 of the reading was the engineering of medical compounds from plants, plants which would be subsequently marketed and promoted for large-scale growth to meet the demand for use of those compounds. Concerns of the collateral effects of such a plan are identified and subsequently alleviated, such as concerns of cross-pollination with food crops, etc. It also suggested some benefits of adopting this practice of "growing medicine", in that it could potentially lower drug prices (based on availability), and also, linking medicine to agriculture can allow more accessible means of transmitting medicines to the Third World.

The reading shifts into the bio-engineering of animal life as well. It looks at the use of manipulating genetics for both pleasure as well as for profit. For pleasure, we may see the cloning of loved pets, reducing strains of irritating bugs (and saving helpful bugs), etc; in terms of profit, genetic engineering opens the potential for faster-growing food animals (Salmon) to ones that taste better with leaner meat portions. The question of whether to do the same for trees is also posed, meaning we could both bring back majestic American trees of the past, and also revert to strong genetically modified trees for lumber industry purposes, and leave existing forests intact.

The last portion of this section consist of a review of various arguments against GM crops, and the author's well-supported counter-arguments. Bailey is using scientific knowledge along with understanding of world need for GM crops (along with conventional history of modern agriculture) to argue this point, which i found persuasive enough to agree with.

Part 1 of Bailey Reading: pg. 183-193

I just finished part one (pg 183-193) of the Bailey reading. Here's my basic summary:

The article talks about biotech crops which are taking "useful genes from any organism and insert them into other organism" thereby creating genetically modified plants (pg. 187).

The article addresses the concerns regarding biotech crops and gives two examples of international issues regarding the crops.
1. 1999 cyclone in India--USAID tried to give genetically modified (GM) crops to India, which India refused despite its starving people because they feared the crops were unsafe, they were being used as the guinea pigs, and getting the rejected food from the North.
2. 2002 famine in Zambia--US tried to give GM crop aid, but again due to antibiotech activists telling Africans about the dangers of the crops, the leaders refused the aid. Also African leaders were afraid of getting caught between the US and the EU, since the EU bans GM crops.

In 2004 in the US: 45% of corn, 85% of soybean, and 76% of cotton is GM. About 1/3 of global biotech crop is in the developing world. Biotech crops help increase food production and income.

Biotech food is safe, there have been no known cases of any harm being cased by GM food. Most Americans have been eating GM food since 1995, and 70% of food in grocery stores is GM. The EU admits that GM food is safe, even though they insist on a ban.

Currently biotech crops main improvements are that they are pest and herbicide resistant. Next step would be drought resistant, and able to survive in harsh soils.

Discussion Question #4

I think the stimulus package means a few positive and negative things for the environment. First of all, its obvious that the package isn't perfect, and it certainly can't wipe away any and all problems we're facing currently. I was reading on the New York Times website what measures the bill included, and there are quite a few that represent some modicum of change in the way we view energy sources. The first is tax credits for energy-efficient improvements in the home (things like new windows, insulation, etc.). Second is the ability for taxpayers to deduct 30% of the cost of solar water heaters, wind turbines, and geothermal pumps. These are both really great incentives, however will only make any real difference for people who can afford these upgrades in the first place, which I think may be a very small percentage of the population. There are multiple investments in clean energy, however this includes funding for carbon sequestration and clean coal, which DOESN'T EXIST. I've researched it...for more info, check out: http://action.thisisreality.org/details. Coal is the dirtiest type of energy, and its the biggest contributor to global warming. There isn't a single plant today in the US that uses clean coal, so dumping millions of dollars into theory alone seems rather useless, especially when it isn't time lined, and could take extremely long to reach commercialization.

This is really interesting

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5005952

Blog Question #3

To answer the first part of the question, i would have to say that my most thrilling experience with the non-human world is a tie of a few things.

- holding a baby monkey was one of these, because it is of course a beautiful experience to hold a young animal, all cute and playful, but also because it is shocking and magical to realize how similar that a little chimp is compared to us humans. VERY COOL.

- also, i have been to a few aquariums recently in Japan, and i dont know if it is something specific to their culture, but they seem to display aquatic life in an unreal, beautiful sort of way. For example, at Roppongi Hills in Tokyo, they have the fish surround you in a tunnel, which is actually sort of surreal (are you observing them, or are they observing you?)

- lastly, i always have kind of enjoyed scenic sunsets; in the city, in the country, the quiet but colorful rainbow melanges in the sky are a reminder of that the day always ends, no matter where you are, and in particularly nice instances, what magical displays that nature is capable of.

So all of this said, how should one feel about "saving nature"? based sort of on my personal favorite natural experiences, i most certainly feel compelled. besides the aquarium element, which some would say may or may not be counterintuitive to saving nature, i think to preserve such wonders as primates (who are highly endangered and some risking extinction) and many other animals requires finding thorough and EFFECTIVE methods of wildlife conservation. As well, i beleive that their are many natural elements which contribute to a beautiful sunset, from reduced city lights, to the o-zone to the health of trees, etc., and without a concerted effort to keep all contributory elements in check, rainbow-skylines could be the next thing we lose, another joy our grandchildren will miss. too bad.

Question 3: Experiences in Nature

I can't think of one grand experience in nature, but I do have fond memories of just getting outside and enjoying nature. My parents weren't exactly tree huggers, but they did make sure that us kids, spent a fair amount of our childhood outside. As a kid, one of my favorite games to play with my cousins was "Indians" outside in the woods by my grandparents' house. The older cousins would lead the younger ones on a great adventure to find sticks for the firewood, stones for the special places we would design, and countless other wonders that my adult brain is no longer privy to remember. Some of my favorite childhood memories are of those games in those woods. Our childish innocence yet wild exploration of the world and nature around us, amazes me. I also have had some really great encounters with nature as an adult, but again in a very innocent, nature walk type adventure. A simple walk away from the hustle and bustle of the city, whether it be in West Virginia or in the hills of Germany, always manages to stir something in my soul. As much as I love living in a city, I'm still a country girl at heart, and every few months I get an itch and simply must get out and really enjoy nature, with a good, long, quiet walk amongst nature.

That said, in order for me to continue to enjoy the peace and serenity that nature grants me, of course I think it's important for us to preserve and "save" nature. I think going out into nature, reminds us that not only did we not create nature, but we have no right to destroy it. Even if you want to save nature for the sole reason because it is pretty, (despite its many other benefits and purposes) nature must be saved, and I hope that is something everyone can agree on.

Amanda

ethical man/ethical family experiment

the environmentally ethical man starts his environmentally friendly endeavor! click link to view a video also.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/02/ethical_man_is_reborn.html

Ethical Man is reborn

• Justin Rowlatt -
• 13 Feb 09, 02:44 PM GMT

We all know the green mantras. Change your lightbulbs, recycle, fly less, buy a hybrid car, turn down the thermostat. The list goes on and on.

But here's the rub. On their own they are never going to be enough to stop global warming.

I know it is green heresy but it is true. How do I know? Because I am the BBC's Ethical Man and my family and I spent a year doing everything we could think of to reduce our carbon emissions.

We did all the big stuff. We stopped flying, got rid of the car and changed the way we heat and power our home. Here's a snapshot of our ethical year:

But we only managed to cut our carbon emissions by 20%. That's right, just 20%.

Remember, according to the scientists we need to cut our emissions by 80% by 2050 just to keep climate change within two degrees centigrade of current world temperatures.

Clearly even the best efforts of ethical men and women on their own will not be enough to prevent global warming.

So the BBC has given me a new and bigger challenge, nothing less than to save the world from climate change!

I'm going on a 6,500 mile trip around the nation that brought the world the motor car, the aeroplane, the suburb, the drive-thru hamburger joint and the hot tub, in search of solutions to the biggest problem on earth.

Each American is responsible for 20 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, more than twice that of the average European. But America is also the most innovative and powerful nation on earth and, what's more, has a president who says he is serious about tackling global warming.

The idea is simple. If we can solve global warming here, we can solve it anywhere.

We've sketched a rough schedule. We'll be starting in a small town in Michigan called Muskegon, and then we'll trace a giant circle round via Detroit, Washington, Texas, California and back to Muskegon.

We've lined up all sorts of people to speak to but we need more. We want to meet people who are already trying to find the answers the world needs.

Who do you think we should be talking to?

Do you have any ideas about how we might make the massive changes to our societies that will be necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions?

Do you know anyone who is working in their garage on some crazy invention that might just save the world?

And I've got another, rather more personal request. Because I'm travelling as the BBC's Ethical Man I've been ordered to keep my environmental impact to an absolute minimum.

Of course I'm going to fly from Britain, but after that my producer Sara insists that I have to get around in the most low carbon way possible. I have downloaded the Greyhound bus timetable and am looking at what trains I might catch... but how else can I get around?

Please click the Ethical Man Feed button in the right hand column and subscribe to my RSS feed. Then you'll be alerted to any new blogs.

I plan to post regular reports as I travel around America, and want to stimulate a vigorous debate about whether we can, or indeed should, attempt to build a low-carbon economy.

You can find out more about my last Ethical Man project here.

And you can follow my progress across America via the Ethical Man Facebook group and on Twitter.

a BBC article on poor prospects for fish numbers, particularly as a result of climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7887536.stm

Bleak forecast on fishery stocks

By James Morgan Science reporter, BBC News, Chicago

Some Atlantic cod fisheries could drop by 50% by 2050

The world's fish stocks will soon suffer major upheaval due to climate change, scientists have warned.

Changing ocean temperatures and currents will force thousands of species to migrate polewards, including cod, herring, plaice and prawns.

By 2050, US fishermen may see a 50% reduction in Atlantic cod populations.

The predictions of "huge changes", published in the journal Fish and Fisheries, were presented at the AAAS annual meeting in Chicago.

Marine biologists used computer models to forecast the future of 1,066 commercially important species from across the globe.

"The impact of climate change on marine biodiversity and fisheries is going to be huge," said lead author Dr William Cheung, of the University of East Anglia in the UK.

"We must act now to adapt our fisheries management and conservation policies to minimise harm to marine life and to our society.

"We can use our knowledge to improve the design of marine protected areas which are adaptable to changes in distribution of the species," he told the conference.

Sinking feeling

The world's oceans are already experiencing changes in temperature and current patterns are changing due to climate change.

Existing patterns of catches will change

To quantify the likely impact on sea life, Dr Cheung and his team developed a new computer model that predicts what might happen under different climate scenarios.

While scientists have made projections of climate change impact on land species, this is the most comprehensive study on marine species ever published.

"We found that on average, the animals may shift their distribution towards the poles by 40km per decade," said Dr Cheung.

"Atlantic cod on the east coast of the US may see a 50% reduction in some populations by 2050."

The invasion of new species into unfamiliar environments could seriously disrupt ecosystems, the researchers warn.

Some species will face a high risk of extinction, including Striped Rock Cod in the Antarctic and St Paul Rock Lobster in the Southern Ocean.

Sea-saw

But of course, as fish migrate polewards, fishermen in some areas will see their stocks increase.

The model predicts an increased catch in the North Sea - benefiting fishermen from Nordic countries.

But fishermen in tropical developing countries will suffer major losses in catch.

The socio-economic impact could be devastating, according to another study published recently in the same journal.

Thirty-three nations in Africa, Asia and South America are highly vulnerable to the impact of climate change in fisheries, according to scientists from the World Fish Centre.

Of these, 19 were already classified by the United Nations as "least developed" because of their particularly poor socioenomic conditions.

"Economically, people in the tropics and subtropics likely will suffer most, because fish are so important in their diets and because they have limited capacity to develop other sources of income and food," said Edward Allison, director of policy, economics and social science at WorldFish.

"We believe it is urgent to start identifying these vulnerable countries, because the damage will be greatly compounded unless national governments and international institutions like the World Bank act now to include the fish sector in plans for helping the poor cope with climate change."

Saving Nature - Q #3

This is a really tough question to answer, because I have about three or four different memories running through my brain right now. But the one that sticks out the most was a night that I spent up in the White Mountains in New Hampshire. It was over the summer, I was backpacking with a friend, and we decided to spend the night outside of our tent since the weather was so nice. That night, lying in my sleeping back I had a panoramic view of the night sky, dotted with thousands of stars. But I think the thing that was so “magical” about it was that they way I was laying and looking at the sky, you could see the curvature of the Earth, like a reminder that the mountain I was on was part of an enormous thing, much bigger than my own existence.

The experience that I described above is probably the biggest reason why I think preserving nature is one of the biggest factors in working to reverse environmental harm. Not only is recreationally-speaking an important part of a healthy lifestyle, its a scientific fact that the benefit of spending time in nature as a child is a huge factor in management of things like ADHD, etc. Look at Richard Louv's book “Last Child in the Woods”, in which he argues for the therapeutic value of outdoor time for children. I think the best thing for our society is to return to an appreciation and awareness of the benefits of the natural world.

Responding to Question 2: "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"

Michael Maniates wrote his article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" in an appealing, motivational manner at least to me. Maniates criticizes the mantra of "Keep it simple, stupid" in solving the world's environmental problems, which seems to have been the attitude among environmental leaders for the past few decades. While it is true, when first facing complex, global interdependent issues, such as the environmental ones our world is facing, it is easier to begin small and simple in order to start the forward process of change. However, these environmental problems are not new nor small, and as Maniates argues it's time for people to stop treating them as such.

Maniates' main criticism, it appears, is with the leaders of the environmental movement. The leaders, including Al Gore, are focusing on babying Americans with simple and small plans, that will lead to great change. (Recycle, take shorter showers, etc.) However as Maniates points out, great change does not come with encouraging small ideas or easy solutions, and the great leaders will realize this and adapt a policy which will encourage big thinking and new ideas to solve the world's problems. I really enjoyed the author's comparison to FDR's New Deal ("Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.") and the environmental movement. FDR would not have been able to pull the nation out of the great depression and stimulate the economy without A New Deal, a new way of approaching the economy, and encouraging people to take an active role in reshaping the world. Similarly today's leaders of the environmental movement, need to take a more active and progressive role in encouraging Americans to think of new solutions to our environmental issues and move beyond the easy and simple steps to help save our environment.

On the other hand, Maniates seems to feel as though individual Americans can do more than the simple and easy solutions currently presented to us. While I agree that Americans could all be doing a lot more to help live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, without strong leadership and fresh ideas from within the environmental movement, large changes from individual Americans are nearly impossible to expect. Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." If the changes need to occur within our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems, which is mostly a call for leadership amongst America's political and environmental leaders, then what per say is the average American to do to help with these changes? While I agree that average Americans are the heart of most change in this country, through our individual innovation, without strong leadership it is hard to blame Americans for taking the "easy" way out in regards to environmental problems.

Amanda

Response to question #2

I found Michael Maniates article about going green interesting because he frames his argument in an almost...economics-based format. Based on his evaluation of other study on the topic, on how to "be green", he explains how human beings, by nature, would prefer greening methods which are the simplest to do; that is, those that do not change our usual routine too much. These do not necessarily return the optimal results, though. This rings of economics to me in that it is an example of how we prefer to function to the best of our natural capabilities, not necessarily what is best for our neighbors or the environment.

So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.

When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.

Discussion Question 2

The first connection I had with this article was the frustration with books such as “The Lazy Environmentalist” or “Its Easy Being Green”, that reduce a global crisis to something that is solvable within our day to day lives. This is obviously just not true – changing all the light bulbs in your house, and recycling your overpriced bottles of water isn't going to halt the cataclysmic movement of climate change.

However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.

As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.

Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.