Cradle to Cradle

For me, Cradle to Cradle was incredibly refreshing. Not only did it recognize that the world will probably never stop growing, it encouraged growth. But the right kind of growth. Good growth. A lot of environmental literature asserts that growth is the key to the destruction of the Earth- which, let's face it, the kind of growth we're doing right now is. But McDonough and Braungart decided that growth could be better designed.

From the construction of buildings to restructuring recycling, most of Cradle to Cradle was devoted to turning the authors' theories into actual practice- kind of a marvel idea, right? Everything that is grown or created is part of a cycle. Nothing should be thrown or put away. To conquer the idea of using resources more sustainably, the authors used the idea of the triangle (which we covered in class a bit).

In general, the biggest problem I have with environmental literature is that it requires major changes on the part of humans- something that I'm just not sure will happen just yet. It very well could eventually, but by then it might be too late. Like the book discussed, consumerism is dangerous. We buy new jackets and shoes every couple of months and then we just throw the old ones "away." Even if we recycle something, doing so leads to the release of chemicals and toxins that are also harmful to the environment. I honestly believe that things have to get a lot worse before people will care enough to help them get better. They have to notice these things in their daily lives and they have to believe that a new technology isn't going to fix everything.

The next stage, accomplished looking backward.

I really appreciate this book for its bold forward-thinking approach. Just with the first few pages, one can see how the authors have committed to restructuring the economy to serve the interests of a more enlightened environmentally conscious consumer. Bill’s life story revolved around finding simple solutions to pressing environmental problems in the field of architecture. A well-traveled man, he has observed numerous time-tested ways of habitation in such distant nations as Japan and Jordan. His experience tells him that sometimes the most effective answers are much simpler that industry would have us believe. The ways of Bedouin tribes, for example, keep their members dry in the rain and cool in the heat of summer. Sometimes, the way forward can be reached with the means we have now. We need not develop endless amounts of useless and wasteful technology. We have to concentrate on using the resources we have no to find answers to the tough questions we have to ask now.

Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle takes a very interesting perspective on the green movement by expanding and shedding more light on the rise of industrialization, regulation, and consumerism.

The argument I find most appealing in the book is the highly necessary calling out of the current environmentalist movement as a lessening of a large evil. The chapter titled Eco Effectiveness rejects the contemporary 'greening' of mass consumerism through 30% recycled paper goods, or reusable (yet still toxic) grocery bags. In its place, the most compelling call to action is for a reframing of the entire eco-perspective. Using the Cherry tree as an example of mass production for solitary gain, the 'waste' created in the process of pollination is not considered waste. Rather it acts in accordance with the ecosystem, decaying cherries giving nutritional value to the soil and grasses.

Applying this paradigm shift to design and construction, toxic and carcinogenic by-products can be phased out. Replacing them through the increased up front cost with natural- easy to break down by-products- can benefit both human consumption as far as health and the environments ability to cope with human presence.

To use resources more sustainably the authors later visualize a triangular system of ecology, equity, and economy to question the harder, more deeply embedded norms of society today. This triangle, which we covered in class a bit, was the most forward thinking theme of the book. The challenge to reframe the way norms have played out and to put ecology and economy at the forefront of the conceptualization is the best way in my opinion to spark and maintain positive change.

Cradle 2 The Grave: Not Just For DMX Anymore

Reading to Cradle to Cradle reminded me of one of hte most impressive life style choices that I have ever heard about. One of my best friend's brothers (Henceforth known as Ben) built a completely off the grid house in the desert. The house is out in the New Mexico desert and was built solely by Ben and his brother Dave over the course of a few months. Ben, a graduate of the hippy farm school Hampshire University was always interested in the environment and over the course of a few years decided to buy a plot of land and build his house. The house is sunken into the ground of the desert which helps with both heating and cooling year round, he collects rain water for use in the house and also installed solar panels on the roof. The best part as far as I am concerned is that he built the entire house illegally, state codes in New Mexico have made it illegal to build a house on only 1 acre of land because it is barely enough to build a house on. But thanks to the fact that he is surrounded by desert and no one cares about the codes in the desert he was able to build the house.

I personally don't have the willpower to live in the desert and build my own house. However I think that people like Ben are those who will do the best in the world that Cradle to Cradle envisions. The restructuring of our society that McDonough puts forth in his book is revolutionary and will require the actions of people like Ben who are willing to go out and build their own world even if they have to live in the desert.

Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle is one of the first positive things we have read in our class. It actually provides answers to the question "What should we be doing and how can we do it?" The book does not have all of the answers and at several times admits that the answers they have need to be expanded upon. The main idea in Cradle to Cradle is that we need to stop simply reducing our environmental impact, we need to be more ambitious then that. We need to start having a positive impact and become "native" to the land, we need to be more like ants and cheery trees, which throughout their life actually contribute to the health of the earth. The authors suggest that we rethink how we create everything from our cars, to car parts, to the machines that make cars and car parts, to the factories in which cars are made.

While the changes that Cradle to Cradle proposes would be difficult to make, especially with our consumer culture. But that does not mean they are impossible. I enjoy the idea that we could change the way we live so that we live with nature and still maintain a similar lifestyle that we are accustomed too. And I believe that the general population would be more receptive to the idea of improving the way we live while still having some of the comforts we have grow accustom too. And I also believe that the idea that we use human creativity to create these new lifestyles will also be appealing to a large number of people. However I do also believe that it will take a very long time for people to start jumping on board with these concepts and that we still need to take more aggressive action now in order to be able to take these steps later.

The Lorax: Remixed

UNLESS someone like you

cares a whole awful lot

nothing is going to get better

it's not.

The Lorax is gone and he's not coming back

Brown Bar-ba-loots starve from every tree that is hacked

Swomee-Swans have gone mute and Humming fish all have croaked

The Forest is gone and the sinks are all choked.

'I have this one seed,

now what should I do?

The last people who care

are just me and you!'

To grow back a forest,

it takes more than that

I must find some friends,

I must start this chat.

We'll burn all the axes, destroy all the thneeds

This consumerist culture is something nobody needs

Creating conventions, use powers that be ,

somebody quick call the ICC!

I paid for this future,

15 cents and a nail.

Citizen's arrest,

take the once-ler to jail!

With this seed in one hand, an a friend's in another,

We'll restore the glory of the Lorax, ou brother.

Climate change is real... let me show you...

At a glance, one can easily spot worlds of differences between the two websites. “Friend of Science” claims man-made global warming does not exist. If offers many graphics and many charts, but largely fails to explain them. Also, under its “About Us” section, it offers no names. Rather it simply defines the organization as a group of retired and active earth and atmospheric scientists. Its identity cannot easily be discerned. You have to dig several pages deep before finding names of the men and women who wrote reports.

On the other hand, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” gives a much wider, informed and in depth view, giving us access to a much larger amount of evidence. While the other site simply redirects us to sympathetic yet well-made blogs, its documents cannot compare with the scientific credentials of the organizations backing Coby Beck. NASA and the Climate Research Unit are just a few of the government-sponsored groups that are working to give us a clear picture. These organs have held accountable; they are the best-funded and most professional scientific organization in the world. NASA alone has a fleet of satellites at its disposal. Also, it offers counters to every conceivable argument of those who question climate change.

The things that strikes me first and foremost about comparing the two pages is their general approach to Climate Change as something that relies on individual-to-individual talking and convincing to get "the truth" out there.

Firstly Grist lays out, in a highly psychologically way, how to convince someone of anything they are skeptical about and applies climate change later. This creates a dichotomy of us vs. them and lays out a step-by-step approach on how to win. From this approach, the site provides material to deal with insecurity about climate change based on FAQ's raised on the contrary. Friends of Science stands out to me in a much different way due to its campy website design and shameless plugs of deer, skyscapes and geese. It bombards the viewer with facts and charts about how Al Gore is all wrong and that CO2 isn't actually a bad thing yet its primary way to get involved and actually act against the problem that is 'Solar Irradiance' is to donate money to their campaign. This extreme difference in style between the websites demonstrates one of the core reasons that there is fierce competition in this field of Climate Change; as this global problem is recognized and mainstreamed worldwide, there is more and more money at stake.

I'd like to relate this idea to Friedman's article on China's realization of the rise of an eco-industry. This economically driven mindset towards the differing opinions of climate change is founded by both parties affirmity in the "the truth," Friends of Science that CC is not Co2 related and that the sun is ultimately to blame contrasted by Grist's (re:Coby Beck's) correction that it has only to do with human influence on the greenhouse gasses.

Overall I think that the demonstration of numerous counter-arguments to a very broad spectrum of climate skepticism makes Grist's site a lot more convincing but I have trouble with the forum-like submission method and overall lack of definitive scientific citation. Compared to the bombardment of arbitrary graphs and pictures of Friend's of Science though, Grist is obviously more easily taken serious.

I am all for individuals being allowed to debate over heated topics such as climate change. Debate is one of the ways in which we test ideas for their soundness and find the best solutions to our problems. But I think that the time to debate the existence of climate change is over and has been over for a long time. While I could have respected the Friends of Science's desire to argue over climate change thirty years ago, now we are in climate change and we are seeing the effects of. The reality of climate change has been accepted by most world governments and the majority of scientists agree that the world is going to human induced environmental changes. So the time for debate is over, it is time to take action and implement policies to protect the Earth.

As for how the two websites present themselves, Friends of Science leaves something to be desired. I agree with Brittany that the name does not seem very professional and I would certainly not be comfortable citing a website with that name on a paper for class. And after reading some of their material it seems as if they are taking research and simply putting their own spin on it so it says what they want. I will admit that I am biased because I do believe in climate change. I do not think that the Friends of Science website presents its information in an accurate manner. As for the Grist website, I think they were very through in their desire to give arguments to people like Friends of Science. But once again I do not believe that this debate needs to continue any longer, which would essentially make this website obsolete.

Looks and Politics Matter... despite what Sarah Palin might say

I am a firm believer that most perspectives, beliefs, and disagreements revolve around one thing: politics. I would definitely argue that this is the case with climate change. No matter what belief you hold- that climate change exists or that it doesn't- it is clear that these ideas affect public policy and the lives of constituents. And the implications of these beliefs are more visibly political than scientific- at least at first. Anyone can pay a company or a scientist to come up with a study that says climate change exists or that it doesn't. Those studies can then be used to convince the public and affect political change.

No matter what kind of information a person is getting and no matter where it's coming from, it is important to think critically. Understand who is sponsoring the information- is the website run by a political party, think tank, or someone who could reap substantial benefits from climate change being a credible scientific occurrence? Then they might have an agenda pushing them and the information they are putting out. Of course, this is also true of those who promote the idea of climate change being nonexistent.

In my opinion, just from superficial looks grist.org is much more convincing. The Friends of Science website:

1. Has a completely ridiculous name and

2. Looks like it is the website for The Fellowship of the Sun (from True Blood), not a credible sight promoting scientific data

I'm also very impressed at how thorough grist.org is. They have come up with counter-arguments to everything from politics to economics to science.

With Nature

Perhaps the most amazing moment I’ve experienced in nature occurred when I was a 6th grader. I went with most of my class to Catalina Island of the coast of California. We stayed at a camp wedged between a cove and the hills. Over the course of five days, we explored the area around us, kayaking in the ocean, and hiking in the underbrush nearby. Perhaps one of the most magical nights we spent in this area was the time all of us decided to go on a “trust walk” in which everyone linked hands and went off through the woods in the darkness, warning those behind us of upcoming obstacles.

While there we spent time studying the wildlife around us, such as the local fish as well as the birds. I had never seen quail so plentiful before. A sizable flock often occupied the small meadow on the Western side of the camp. They were Catalina quail, slightly different from those on the mainland, we were told. Smaller and a littler fatter, they generally stayed near the ground in order to scrounge for food.

Section two makes the case that we are losing speciation at a horrifying rate, and I believe that we must do what we can to counter this loss. We must maintain biodiversity by expanding the amount of protected land that we have already dedicated to natural preserves. The wild is an important natural resource on its own, and should be treated as such.

The Non-Human World and Why We Need It.

I'm a little upset with how difficult it's been for me to answer this question, but I think i've settled on a memory. In 2005 I spent the summer in northern rural Japan. The area I lived in was vastly dramatic, spanning a large fertile valley, forest-rich mountains, an a plain that led to the Pacific Ocean. That summer I became engaged in the environment more than any other time in my life, biking from biome to biome, experiencing the affect of mankind on each, from abandoned mills on damned up waterfalls, to granite controlled oceanscapes. This experience was heralded with the discovery of a small river, not man-made, but obviously influenced by giant slabs of concrete every once in a while that held up the rocky soil and treeline above. The experience of discovering an abandoned speck of nature in the crazy-hectic country that is modern-day Japan brought me back to simpler times of self-dependency and engaging the world around us.

My time in the deep woods and high mountains was marked with discovering wild monkeys, climbing natural waterfalls, and accidentally crossing the almost indivisible line of rice-farm and high-wetland. Being removed from the confusion of not speaking Japanese, and sticking out like a sore thumb really changed how I view the non-human world as well as its ability to act therapeutically.

Addressing the second part to the question on the nonhuman world:

In pure humanly selfish terms, biodiversity and the idea of saving nature is undeniably necessary. In this regard, the overwhelming about of unharvested, un-researched, and simply unknown that exists in the world is worth protecting for the potential for mankind's manipulation. Medications, scientific breakthroughs, and linking ourselves even further to the world we occupy are all examples of why we need to protect our own interest in the great unexplored wilderness.

In addition to all this humankind selfishness, as mentioned in my personal engagement of the natural world, we can all benefit from the maintenance of natural space and biodiversity on a therapeutic level. In my opinion knowing, experiencing and loving all that our own environments have to offer is a critical part of leading a full and enriched life.

Photographic Memory

For me the times when I have felt the most connected with nature would have to be almost any time I have been out taking photographs. One specific memory is after my town had a huge ice storm I was driving away from the school and all the trees had the sun passing through them so you could see the ice really well. Or another time I was out taking some photos in the woods by a local park and I saw a coyote walking around the woods. I think that I remember these times the best because I have the photos to remind me of them. I have always enjoyed walking around in the woods and just being out in nature and the photos just keep the memory fresh.

I do think that saving nature in a goal we should be pursuing, I think that in human terms I would not want to deprive future generations of being able to see nature. I myself am sad when I read about some awesome animal that has died out and I can never see for real. But also simply for the sake of the planet it does not seem right to remove these animals which are the results of millions of years of development simply due to our desires.

The Power of Sunrise in Kenya (accompanied by memories of The Lion King)

In March of 2010, I was fortunate enough to spend a short time in Kenya. While most of my time there was spent in one of the world's largest slums, Kibera, I did spend the last day there in the countryside on safari. We left the bustling streets of Nairobi at 4 that morning- it is best to see the animals very early in the morning. My friends and I hopped into a van and hit the trails. About an hour later the sun began to rise. So did the lions, elephants, zebras, gazelles, and more. In that moment I could very nearly hear the Lion King music playing. :) In that moment, everything was peaceful. I was exhausted, but content to watch these creatures in their natural environment; not behind panes of glass in a zoo. I spent that morning watch lions lounge, zebras roam, and elephants play. It was incredibly beautiful and moving.

In terms of "saving nature," I definitely think we should work to save it- or at least a good portion of it. I'm not a vegetarian, my carbon emissions are high; the only thing I really do to save nature is not use plastic bags. I certainly don't want them to end up stuck in the lungs of a whale. Similarly, I tend to think that people are most important. But that doesn't mean that I'm all for human activity completely ruining nature and killing all the animals. I don't think dolphins should be slaughtered like was seen in The Cove. I don't believe is cutting down every single tree in the Rainforest. The more I live the more I begin to think that the human world is big enough. We're already using more than our fair share of resources. So in short, yes- we should work to "save nature."

Unless some apocalyptic event occurs and we need it...

Desert Rider

When I was 15 I went I spent part of my summer on my uncle's ranch in California. It was the first time I had ever been to California and it was also my first time seeing the desert. My uncle has several horses and his home is literally in the middle of nowhere. There was desert all around us and it took long drive before we would get to the nearest town. One afternoon I decided to go horseback riding out in the desert. I went alone, which looking back was not the safest thing for me to do, the desert is a very large place and I could have easily gotten lost and have been left outside for several days. But I also feel that having been alone is what really helped the experience be more "magical."

I ended up riding for several hours and eventually the sun started to set while I was still out in the desert and I have to say it was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. The sky was almost purple, it was quiet, it was just me and the desert. It was amazing.

I am a huge advocate of saving nature. Mainly because it is where we come from as a species and a culture, it also provides us with a sense of spiritual relief and is a way for people to get away from other people and have a change of pace in their lives. Nature can help an individual feel more connected to the world and can give us a sense of belonging to something bigger then just a city or a country.

I came across this organization and it changed the way I looked at progressive biology for environmental change.

From this website I was directed to the internationally recognized series of innovative talks, TED, for a talk that the director presented to the organization.

Check out the short clip here

Eben Bayer, the talker of this lecture, first outlines the dramatic affect that plastic based consumerism is having on our environment. He cites styrofoam as one of the worst culprits, filling over 25% of our landfills and its inability to be broken down naturally. He talks of styrofoam and its breaking down in the pacific trash gyre as a clog on Earth's respiratory and circulatory systems. Viewing the biomes of the world as recycling plants, human's introduction of plastics has created huge set-backs.

To counter the heavy dependency on styrofoam that modern lifestyles has created, Bayer introduces his innovation of mass agriculture of fungi mycelium to create a 100% sustainable and compostable alternative. To create the mushroom-root based foam-like product, he introduces a locally organized and distributed movement catering to regional preferences and availabilities across the globe. The mycelium, after filling with agri-waste like corn husks, literally grow into any shape or mold you need (see seconds 6:55-7:25 for a great example.) Once these products are finished being consumed you introduce them into a local environment and they act as natural, safe fertilizer.

What's great about this organization is the multi-faceted green approach to an incredibly overlooked dependency problem of styrofoam. With small, highly active facilities producing local products from local agricultural waste, a compostable solution is presented and a great argument is made. It was nice to see biological innovation being employed for a grave offense of humanity on the planet.

My Home Town

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/city-guides/chicago-green-traveler/

I am from Chicago and I have always thought it was one of the best cities ever, mostly because I grew up there so when I saw this article which is on Chicago becoming a greener city I became very excited. For me its just further proof that Chicago is awesome. And for the most part the article did not disappoint me, its kind of a traveler's guide to a green Chicago. It comments on our abundance of parks all over the city, especially our largest park Grant park which is in the heart of downtown. The article also mentions the large number of green roofs and new LEED platinum buildings that are being built all over the city, the major's efforts to make Chicago greener, the building of zero-net homes. My favorite part of the article though was that that author talked about the contrast between the old Chicago, the US's leading industrial city and transportation hub, that was known for being dirty and was perhaps the ideal industrial city and this newer greener "city in a garden" Chicago. Chicago is still the same as ever, big on transportation and full of pork loving city goers, the spirit of the old industrial Chicago is still alive and well, its just changed to be geared towards a greener way of life.

I will say that that article did focus a little too much on on what one could do in Chicago and all of the fun things you could do there and I was hoping that there would be more on the green aspect of Chicago. But the article is still a cheerful one because it shows us that even in what was once one of the least green places in the United States, can become greener, which gives hope to all of us, that even though going green might be hard, it can still be done.

The Uplifting Reality about Modern Energy

The headline reads: The Solvable Problem of Energy Poverty: Spread of Electricity Need Not Harm Climate, says UN Report

When I first began looking at National Geographic for "uplifting" articles concerning the environment, I became... concerned. Out of the first 20-some stories, only two seem even remotely ok, not to mention cheerful. And cheerful isn't exactly what I got from the above article, but it is semi-hopeful.

This article from National Geographic covers new meetings of the United Nations that are addressing the effects that adequate energy and cooking techniques for the world's poorest people would have on the environment. It briefly mentioned the health consequences that burning wood and other traditional materials can have on a person and I believe it! In the very short time I spent eating and cooking in a person's home in Kibera, the slum outside Nairobi, Kenya, my friends and I had to step outside because we couldn't breathe.

This was the most important part:

Tackling the larger goal of universal energy access— reaching all 1.4 billion people who lack access to electricity and the 3 billion relying on unventilated and inefficient wood, charcoal, and dung cooking stoves—would require only a modest increase in carbon dioxide emissions, the report calculated. That’s because the amount of fuel needed to address basic needs is small, and the opportunities for using cleaner energy are great. If the world takes the problem on, by 2030, global electricity generation would be just 2.9 percent higher, oil demand would rise less than 1 percent and carbon emissions would be just 0.8 percent higher than the world’s current trajectory.

So that's good. We've talked about how if everyone in China was able to get a car the world would basically end. The UN is saying that that won't be the case for this issue. The article also asserts that this goal is affordable! Amazing! Providing modern energy would cost $41 billion annually over the next five years (which is only 0.06 percent of global GDP). But this is where we run into trouble.

The more and more I learn about the world the more depressed I get about the United States' attitudes toward everything!! They don't give a hoot about human rights and they sure don't care about allowing people to eat without killing themselves from toxic smoke. As usual, the United States doesn't want to pay up. While that might be (is) depressing at least this article asserts that this is a possibility. Modern energy can mean the difference between life and death for the world's poorest people and knowing that it's economically and environmentally feasible is... uplifting. :)

Solar Projects in the West

http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2010/10/05/first-federal-approvals-for-big-solar/

Earlier this month, two major solar-power units received formal approval to go forward with construction. This follows several other solar projects the Bureau of Land Management has approved in California. BLM approval represents the last hurtle that a company must clear before construction can begin.

This is a critical part of California’s 33x20 Plan, in which the state attempts to produce 33% of its energy from renewable carbon-neutral sources by 2020. Although it may seem ambitious, the state has enacted legislation to encourage the growth of such industries within California’s borders. The goal is to establish a strong base of renewable energy within the state. Some environmental groups hope that such projects will proliferate in coming years.

These projects represent a transition in the way we get our energy. Hopefully clean energy will catch on across the board, but this has yet to be seen. In time, we may well see the expansion of such projects not only in California, but also around the world.

Food taken for granted

Until I started to take this class, I never thought a lot about the food choices I made and how they related to the environment. I had been aware for a long time that meat is far less efficient that consuming plant matter for food, as a large amount of energy is lost in the raising of animals. I always believed in eating everything on my plate, as not to waste anything. This was my only real long-standing means of preventing food going to waste. Also, I have heard that poultry is a more effiecient meat to raise that any bovine product. Animals like chickens have much shorter life spans and provide useful byproducts like eggs, while cattle take a number of years to mature before being brought to slaughter. Cows and other such creatures require a large amount of energy to take care of, house, transport, and process.

When looking back on the last few days, I realize that a large amount of the food I consumed was processed in some way. Be it the cereal I had in the morning, the hamburger meat I had for dinner yesterday night, at least one part of my main meals (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) have been processed in some way. This costs more energy that simply making a meal from unprocessed components (fresh meat, uncooked vegetables). We need to think about getting our food closer to the source. Urban farming can offer us this, but at this moment, we largely lack the time and effort required for it. Another aspect of our food is the packaging required. A large amount of this is not meant to be recycled, and much of it gets thrown away.

E(at)nvironmentalism

1.) I'll admit it. I don't really notice what I eat. This is not to say that i'll shovel whatever food passes in front of my face, but I can honestly say there is little environmental consideration when I'm cooking a meal or eating out somewhere.

Now that I've gotten that off of my chest, I'd like to say that i'm also aware that I make other decisions about what I eat. I actively seek out supermarkets that host organic and local fair, usually in regards to convenience and price. I'll go out of my way to carpool to Trader Joes rather than settle for Giant, but that's not to say that all of my purchases are locally grown or produced. In shopping for food, I habitually bring my own bags and try to buy less packaged goods. There was a time in my life when I gave up beef and pork to try to reduce my carbon footprint (after learning of the huge amount of methane that cattle and pig farming produce) but as of late i've reverted to full omnivorism. Now I self-monitore the amount of cow or pig that I consume and typically rely on poultry based on personal preference.

2.) In the last two days I've eaten locally baked pastries and a bunch of coffee for breakfast (ham and cheese,) one egg/avocado/cheese sandwich for dinner, and one trip to a restaurant where I had a seasonal special, pork tenderloin and butternut squash. Out of all of this food I'd have to consider the coffee to have the greatest environmental impact due to shipping, roasting, and packaging. Everything else I ate was probably local to VA/MD/DC, but my coffee came all the way from Peru (fair trade at least...) I'm primarily using distance to determine my impact, but I recognize the resources that went into producing pork include a lot of feed to fatten up and energy to slaughter the pigs.

I am Carnivore. Hear me roar!

Until I began college I had never eaten anything organic. And I had never made a point to know where my food was coming from- whether it was close or far away. I guess I didn't know that people actually did that. While I've been made aware of the impact that food has on the environment, I still don't make a point to eat things that are locally grown. I basically eat whatever is most convenient in my dorm room. Similarly, when I'm at home I don't make a point to eat local food, but it happens. Living in a rural area gives my family and myself plenty of space. We have a garden in the summer and eat fresh vegetables. To prepare for winter we can vegetables like green beans and carrots. I know exactly which family friend my chicken, eggs, and beef comes from too. That's what I find interesting about my two lifestyles- in DC, people spend a ton of money and make a point to eat organic and local, but at home it just comes with the territory.

I've come to understand (from recently popular documentaries) that meat has the largest environmental impact. And while I sympathize with Mother Nature, it hasn't really crossed my mind to eat less meat or become a vegetarian. It's not that I don't care about the environment. I do. I try to be a good person. I recycle, I have reusable grocery bags. But food is different. It's not something that I ever thought of as having an impact. And I think that a lot of people would agree. Generally, when you're at the grocery store you just buy. If you asked most people what about their lifestyle they could change to have a positive impact on the environment, I don't think that most would say look at what you're eating and where it's coming from. They would say recycle, use reusable bags, don't litter, etc.

I also drink a lot of pop. I wonder what the environmental impact of a can of Coke is...

Food, I eat it.

Honestly I don't think about environmental concerns when I think about getting food. Yes in the abstract I know that I shouldn't really be eating food shipped from around the world, but in practice I am living off of about a 30 dollar a week food budget. This doesn't allow me much leeway for getting food that has been grown locally or has a low impact. Now if I had maybe even just a little bit more money for food I could let the concerns into my thought process, however when I am living off Cup O' Noodles and other cheap packaged food I can't really afford to be concerned with my impact.

The thing that in my mind has the biggest impact that I have eaten in last few days has to be Cup O' Noodles. This is because of the packaging that it comes in. A styrofoam cup, plastic wrap and a paper covering as well. Nevermind that the actual food probably doesn't have a huge impact on the environment simply the packaging has enough of an impact. The other contender for the worst thing I eat has to be anything I eat at McDonalds. Meat in general is terrible for the environment with something like a cow requiring so much grain, water and land to be raised. In addition there is the green house gases that cows release in the atmosphere (methane).

Food? Enviroment?

To be honest, I never really thought about where my food was coming from and its environmental impact until about three years ago. And despite the fact that I have slighty more knowledge about it now then I do then, I am sorry to say that I have not really changed my eating practices to be more green and I could not tell you how green or anti-green they are.

Its not that I don't think that eating green is important, it is and I do know that it takes a lot of natural resources to get that MacDonalds hamburger but just simply is not on my "top ways to be green" list. Sometimes I feel gulity and try to buy local and organic and I eat less meat but that almost always wears off. And I think that part of the reason why that happens is because green food is not pushed as much as green transporation, using green technologies, tecycling and turing off the lights when you leave the room. Because those are things on the top of my list, I use public transportion more then cars or I walk places, I buy and use green lightbulbs, I am a big recycler and I always unplug my electrionics when I am done with them. And I do those things becaue I am repeatdly told to do them and that they are good for the enviroment. If I felt more pressure to eat green, I probably would. Because I do care about climate change and I do want to make a difference, but honestly I like most other Americans am more likely to do something that is green if I am told more often about it.

No silver bullets

Technology is often seen as a silver bullet to the environmental crisis in many political and media circles. Even business circles seem to capitalize on the next “environmentally friendly” products. This kind of over-simplified outlook fails to dig deeper into the issues at hand. We overlook our overwhelmed recycling infrastructure and pass our old outdated technology oversees to ill equipped salvage yards where they have a detrimental impact on local societies and economies. We must create a new industry capable of recycling our outmoded goods here at home, where we can trust that our good can be remade into efficient products that do no harm to the environment. We must reevaluate our waste management system and critically evaluate how much of our technology is simply being thrown away as soon as possible once a replacement comes along. This reevaluation must also go hand-in-hand with a new commitment to rebuild our economy into a green one. We must build new infrastructure with the goal of creating a carbon neutral society in mind.

Beyond I=PAT's T

To start, I'd like to agree with Brittany's post over Chan's (sorry Chan...)

The historical trends of technology and their detriment on the environment loudly speak against the Cornucopian ideal of holding out for the next big spike in ecological engagement. We can't simply wait for an ecological industrial revolution. historically it needs to be addressed that increase in technology has steadily negatively impacted the environment due in part to the human element of attitude.

To counter the argument of technological restoration of the environment I'd like to pose a new equation (an subset of I=PAT) T(+)=(ΔA1x I2)/C.I.. Positive Technology equals a primary change in attitude then multiplied by implementation all divided by creative innovation. The historic trend of more and more can no longer be sustained, we can no longer contribute more timber, more coal, more oil to feed a growing technological monster. T(+) means in some regards a simpler kind of innovation. A simplification of sorts to counter the ever-decreasing fuel supply of Earth. ΔA speaks to the core of our class; dramatic and drastic change in attitude (see previous blog post.) A societal implementation following the change in attitude would be the wide-spreading factor. Finally the second part of the equation is divided by creative innovation, the human ingenuity and resilience factor ignored by I=PAT.

Technology alone cannot and will not save us.

This might just make the problem more complicated but I hope it addresses the things fundamentally flawed in I=PAT's vague capital T.

The issue of how technology can/will save us from the problems of climate change and environmental disaster has always been interesting to me. The reason for this is that my father (a smart man with normally semi-reasonable positions) has a hard-line technology will save us stance on the issue. So whenever the issue comes up, and it often comes up due to having a family friend who works on climate change issues for Nasa, he spends several minutes ranting about human ingenuity and how technology has always saved us before.

I don't take his hard-line view on the issue, however I think that we have passed the point where a non-technological answer can really solve the problem. Yes reducing consumption can help but I do not believe that we can realistically reduce consumption in a way that can seriously fix any of the issues we are currently facing.

Technology isn't always going to be something that can save us from ourselves, it simply can't be a good thing for us all the time. However when it comes to climate change it can't be anything but a good thing, because we have simply gotten to large for any other solution to be able to fix the problem except technology.

Fail Cornucopians. Fail.

In my opinion, the evolution of technology is a means to an end. We no longer wanted to sew by hand... bam!! Someone invents a sewing machine. We don't want to have to use animals to plow our land... bam!! A large piece of machinery can do it for us. The point of this is that the original intent of technology was to make things better not worse. I've seen numerous graph that show the usage of resources. As a society progresses that usage grows and grows and grows until one day it begins to fall. Those graphs aren't representing a new piece of technology that solves all of our problems. It's all about attitude.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not think that technology is going to be our saving grace. Sure- someone may invent some kind of car that doesn't use gas and doesn't pollute like the ones we're currently using do. But it will take time for everyone to start to use those cars and, really, the damage has already been done. Unless someone invents a machine that sucks up all of the pollution in the air, puts all of the fish back in the sea and all of the oil back in ground and then just magically disappears... we may be out of luck. I'm definitely not with the Cornucopians on this one.

I might think that because inventing technology is not something that is on my radar. I'm all about politics. So for me this issue comes down to the people. There needs to be massive policy and attitude changes if we're going to control our consumption and try to limit the damage we're doing to the environment. For me the I=PAT equation makes sense. It's easy, it's simple and it inherently tells us where to reduce our impact. Technology is definitely part of this. But I don't think that a new technology is going to solve all of our problems. I would argue that we didn't know what effects the technologies we're currently using would have on the environment when they were invented. So how can we trust that something new won't make environmental degradation worse? Sorry, Cornucopians...

Praying to the God of Technology

Technology is a wonderful thing; it simplifies our daily lives, lets us communicate across borders and seas, and elongates our once short lives. So it is no wonder that so many people assume that technology is will save us from ourselves and this ecological mess we have created. People and governments have been putting all of their faith in technology, worshiping the idea that if we ask a computer to reduce carbon emissions, eventually it will magically get rid of the greenhouse gas threat. Cornucopians would be priests in this new technology based religion, they firmly believe that mankind and can use technology to save the Earth now and a million times over.

While, I am all for using technology for to help combat the effects of global warming, I am fully against relying purely on technology to get us out of this mess. Bill McKibben and several other writers we have read in class have warned against putting all our eggs in the basket of technology. They say we can use technology but they point out that if we use technology to solve our problems today, the same technology will simply cause new problems tomorrow.

As I have said in previous blog posts, we need to change our lifestyles and our consumer culture in order to really combat climate change. And depending on technology will only encourage our consumer culture and may actually prevent change in the long run, rather then save us.

The Nation that Greens Together...

The future of the green movement lies in the production and innovation of green technology and the creation of an organized industry around it. Branching from last weeks post of "too little" action on the American side of the movement, our minimized effort of bag taxes and reusable mugs isn't going to spark the great job stimulus that China is gearing up for.

While I don't think that climate change is best addressed in the round-a-bout manner of creating more jobs, it is a convincing argument for those politicians and legislators more focused on the potential short-term economic recession than the long-term environmental degradation. Our economy is never going to turn 180degrees into a green manufacturing state, but the greening of industry already in place could occur so much more easily, take the 1971 clean air act for example.

Viewing the environmental progression on a global scale is, in my opinion, a positive result of this race-like attitude. Noting the space-race (one of the only international races I'm aware of) a nationalized initiative and positively driven collective attitude toward the environment as an industry could lead to an improved folk-image of green American dreams. Maybe this competition will "whip us in shape," and soon we'll be faced with cheesy low-fi posters of biking to work or slogans of family unity through recycling. It's not a stretch from the math and science drive of the 60's and 70's; unfortunately the hardest sell is that reaching a cleaner Earth is as important and walking on the moon.

China on the way to a sustainable future?

Friedman’s article is surprising in that it highlights China’s attempt to modify its heavily industrial economy. The world’s most populous country wants a green revolution of its own. The apparent ease through which the Chinese leadership has started this movement may well reflect some of the more pressing climate issues they face. The more cynical among us may even interpret this as a simple means of saving face after years of severe environmental degradation in the country. After all, the Chinese government has pumped huge amounts of capital into the development of its heavy industrial sectors, often turning a blind eye to regulating any environmental concerns.

The technocrats within the Chinese bureaucracy have discovered that perhaps the nation’s road to a better future cannot come through continual haphazard production. Their wish now is to step away from more damaging and even dangerous means of production and pick us such methods as recycling. In the case of this article, it’s as simple as reclaiming plastic bottles, something America has been slow to do.

To me, China’s interest in cleaning up their economy seems genuine. Already they have had some labor protests as a result of poor working and living conditions. They fear such poor conditions will lead to unrest in the long run. It would seem as though they want more moral authority over the United States, now that they have actually taken action; American continues to twiddle its thumbs, at least on a federal level. Already, China is investing in wind power on a new level. According to NPR’s Foreign Dispatch, the Chinese are already putting up wind turbines in the Gobi Desert. When completed in 2020, the plants will provide 13.6 kilowatts of power, enough energy to power all of Chile.

A race may be just what we need.

Whether its the Space Race, an arms Race, or just Nascar, American's love a competition. Whether we are racing with our worst enemies or just trying to put up more Christmas decorations than our neighbors down the block we do things competitively. So it comes as no surprise when I read Thomas Friedman's article that he is trying to push climate change policy as a matter of keeping up with China. That may just be what we need to do something about it.

American's seem to do our best work when our back is against the wall. When we were faced with the possibility of Russia making it to the moon before us we managed to get there multiple times. Now with no competition we haven't made a moon landing in over 30 years. For some people life will always be us versus them and that unfortunate but I would rather have them competing to be greener than China than competing to see if they can disprove climate change.

I understand that making climate change into an us versus them is not a perfect solution and could lead to problems down the road as it certainly has in the past. And I certainly think that emulating the Cold War can only lead to bad things. However making it a competition between us and China does beat doing nothing ten times out of ten.

China vs. The United States

As usual, an author was able to describe an instance in which America is behind. Surprise, surprise. One part of Friedman's article that I did find surprising was his comment that China was making positive strides in terms of green technology and limiting carbon emissions. I'm used to hearing that the consequences of China's gigantic population are slowing killing the planet.

But... I guess that when a country has one thing that is drastically impacting the environment it is important to look for solutions and other ways to reduce the overall impact.

I have no problem with action on climate change being a race between China and the United States. The United States is still stuck on whether or not the environment is actually being impacted by human activity. Something needs to propel the United States to action- whether it be a competition or some type of catastrophe.

I agree with the article that green manufacturing and new technologies are a step in the right direction- especially for Americans who pollute more than anyone else on Earth. Recycling of used plastic is a great idea and is becoming increasingly popular. Even plates are being made from previously used plastics. Personally, though, I believe that limiting population growth could have an incredibly large impact on reducing human impact on the environment.

From the Space Race to the Green Race

In his article Thomas Friedman says that China will soon surpass the United States in terms of green technology and in emitting fewer carbon emissions. This was actually a surprise to me because personally I have not heard very many people talking about China going green. All the talk I have heard is about the U.S mission to convince China to go green. So reading this different perspective of China's government actually being greener and more committed to being green is fantastic.

I am all for a Going Green Race with China, lets switch from the Space Race to the Green Race. The world is in trouble and if a competition with China is what the U.S government needs to get off its ass and and lower our carbon emissions then I say lets get out our huge America is #1 foam fingers. Friedman says that China has made climate change about creating jobs for Chinese. The Chinese have brilliantly turned a major global catastrophe into a way to improve the everyday lives of their citizens. While here in America we (as I have said several times now in my blog posts) are still talking about if climate change even exists. And the Chinese are not just talking about improving their technology they are talking about changing the way they do things so they can live greener lives and use greener technology. Where as in America we are more focused on using greener technology and no changing our lifestyle.

Feel free to call me a non-American by saying that I am all for the Chinese to start kicking our butt in the Green Race, because climate change is not just an American problem, its a global problem and every nation needs to address it. And if a threat to American superiority is what it takes to cause change and really get our government to take action then I say on your mark, get set, GO Green!

Who is doing the asking?

In his New York Times article, Michael Maniates argues whether or not people are being prompted to change as much as the environment needs them to. Environmentalists are regarded as baby-talkers, encouraging small time change through re-usable bags and water bottles, certainly no Dr. Kings of this global rights movement. Expanding last lecture's economic discussion and touching on Grace's post, I want to raise the question of who is doing the asking and how loudly can a population respond?

Some may say that it is the public faces of going green that prompt all this change, the touring and preaching Al Gores of our time, but I beg to differ and say it is our elected officials that are prompting the American public. Through the polls they determine the answer, how green can we go as a society, and as Grace said we answer time and time again with our consistent "gas guzzling" and "conditioned-air" lifestyles. Political change is arduous and viscous, citing only extreme cases leading to rapid response (million-man marches for equality, or 9/11 response rationale for acts of patriotism) so what the degradation of the environment warrants is a higher value placed on what we have left to lose, appraised by our world leaders.

We have already seen it put in place in DC with a simple initiative to reduce a local aquatic impact in the form of 5 cents per plastic bag. One of the smallest recognizable taxes has spawned a collective thought of personal responsibility and created a more widely-ecoconscience city (note the look of confusion and disgust on a tourists face when they're demanded to hand over a nickel or two and compare that to the non-chalance and active nature with which a DC resident now totes a re-usable bag.) This small act of local government stepping in to create positive change parallels Maniates' dilemma of we being asked to little, but puts the questioning power in the hands of the government.

Politicians and policy makers are testing the waters, they're baby-talking us with bag-taxes. It's up to a collective voting population to make it clear that citizens today know that "the time for easy is over." We must make it known that we're ready for some harder questions, and we will answer through the vote.

Its the little things...

Michael Maniates has a good point in his article, the easy way isn't going to cut it. It's a point that certainly holds true, changing a lightbulb won't reverse global warming. However I think that through his article he gives the average people too much credit. When comprehensive climate reform occurs it won't be enacted by the common people it will come down from the top and it will make many people angry.

He references notable figures in history, Paul Revere (who did actually only 1/40th of the work on his famous night), Martin Luther King and FDR. None of these men can be called the average American (one lived before America existed but thats not the point). These were men who could have taken the easy way out and chose not to do so. The American people are asking what they can do and are choosing to do the easiest of choices.

It doesn't matter how many "It's Easy Being Green's" are published if the American public decides to do more. The fact of the matter is that America just doesn't want it enough, they are satisfied doing the little that they are being asked to do. Maniates writes "Rather, it's that when Americans ask, "What can I do to make a difference?" we're treated like children by environmental elites and political leaders too timid to call forth the best in us or too blind to that which has made us a great nation." Maniates almost hits the nail on the head here, American's won't do the big jobs until it is forced upon them, it happened with the clean air act, it happened with segregation and it is going to happen with climate change.

In the middle of his article he writes "Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment." But what he should have written is

Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment and never have so many been happy to give that little.

It Ain't Easy Bein' Green

Michael Maniates makes several excellent points in his article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." There is no way that recycling, turning off the lights, and taking shorter showers can stop the damage that is being caused to our planet.

So why aren't Americans pushed (hard!) to reduce our carbon footprints? I see two huge road blocks in the way.

1. People still don't believe that something is happening to the earth. It is kind of amazing that in 2010, well-educated people can still deny the existence of global warming and climate change. Or that they can believe that our actions are what causes climate change. One of the most successful, well-educated men I know is a cynic when it comes to this debate. He believes that it is impossible for us to know that the changes we see happening to the earth aren't part of a natural cycle. How much can our recorded histories really tell us?

And who knows... he (and the other critics of climate change) may very well be right. But by the time we discover who is right and who is wrong, it might be too late.

2. Politics, politics, politics! Ethanol isn't the answer, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. So what's the problem, right? The problem is that we could be using a better kind of ethanol. The United States is good at producing corn, but sugar cane, that is mostly produced in Brazil, can give us a more effective type of ethanol. On top of that, sugar cane is easier and less expensive to grow than corn. But the United States wouldn't make any money off of using and producing sugar cane ethanol. So we restrict trade with Brazil to make a couple bucks and give work and profit to our farmers.

Just like everything (genocide, presidential elections) it is probably going to be too late for change by the time we realize the mistakes we've made. We might even be dead when the consequences of our actions come to pass...

Going Green - It Ain't Easy

In Michael Maniates’ article, the author makes the case that our leaders hesitate to ask much of the general populace when dealing with climate change. Few in government want to tell us want to do, for fear they might be criticized for infringing on our personal rights, while self-help books suggest measures that only barely counter the environmental crisis. As a society, we seem to be looking for an easy way out.

It seems as though our consumer economy has been structured to be guilt-free. We have no effective means of measuring the effects of our purchases on the wider environment. As a result, our society does not feel the need to make the drastic stages it should to counter climate changed. We retreat to the half-measures that we know so well. Radical change would just be too complicated, too confusing, and not at all efficient.

Recalling Jared Diamond in The Last Americans, he makes the argument that societies are not bound to make decisions on issues that they cannot readily perceive as problematic. For example, the ancient Maya had no idea their farmland was becoming depleted until it was too late. We too cannot simply look out the window one day and realize that climate change is upon us. The key to solving the problem is educating our entire society. Only with the knowledge of the challenge can we involve everyone to work toward the solution.

Easy is the American Way

While I completely agree with Michael Maniates' point that the "easy" ways to be green are not going to solve our environmental problems, I disagree with the idea the most Americans want to/will work harder to be green.

Americans like doing things that are easy and they do not like making sacrifices. Just ask a Hummer owner, they are not going to want to give up their giant, gas guzzling monster of a vehicle in order to drive a tiny, eco-friendly hybrid. Of course there are many Americans who do want to be green and do recycle and do care about the environment, but even then many of them will not be willing to give up their air conditioning during the summer for a greener earth. It is not that Americans do not care, recent polls have showed that Americans really believe that we must become greener, its just that too many of us are not willing to get our hands dirty for a better tomorrow.

And in part I believe that this is a cultural thing, Americans believe we are entitled to our large cars and six bedroom houses, we are a consumer culture. So of course we love the "easy" way to be green, recycling is easy when there are clearly labeled trash cans and that bulb that lasts for five years and cuts down on energy costs? Those savings might encourage more people to turn their air conditioning on a few weeks earlier.

Yes I completely agree that we do need to be told what we really can and must do in order to save our planet but I also think that we still need to keep in mind our consumer based culture. We will need more a cultural change before Americans will be willing to make those sacrifices, we really need to make the environment everyone's problem. And I know that people have been saying that for years and that being green is more popular then ever in America, but its not enough. If it was then there would be more people demanding change and more changes being made by the government. Americans need to stop following a culture of "gimme, gimme, gimme" and want to live simpler, greener lives, before real change will occur.

The Crisis of the Commons

Having read the articles for this day, it seems as though the pressures of Earth’s growing population seem too much for it. Already we have begun to see the frightening impact of man on this planet: ever since the industrial revolution, the human race has improved his standard of living greatly, but at great expense to his surroundings. As our population swells as it increases its ability to support more people, the natural world bears the burden thrust upon it by humanity. Garrett harden makes this point clear when he recalls the “tragedy of the commons” – a dilemma that plagued herding societies of the past. As herding societies share common lands, the vast swaths of lands on which their animals survived seemed inexhaustible. However, as each individual attempted to increase the output of his herd, more animals would appear with each passing generation. In time, the fields would become exhausted.

This lack of a foresight has already cost humanity numerous resources that can no longer be replenished. Garrett warns us that even our Natural Parks are at risk. Unless we can reverse course, our industrial processes will simply continue to have severe impacts on ecosystems.

There are measures we can take, Garrett tells us, but he warns that it may be hard to encourage people to follow them without expressly creating new laws. I agree with his analysis that the law is all too often behind the times. Our nature conservancy agencies must work with the congress to formulate new means to preserve our national and indeed global “commons.” Our lawmakers must look to the scientific research community for answers. Only grass-roots movements can truly hold our leaders accountable for the future of our resource security. Jared Diamond points to such resource exhaustions as the cause of the collapse of numerous civilizations, including the Maya, the people of Easter Island, and the Greenland Norse.

The Blind Environmentalist

For the past twenty years or so going green in the U.S has become the hip thing to do. We teach our children the importance of recycling, we scoff at the lazy person who takes the elevator to the third or second floor, and we try to elect green politicians who push for change in office. But the truth is many American Environmentalists do not even know which plastics are recyclable or where the turkey in our sandwich comes from. We are a nation of blind environmentalists, our hearts are in the right place, but we fail to see that many of our "green" actions are not really green at all.

Take the example in Green Planet Blues about California. The West Coast is often considered the more greenly minded population, but they only pretend to conserve. Sure they have saved their deserts and many of their state parks, but they simply get their finite resources imported at over double the coast. And when one factors in the environmental impact that occurs in shipping those goods from New Zealand, California is more of a threat to the global environment then ever before. Then there is the use of ethanol, most Americans view the use of ethanol as a good green practice, when in reality ethanol causes an increase in the demand for corn, that cannot be filled by American farmers, so corn fields pop up in other parts of the world and their products are shipped to the U.S. Causing an increase in carbon emissions to get the corn to the U.S and the new corn fields cause great deforestation.

Its not that Americans don't want to be green, its that we don't know how. Big businesses and the government give us "green" choices but normally we are not given reasons why they are green or they appear to be green on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper you discover that we are actually doing more harm then good. So what can Americans do to see the light? Become more educated, ask questions about where that ethanol is coming from and what has to be done in order for it to be created. Yes it takes time and more attention the most average Americans are willing to pay to the environment but if we all just try a litter harder and think about where the Coke can is going to end up after its thrown in the recycling bin then we can avoid such counter-productive "green" programs and polices like the ones in California and open our eyes to a brighter, greener tomorrow.

Pressing Challenge

For me, the most pressing issue pertaining to the environment is ignorance. Ignorance of environmental degradation is one of the leading causes of inaction among the youth today. The most profound and dramatic negative impacts on the world around us aren't always so blatantly obvious, ie average temperature rising a single degree centigrade, so it takes the dedication and perseverance of environmentalist education to create positive change.

Ignorance of the affect humankind is having on the world we live on has habitually decreased the urgency and intensity with which environmental problems need to be addressed. Based on the past two weeks' readings, it's clear that the information, studies, and science is out there and available to the public, but the lack of mainstreaming of these global issues has become the norm of today's media.

Broad and mainstreamed enviro-campaigns have proven successful in the past, like the creation of national holidays Earth Day and Arbor Day, so why can't a national rally for a greener way of life bring about contemporary change? With more education of global green issues, greater innovation is capable. This is not to say that Moore's Law will directly correlate to reducing impact, but scientific advances can create positive change if responsibly used and widely installed.

Interesting innovations and creative implementations are a profound way to solve environmental problems through fostering education and raising awareness.

To conclude, something fun to watch, demonstrating what's actually possible with the help of a little infrastructure and a lot of smarts.

http://wimp.com/solarhighways/