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.