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.