Hello Everyone:
Welcome to Week 8 of our Blog
Post Project! Please find following the resources for our discussion this week,
and remember that your initial post and response are due Thursday by noon.
Thiele, pp. 90-114
Worldwatch, pp.
172-183; 317-331
Good luck!
Ron
Blog Post Project Instructions
You will write to this Blogspot weekly for 14 weeks
(1-September – 1-December). For the first part of your contribution, you
will write a short quotation from the week’s reading, or from the book on which
you are writing your report, and include with the quotation the page number
indicated or in the case of a video, include the minute/second point at which
the quote can be found. Along with your quote, pose a question, comment, or challenge
pertaining to the quotation.
For the second part of your blog contribution you will
respond to another student’s question, comment, or challenge about the quote
that they posted. Your response to another’s question, comment, or challenge
must be a minimum of 100 words.
Students are strongly encouraged to read and respond to
other students’ submissions in a timely manner. Late submissions, submissions
less than 100 words or lacking substance, and submissions not appropriately
submitted (for example sent to CANVAS rather than to the Blogspot) will not
receive credit.
There are no make-ups for online submissions, so submit
yours early to ensure that a late developing event (e.g. illness, family
emergency, etc.) does not prevent you from receiving credit.
Your initial post as well as your 100-plus word response to
a fellow student’s question, comment, or challenge is due each
Thursday by 12-noon, September 1-December 1. Your blog
posts, initial and response, are worth 5 points each for a total of 70 points.
“If there is to be a transition to a sustainable energy regime, it’s best to begin it now.” – WW Page 183.
ReplyDeleteI think this quote kind of explains everything sustainable people should believe in. Starting today seems to be the issue. No one thinks the little things they do today are going to save the world, but they can if you do them. Starting to recycle today can save a lot of plastic, starting to take shorter showers today can save a lot of water. Starting to turn off lights today can save a lot of power. So why not start today. Humans always procrastinate until we cant anymore, but unlike an assignment, procrastinating sustainability will cause real harm, not a bad grade. If we want to build a better world, a sustainable way of life, the best time to begin is today.
It is like what we learned in class, “the future is nothing more or less than a decision we make today”. I think this quote relates back to our own fear masters. People have a difficult time believing that their small acts will make any contribution towards sustainability. Yet if we all make small acts in our daily lives it will collectively add up. People need to find ways to overcome their own fear masters and move forwards towards the paradigm shift so a new world of sustainable living can be reached. I think this will involve proving to people that their own acts matter and do impact the greater goal of overall sustainability.
DeleteWow! That was like something out of a Ted-talk. I think you are completely right through the only thing I would add is how environmental issues are social issues at their core. Say the other day I told my co-worker I was building a worm farm so I wouldn't just be throwing my old food in a landfill, get rid of the fruit flies in my kitchen, and after time possible sell the compost that the worms would create. He laughed like a dumb*** and said don’t tell anyone you’re doing that, so in turn I told more people about my project. So in America being environmental friendly or a conservationist, is like being homosexual, or Muslim, or an immigrant, or a poor person, or an atheist, etc. Nothing is wrong with being any of these things but our society looks down on them. So people that could get jobs or even hobbies that could change the world keep it a secret. So changing our culture to look down on negative aspects of society instead of neutral and positive aspects is the first step to become a sustainable society.
DeleteIt is sad but true that we have adopted a "tomorrow" mentality in our society. Even though we are dealing with the contemporary consequences of our fossil fuel abuse today, we nonchalantly pass the responsibility of solving the problem to the next generation. The scary truth is that if we keep on relaying this prodigious responsibility, we will find ourselves falling off of our self constructed precipice by the time we find the courage and motivation to weave a parachute. Just like we shield ourselves behind a false filter of resource abundance, we clutch onto the fleeting idea of our infinite safety as we dig ourselves deeper into environmental debt. If we don't begin sacrificing some of our dependence today, it's unlikely that we will be able to enjoy the resources we so desperately rely on in the future.
DeleteI agree that this quote explains a lot that sustainable people should believe in and it relates to the current issues within sustainability. People constantly push the blames off themselves acting as an individual. However, our current sustainable issues need to be viewed as a collective issue and respond in a collective manner to resolve them. Sustainable energy would be an excellent place to begin. People are constantly looking for sustainable alternatives, however they are not superior substitutes because they require more output regarding time and money plus people think their daily activities do not create large effects. We must start soon on our sustainable energy regime because we are exhausting our fossil fuel reserves and other resources. In order to live sustainably and be resilient, we must begin saving our fossil fuels and maintain our reserves. We must begin now realizing our impact on the planet and begin creating changes.
Delete“The lesson seems clear: new, superior sources come to bear, rendering the prior solutions obsolete. Considering solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wave, and biofuel sources, it appears that the menu of substitutes is full to bursting.” – World Watch, page 174
ReplyDeleteAs society becomes more advanced, technology becomes more advanced as well. This advancement can be met with much resistance, as many people are uncomfortable with the idea of change. However, in regards to energy sources, as new, more viable sources of energy are discovered, it is only logical to embrace them. With all of the new energy innovations, such as solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, etc, there is little excuse as to why the world would not embrace these more sustainable substitutes the destructive, non-renewable energy sources. These substitutes are in the long run more economical and ecological, and should be put into effect as soon as possible.
I wholeheartedly agree. Most skeptics view the costs of new energy technologies through the lens of the free market, which is shown to be too variable for governments to controlled adequately by supply, demand, regulation, and taxes and tariffs. We have an energy (and water) energy crisis in the world; therefore, promising energy technologies should be embraced.
DeleteI contend with you on a few points. Unintended consequences are often a great cause of concern for even the most diligent embracers of new technology. Solar, nuclear, and biofuels are no exception. Solar cells require many heavy metals of a high purity. To achieve the high purity, much energy is need in the system, which may prove too costly in allocation of resources for more effective use. Life cycle assessments on solar materials are crucial to determine their viability and lifetime of use.
Nuclear is well-tested, but will never be well controlled.
Biofuels continue to disrupt primary abotic regulatory systems like the nitrogen cycle. Biofuels are a good transition method, but they are not a viable long-term solution for the world.
Solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wave, and biofuel all have pros and cons. Solar needs precious resources to create the cells and they die out over time. Wind causes a lot of noise pollution, bird deaths, and don't look appealing to everyone. Nuclear wastes can't be destroyed and can cause illness and death on a massive scale. Geothermal sites are limited to volcanic areas, pollute the air and water, and can cause quakes. Tidal sites are extremely limited and harm marine life to build and maintain. Wave blocks marine ways for shipping and can interfere with marine life as well. Biofuels cause the same problems of fossil fuel use with increased habitat destruction. Those are the cons the question becomes which option’s pros outweigh the most cons.
DeleteJulia, I agree that the world should embrace new energy sources and technology. However, many are not comfortable with this change. We have been dependent on fossil fuels for so long that we fear switching to something else as change is always feared. Also, there is the illusion of abundance. For decades, we have powered our lives with fossil fuels. It seems as if we have been using this resource forever and that we are nowhere near running out. Fear mastery is beyond sustainability in that we need it in all areas as well as education on renewable and existing energy. It may not be a solution, but somewhere to start.
Delete“Like the Promethean tale, the story of King Midas warns that our actions – and in particular those of a technical sort designed to give us mastery and control of our world – produce unintended consequences. And the magnitude of our technological power increases the gravity of these side effects” (Thiele, page 98)
ReplyDeleteWith our world’s rapid production of new technologies not enough time is being allotted towards testing new technologies before going into mass production and distribution. This is contributing to many unseen side effects. The implementation of a new policy mandating extended periods of research time before releasing a product could possibly decrease some of these unforeseen consequences of technology. We cannot afford to continue in our same trends of the past; at the rate new technology is being produced the number of unintended consequences is bound to rise exponentially if nothing is done.
Hi Elizabeth, I agree with what you are saying here. Until very recently, it seems as though humans have chosen not to take into account the negative effects of technological advancement. If we continue, we will quickly dig ourselves deeper into the hole we are already in. If changes are not made immediately, we may not even have the chance to help ourselves. You are correct, we do need extended periods of research time in order to decrease the chances of negative consequences. We must work efficiently, however, for we do not have very much time. We must find a way to develop technology without harming the natural environment
DeleteNaim Conrad Vilabrera
ReplyDeleteWorldWatch Institute: Climate Change and Displacements (343-352)
Hypothetical Situation
You've just been devastated by an earthquake and super tsunami with interim periods of T4 sharknadoes; your living quarters are gone and you have no money or valuabkes. What do you do? Do you move? What are you greatest needs? How do these needs affect your short-term decisions? What are your long-term goals to adapt?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If society waits until energy scarcity forces large-scale deployment of such alternatives, it risks falling into an Energy Trap... If there is to be a transition to a sustainable energy regime, it’s best to begin it now." -Worldwatch pg. 183
ReplyDeleteWe hear so much talk in the media about new forms of energy and technological progress, yet I do not see any change in daily life. Yes, there are more electric cars, but when are we going to see this change in our everyday lives? When are we going to see fewer cars at the gas station, and more at the EV station?
I too resonated with this quote from Worldwatch. Yes, there is a lot of hype in the media about new alternatives to energy and new technology that can help bring the alternatives to the forefront. However, the industry is still in its immediate growing phase and is picking up traction fast. This revolution of the transition from moving away of our fossil fuel age to more sustainable energy practices will take time, effort and a lot of money. It is estimated that trillions of dollars must be poured into the solar PV industry in order for it to reach the heights of market share, energy generation, and acceptance of industries such as coal and other fossil fuels.
DeleteBecause so much money is being put into research on renewable energy at this point, it seems very unattainable to people. The seemingly foreign concept of it and outrageous prices are turning people off. However, the growing knowledge of climate change and the increasingly more affordable products are growing and so are people’s interests. I feel that, with more information being presented and more resources being available for the average person, we will begin to start seeing changes occur. With every person that recycles or buys and electric car there is an immediate result on the environment, but that immediate result’s change might never be visible to the human eye. We must be patient and trust that what we do helps, although we are just a drop in the ocean.
Delete"Energy use in the world has grown by approximately 3% per year for the least few centuries. At this rate the current 16 terra watts of global power demand would balloon to equal the entire solar output in about 1,000 years and match all 100 billion starts in our galaxy within 2,000 years...before this - 400 years - enough direct heat would be generate don Earth to bring the surface to water boiling temperature." (World Watch, pg. 173) This quote significantly resonated with me as it gave a very horrifying time frame to our expected demise. This fossil fuel age we currently live has already contributed an unfathomable amount of pollution of our atmosphere, dead zones in the sea, and depletion of an abundant amount of natural resources. The chapter in World Watch explains us the consequences of the fossil fuel age and urges us to find more sustainable alternatives that can not be depleted as easily and can replenish itself in a shorter time frame. In the past decade tons of startup clean energy companies have began to rise and prove their worth. "Just covering 0.5% of the Earth's land area with PV panels that are 15% efficient satisfies global annual energy demand." Solar is one alternative to fossil fuels and based off many polls people do not seem to mind the idea of PV panels on their roof and schools if will help to cut our emissions. In the context of holistic sustainability, especially human dignity; we must find ways to try to implement these alternatives in to our lives whether that be investing into the companies that prove that they can cut costs while delivering a more sustainable energy grid, replacing products you use with more sustainable alternatives, buying an electric vehicle. The opportunities are endless and with the 400 year time frame in place it is a scary thought to think our great great grand children will have to live on the surface of the earth at boiling temperature if we do not change our ways.
ReplyDeleteHey Matthew!
DeleteI definitely agree with you but I think when we’re looking at how we use energy, we’re also talking about a product of the real problem rather than the cause. If we are using energy that comes from unsustainable sources in light of all the negative effects means that we either don’t care at all about what happens or we just aren’t used to taking long-run problems seriously. I’d like to believe that at least the majority of us actually care about the environment but personally, I find it really hard to worry about things that aren’t tangible yet. I think the best approach to the problem is to combine alternative energy source incorporation while instilling in the younger generations a sense of ownership and responsibility for the future so they won’t have the trouble we have in worrying about intangible and non-immediate problems.
Daniel B.
“Solar photovoltaic (PV) Covering just 0.5 percent of Earth’s land area with PV panels that are 15 percent efficient satisfies global annual energy demand.” Worldwatch pg 178
ReplyDeleteI think its amazing how far we have come along with utilizing renewable energy resources to the point where it can actually be feasible to use as our energy supplier because solar panels are being produced globally at 27 gigawatts which meet the requirements to consider it as abundant resource. The price has gone down, making it more affordable choice. Most people wouldn’t mind having the solar panels on their house rooftops or parking areas. I prefer to see this technology advance to even better efficiency and used with new battery technology such as liquid aluminum for storage of energy.
Timothy,
DeleteThe idea that if solar panels covered only .5% of Earths land we could satisfy global annual energy demand is astonishing. As a country we focus so much on fossil fuels when the renewable energy available could easily satisfy our needs without compromising the Earth and its resources. I also think it would be optimal to use solar panels compared to other energy supplies like coal and natural gas however, I don’t think this will happen any time soon. People are scarred to put their main focus on this type of energy. Also it is a more expensive initial purchase for individuals. Additionally, in places like Florida, we got a lot of sun but we also get storms and hurricanes, which could destroy the solar panels. Some people are not willing to put their money into clean energy because the possibility of hardship.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“Fossil fuel stocks are known to be finite, and by most accounts their extraction rates will peak this century. Thus in the long view it is a near certainty that the current age will be known to history as the Fossil Fuel Age. It is the time when humans discovered Earth’s battery—solar-charged over millions of years—and depleted it fast enough to effectively constitute a short circuit.”
Page 172 World Watch
With the way we use fossil fuels today, what do you think it will take to make the change to better energy options or will we only change once it becomes too late?
Kelly,
DeleteI think optimism would be justified in this respect as the word is already making great strides towards embracing new, more sustainable energy options. Take places like Amsterdam and Germany for example, who have harnessed renewable energy sources and are thriving as a result. Even though the U.S is having a hard time moving away from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, I truly believe that we will realize that these are not viable energy sources and will begin to make the switch as many other nations already have. Other nations serve as living proof that the U.S's fears about switching to renewable energy sources in large part do not hold.
I think it would people can definitely change if they had a better understanding. Dr. Chandler said to be effective for sustainability, we must face our own fear masters. Once society gains proper knowledge which can only come from spreading the word and messages to other groups, we will recognize the social problems caused by our actions. Many people are making changes now, as time progress we will continue to increase those numbers by spreading the knowledge as previously stated. All these advancements in renewable resources will prevail against the fight of fossil fuels i believe.
DeleteKelly,
Deleteif you are using "we" to refer to America, then I think that we will only make the change from fossil fuels when it becomes absolutely necessary. While scientists try to remind us that clean energy is ready to be implemented, the companies that have the power to make those changes ignore them, as their current ways are too profitable to mess with. Of course, we do have industries like Tesla, who are willing to venture out into the realm that doesn't include fossil fuels, but most companies are simply making too much money. We could look to the government for help with this, except for the fact that our government is controlled by big business. So unfortunately, I don't see us moving to better energy options any time soon.
"If society waits until energy scarcity forces large-scale deployment of such alternatives, it risks falling into an Energy Trap... If there is to be a transition to a sustainable energy regime, it’s best to begin it now." -Worldwatch pg. 183
ReplyDeleteThis statement is a very powerful summary to the chapter on fossil fuel alternatives. It creates a sense of fear and urgency that is needed for people to understand just how important alternate energy is to the continuation of our society. However, in the previous paragraph, the author states that there are not substantial substitutes to our energy sources today. One reason for this claim is the high up front costs of alternate energy, but how costly can these alternatives be in relation to the irreversible costs that we may face later on if we do not begin to change our ways now. Our society is so focused on immediate results, that these high upfront costs seem too high to them, yet they don't calculate in the amount they will save in future years. So how do we go about changing society's view so that it sees the implementation of alternative energy as an investment for the future?
Katie,
DeleteAs we continue to deplete our finite resources for energy, the need to discover new sources of energy becomes more dire. People must realize that no matter how high the upfront costs of alternate energy may seem, they are not as high as the price the entire human race will pay if we do not develop these new channels of energy. Because our society has developed and grown to be energy-centric, human beings will not be able to survive without energy.
To answer your question, I believe that first and foremost we should strive to attain an educated citizenry. Children should be taught the principles of sustainability and develop an environmental consciousness from a young age. Adults too, should be subjected to an onslaught of advertisements and promotions that share information about topics such as alternative energy. By filling consumer’s heads with this information, we can little by little chip away at the fear of high upfront costs and build upon the realization that we have no choice but to fund alternative energy research and development.
Katie,
DeleteYour question reminded me of Cynthia Barnett’s guest lecture on water sustainability, in which she stated that the best way to address the water crisis is to change the community ethic surrounding water use. I believe that the answer to addressing our dependence on fossil fuels is the same. There is a large population of Americans who deny science and claim that climate change is a myth. This conviction most likely results from mortality salience, and these people will likely not be convinced that alternative energy is necessary until it’s too late. I believe that our society is headed in the right direction, however, as sustainable practices are becoming more marketable for corporations and individual eco-minded efforts, such as recycling and composting, are becoming more of a societal expectation. Unfortunately, lessening our dependence on fossil fuels is mostly an institutionalized issue that must be addressed by legislation; individual efforts can only do so much. Measurable change is only possible if we demand that our lawmakers respect our environment and invest capital in researching and implementing alternative energy sources.
Katie you made a good observation and I think the reason society does not see the long-term investment of renewable resources like solar energy is that we are not thinking of the long-term or posterity's needs. The combination of our materialistic tendencies, and subconscious fear of recognizing the hole we are digging for ourselves keeps us from acknowledging that we need to act now if any effort we do make to combat will actually do anything. I believe if we are to change society's attitude the most effective agent for change will be the government. If our government actively pursues sustainability policies, then other organizations, factions, etc.. will catch on and contribute.
Delete“The Industrial Revolution was the start of the Fossil Fuel Age. It is the time when humans discovered Earth’s battery—solar-charged over millions of years—and depleted it fast enough to effectively constitute a short circuit.” World watch pg. 172 “The future, considering solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wave, and biofuel sources, it appears that the menu of substitutes is full to bursting.” World watch pg. 174. What most people see as the great Industrial Revolution that brought humanity into the light was completely fueled by the fossil fuels. The analogy is perfect, we are using Earth’s natural battery of stored energy, carbon in plants and animals that lived millions of years ago. The effects from this we hit us, we are starting to see the impacts of our grandparents generation wasteful ways now, so what are we to do for the future. The question of continuing the use of finite resources becomes a question of environmental concern and common sense logic, if it runs out then we can’t use it, duh. The future is clear, we have many technologies that can produce electricity infinitely so that is what the world will turn to no matter ones position it is inevitable. The true question is how will our transition be, will one day we just run out with almost everything still relying on fossil fuels and plunge into mass chaos or will we not even completely run out, will the demand just go away since renewables become more cost and morally effective?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think will happen World War Z or hippy paradise when the last fossil fuels are gone?
I think at the rate we are going at right now, we will be headed more towards a World War Z scenario with people fighting over resources and dividing mankind. There isn't enough support right now to make renewables a main source of energy, and so people would continue to cling to the last traces of the old way of getting energy for as long as they could. Hopefully, we will transition to renewables before we have exhausted all of our current resources to stop using the harmful fossil fuels sooner, as well as to avoid a massive panic about resources, but humans aren't always proactive about these things.
Delete"The only real way to tackle climate change is to stabilize and then work to dramatically reduce the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The surest way to achieve such a feat is to break the world’s addiction to fossil fuels." (WorldWatch 325)
ReplyDeleteThis may seem like an unrealistic feat, especially in present day. The price of gas has been lowering quite favorably for consumers in the past few years. We have seen the price per gallon of gas drop from around $3.50 back in 2011 to below $2.00 in some gas stations in the end of 2015. Certainly, this won't convince people to give up a finite resource that we depend on so much. The discoveries of new oil reserves around the world and even in the US, North Dakota and Alaska, give us a false hope that we can still use oil as a reliable resource. People seem to ignore the rate that society tends to use resources. The rate usually increases as we are illusioned by a sense of abundance. Our continuous use of fossil fuels will just produce even greater amounts of toxins and emissions. Is there a way for people to resist the temptations of using fossil fuels as the monetary price for its usage decreases?
The decrease of gas prices has actually been very beneficial to man people's budget. However, this is encouraging the depletion of our fossil fuels as well as the release of these burned fossil fuels into our already polluted atmosphere.
DeleteThe public system, as well as the corporations that are pumping the fossil fuels from this earth, should advertise environmentally-friendly products/technologies to the public, present signs to allow the public to remember to implement environmentally-friendly choices into their lifestyle, as well as implement projects/contests to incorporate the 4 R's into our lives.
People are going to continue to pay for gas regardless of the cost; they need the resource in order to go to work, get the groceries, take their children to school, etc. However, we can be able to remind the public to incorporate these lifestyle changes, as well as involve facts about our consumption so they may understand the consequences of not implementing these actions.
Due to its expansiveness, our country, especially, encourages the use of cars and planes as a means of travel, and the discovery of new oil reserves along with decreases in gas prices certainly only promote this behavior further. This dependency on comfortable travel can have dire consequences as greenhouse gas emissions increase. Because changing behavior and attitudes is so difficult, it will take education and government intervention to encourage these changes. Some of these changes, can already be seen. For instance, preferred parking for hybrid cars. By implement incentives to go greener, government can encourage green behavior.
Delete"What happens when creative children can no longer choose a green space to be creative?"
ReplyDeleteLast Child in the Woods (P.88)
People often forget that creativity has sparked from early childhood experiences involving nature. Without any interaction with nature, how will children even have that foundation to create other ideas throughout their lifetime if they do not have the chance to explore in humanity's first site of exploration? If parents and school-based systems continue to cut down recesses and chances to be outside, then the children won't be able to experience what virtually every human in history has had the chance to do. This action will disrupt our evolutionary cycle if it continues to take place.
Richard Louv’s quote as well as his nearly flawless arguments in Last Child in the Woods brings to light the myriad of immediate and lifetime benefits from kids experiencing nature play. However, instead of only addressing the issues at hand, he also addresses possible solutions to reconnect or incorporate an appreciation of nature into lives today. Therefore, in order to combat the disruption in our evolutionary cycle, we must replace the fear of the wild with an encouraged attentiveness. More importantly, we must quickly expose and continue to expose children to the wonders of nature throughout their childhood. As a result, nature will become more of an attachment and less of a fieldtrip.
DeleteThis quote kind of hits home, or it should. What would happen if children can never be green, we they don’t have the opportunity to smell the roses? Schools say constantly that they’re doing everything for the student’s better future. I was a teacher cadet and when I asked if I could teach a class outside, so we could plant in flower pots I was told no. My instructor was confused so when we consulted with Mrs. Rogers ((thesecond grade teacher that told me no), she explained to me that taking the students outside would only distract them and they had loss recess for a week. So she decided that the kids don’t go outside for a week, they just have state knowledge slammed into their face and take state test, and basically become robots. Kids need recess, it shouldn’t be cut down. Parents should let their kids go outside, the fresh air would probably help, outside would probably help lower the huge problem that schools care about, child obesity. The education system needs to support the students outside of state test, robots wont be able to function outside of the classroom, education isn’t even education anymore. Taking the creativity with it, I don’t want that to me the future of my country.
DeleteSophie,
DeleteI agree that a child’s creative mind is born through experiencing nature and the beauty it has to offer. It is important that we continue providing children time to play outside in nature. If the opportunity to play outside is taken away from future generations, one’s appreciation for nature could begin to diminish along with their creative tendencies often bloomed from nature itself. In order to continue providing this time for children where they can simply be children, we need to stress the importance of nature. Allowing children to play outside and embrace nature gives them the freedom to create and design within nature. As a child during recess I would make different shapes out of leaves, and play in the many trees surrounding our school playground. Recess was a time I looked forward to because it gave me the freedom I needed to be a kid and not worry about what was right and wrong. I could simply play and laugh with my friends, contemplating life about the world I live in. This privilege I was given as a child has made me appreciate nature more and more as time goes by, and I believe that it is imperative that future generations are given this same opportunity.
“…Transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at this time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy history. Fossil fuels represent a generous one-time gift from Earth… If there is to be a transition to a sustainable energy regime, it’s best to begin it now.” (World Watch pg. 183)
ReplyDeleteThis quote encompasses important recognitions that readers and hopefully society can grasp. First, it notes that humans have continually replaced past energy sources with superior ones. However, we cannot eternally use fossil fuels as a means of furthering our build environment. Secondly, it suggests that in order to prepare for the depletion of this resource, a smooth transition away from it must currently happen. Similar to Dr. Chandler’s mantra, “The future is nothing more or less than a decision today,” industry professionals must make the thorough incorporation of alternative energy sources into civilian’s daily lives possible. And we, as a society, must combat our notion that our usage is both justified and entitled.
Alternative energy such as solar panels has not become a widely used practice in personal households because the initial costs drive most people away. Installing solar panels usually cost thousands of dollars for just one households. Most people will then settle for the cheaper, but more harmful traditional sources for energy such as coal. However, even though the initial price may seem daunting and have a low payout, the results are amazing. Households with solar panels sustain themselves with energy, and pay maybe maximum $5 for monthly fees compared to $300. in the end, these numbers add up. People can expect a high payout from this investment. While the use of fossils fuels will continue to damage the environment, investment in alternative resources IS worth it in the long run. Those who are able need to look towards how it will benefit themselves in the future rather than on a monthly basis.
DeleteI agree, we must not be afraid to start to change in the present. People always seem to be waiting for a better time, but there is no better time than right now to start fixing things. If we have the technology and ability, why not? I think many people feel it is too much effort or just too difficult to change the way things already are. However, the earth is not just dead and cold, it is a living thing that adapts and changes all the time. Just like a person with an illness, I know that the sooner we treat the earth, the easier and quicker it will regain health. If we learn the earth untreated, it could die. We need to keep up with the rapidly changing world. As we learn and grow, our technology and our knowledge can only take us so far if we don’t actually go ahead and apply what we’ve learned. The problem at this point is not the mistakes we have made, but the fact that we are aware of the harm we are causing and doing little to nothing to reverse the systems that are perpetuating the problems.
Delete"One landbased idea that has captured a good deal of attention is development of a new generation of mechanical CO2 “scrubbers.” The hope for these machines is that they could pull large quantities of CO2 directly from the air. This is quite different from most carbon capture and storage schemes currently under discussion, which aim to remove CO2 from the flue gases that escape from fossil-fuel-driven power plants." (Worldwatch p. 322)
ReplyDeleteI found this reading quite interesting as I am an environmental engineering major and geoengineering and the likes has certainly come up in discussion before. However, what intrigued me the most is the number of 'fantastical' geoengineering proposals that I had never heard of. Even the CO2 scrubbers that are discussed in the quote above. I was aware of their existence in power plants but I had no idea there is a hope to create free standing models This proposal for new 'fix-it-up' technologies is both impressive and worrisome. Udoubtedly, these technologies are amazing in respect to their innnovaton and potential. However, geoengineering also makes me question the human race. Why do we spend countless dollars and hours trying to reverse problems we have created instead of simply taking the time to fix the problem at its core? Should we continue to create new technologies as our problems arise? Or should we stop creating problems all together?
I completely agree with you Kiera. I think we all need to step back and realize that we can’t just keep going forward and finding technologies for all of our problems. I think this goes back to trying to solve the source of the problem and stop trying to treat all of the symptoms. The grand geoengineering plans are so large that they would have many undesirable impacts, and I am confident many unanticipated ones. I can imagine after spraying the sulfur into the sky that somehow it starts a chain of events that reroutes rainfall, causes extreme temperature fluctuations, and many more problems in the end. I think we should definitely stop creating the problems all together. The main issue with climate change is the excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, we need to find solutions for alternative energy or ways to eliminate releasing carbon dioxide. All in all, I think it is hard for people to consider having to abandon their current way of life in order to cut down on energy consumption. But these are the only changes that might not destroy the planet in the meantime.
DeleteIn the World Watch article discussing the consequences of the proposed options for geoengineering: “To take two other examples, shooting sulfur into the sky would cause acid rain and would promote stratospheric ozone depletion, while adding iron to the oceans would drive the overuse of important nutrients, potentially causing massive disruption of ocean ecosystems.” (p. 326 World Watch 2013)
ReplyDeleteGeoengineering is the idea deliberate manipulation of the global environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Two main categories of geoengineering have been proposed: blocking solar radiation and carbon dioxide removal. Mentioned in the quote, shooting sulfur into the sky would block incoming solar radiation, and adding iron to the oceans would cause algae to bloom and remove large amounts of atmospheric CO2. All of this in the effort to cool the earth and mitigate climate change. The article does mention that these ideas are nearly in the realm of science fiction, but I honestly don’t think there is much practical application for these ideas in the real world. Like the quote explains, there are too many risks for these ideas, such as climate destabilization and global ecosystem impacts. I think these geoengineering projects should only be undertaken as a last resort. Does anyone disagree, and think these ideas could be successfully implemented?
Hey Adam, I once read that history's science fiction is the future's technological advances. Sure, actions like blasting sulfur into our ozone layer and flooding the oceans with iron sound like "half-baked" plans to mitigate climate change but it is a start? If scientists are able to map and measure the exact amounts of sulfur and iron required for each activity in it's respective location, why not try to offset climate change? To answer my own question, I think there are two answers. Primarily, the idea is a stretch. The global population has a better chance of reducing carbon dioxide levels and use of other atmospheric pollutants than scientists do of strategizing this "hopeful" plan. The other reason why this climate mitigation plan is unlikely to take off, is because the negative impacts afterwards could be, as you say, "disruptive" to global biodiversity. For example, too much algal growth in the ocean could block incoming solar radiation which inhibits ocean-plants' photosynthetic ability; killing off the effected vegetation. It's good that we are at least trying though. And who knows, maybe 100 years from now the air will smell like rotten eggs, the oceans will be as red as a firetruck, and average annual temperatures will be a few degrees cooler?
DeleteThe World Watch Institute reading this week drew me in not because of the text, but for the tables and graphics. On page 173 (World Watch Institute) there was a graph featuring human use of fossil fuels. These fuels gave rise to all of our human production (technology, food, knowledge, industry, etc.). I did not realize how much we are dependent on fossil fuels, which lead me to fully realize the impact depletion of these fuels will have on our civilizations. Subsequent tables (World Watch Institute p.175-176) made me further question our energy outlook. I took a global sustainable agriculture class the semester previous to this fall and in that class the energy outlook was presented with a positive light (the answer in that class mainly pointed to nuclear energy as it is a working system and it takes up far less land area then mining or alternatives such as solar or wind). Looking at the graphics and written information (World Watch p. 180-181) I realized that all alternatives for fossil fuels (including nuclear because of waste products) have serious downsides, almost to the point where we cannot call these sources "alternatives" (because they cannot simply be alternated with fossil fuels). In reading and absorbing this information I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated because all conclusions I drew to solve the energy crisis where along the lines of: there is no clear cut solution so you have to find a balance of the somewhat faulty solutions. I think we need to minimize time spent weighing the pros and cons of different actions and instead begin the journey to enacting hybrid solutions that are already supported by vast bodies of information.
ReplyDelete“...technological development has in a very basic sense depended on failure, since the lessons learned from failed design can often teach a great deal more than successful machines and structures.” (Worldwatch page 325)
ReplyDeleteIn our current culture and society we often place no value on failure. However, as this quote from Worldwatch points out, it is impossible to grow and develop more technologically advanced inventions without trial and error. With each failed design or experiment, we can better understand that which will make our next trial more successful. Because our technology today depends on failing and then overcoming these failures, it proves important to appreciate and learn from our failures. Do you agree that valuing failure is an important component of technological development?
I definitely agree that failure is an important component of technological development. With more experimenting comes more ideas explored and the closer, or sometimes further, we get to a solution, but even if we go further in the wrong direction, eventually we will realize through failure; that will then point us in the correct direction. Without the experimental process of trial and error we would not have nearly all we have today, probably most famously the light bulb as Thomas Edison was quoted with, "I haven't failed 1000 times, I just found 1000 ways not to make a light bulb." Environmentally, we have technology that is ready to be implemented to increase the sustainability of our societies; for example, Germany is a top leader in photovoltaic energy production and expect to be totally powered by photovoltaic cells by 2015.
DeleteNatalie,
DeleteI completely agree that failure is an important part of development. The process of trial and error is how growth occurs, and how new ideas are fostered. It is nearly impossible to design something without flaw on one’s first try. However, in today’s society we do not see failure as a step towards success, but rather a defeat on which one cannot expand from. Learning from one’s mistakes is therefore not valued because we unconsciously see “failure” as a loss instead of an opportunity. Although, If we were to implement this optimistic ideal we would promote innovation and enhance the world we live in by becoming more developed. To apply this growth towards sustainability would definitely be beneficial to us all in that we could discover how to satisfy our current needs without damaging the world of tomorrow. The sooner new ideas are formed on how to solve this issue, the closer we will be towards living sustainably.
Natalie, I think that failure is absolutely necessary for us to continue to progress. Trial and error is what allows us to make better products, be better people, and move forward as a whole. Failure allows one to see their mistakes and correct them, instead of continuing forward with the same problems. Environmentally, there have been a lot of failures. Look at the use of DDT as an insect repellent. What we though was a breakthrough in pesticides ended up being proven toxic. This was a massive failure for the US, it had been essentially killing entire ecosystems for decades. Since then, the world as a whole has taken a step back and closely examined what we're really exposing our plants and animals to. Having a failure to reflect back on is never a bad thing. Sometimes the consequences of a failure can be severe, but there is a always a great lesson to be learned from a failure.
Delete"While some current economic activities use little energy or physical resources, no activity can claim zero use" World Watch pg 173.
ReplyDeleteThis stood out to me because it shows how much harder we have to work to stop the damage on the environment. Most of how we get our energy does not even come close to being "zero use", and even those that are cleaner are not perfect. If people kept this in mind they may be more inclined to be zero use in other ways. This reminded me of the 4 Rs. If we implement those in our daily lives, as an individual we can become closer to having no impact, and then we can move our energy sources to follow the same trend and become more sustainable.
Emily-
DeleteI agree with your statement about your choice of quotation. We all use things even if we think we use so little that it seem as if there is zero use of the recourse. With a world so large and a global population reaching the carrying capacity of the planet, this idea of using zero of a resource is not reality. You may not be using a particular resource, but there is someone else in a different nation using that one thing you are not using. We tend to not get this topic on a global scale which is a prime issue to this situation.
I agree with what your saying, however, my question is how many other ways are there for people to actually have "zero use". This concept of neutralism seems to be a goal that many want to achieve but have a hard time actually implementing. Like one of the groups brought up in our projects, if we were to actually use "one Earth" of resources we would probably be limited to seeing the part of the environment that we were born into. While this is obviously still the goal, I think it is important to also acknowledge just how vastly far we are from being close to have "zero use".
Delete"Environmental impact has no column in this matrix, although the "acceptance" measure captures some of this." (pg. 177, World of Watch)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is describing a figure shown in World Watch showing alternative energy source properties and my first thought was when I saw it, "how would you measure environmental impact, though?". So, my question is, besides a general level of acceptance, what empirical data could be collected to show environmental impact?
ReplyDelete“Other proposals involve streaming sulfate particles through giant hoses tethered to helium-filled balloons or adding sulfates to jet fuel. The required sulfur could itself be harvested in the needed quantities from coal-fired power plants, in effect rendering two of the main contributors to climate change—jet travel and the burning of coal—central components of the fix.” (World Watch, Page 321)
I understood this comment from World Watch in a way that was different from what they intended for us to understand. Although these plans for reducing the amount of solar radiation reverse global warming, they do not fix the problem. The problem is greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The coal-fired plants and jets release these gases creating the problem. As long as we are producing greenhouse gases, there will always be a need for these solutions, but in greater magnitudes as the amount is ever increasing. I see this as circular reasoning where we come up with a solution to a problem whereby we add to the problem. The cycle would never end. In everything we do, we have to see from many angles and mine was only one. Does anyone agree, disagree or have another stance on the topic presented?
“If exploiting fossil fuels is akin to spending a considerable inheritance, growing and harvesting our energy supply on an annual basis is like getting a manual-labor job: a most difficult transition” (World Watch. Pg. 183).
ReplyDeleteFrom this quotation, there is a clear display on of unclear and the lack education there is when it comes to the reduction of the depletion of your fossil fuels. We as a society see reducing more as hassle than as a necessity for future improvements. Comparing this act to labor work proves of the mindset that reduction as an inconvenience. A solution to this is education about the topic at hand; education is key to all aspects in sustainability. If we all work together in order to improve our global education rates on the world around us, the future generation will be better off and so will our planet.
I totally agree with this statement. Education is so important when it comes to getting the people who matter the most, the people in our local communities, to have a desire to strive towards sustainable development and living. It is important that issues like these are presented to people everywhere and it’s even more important that we present these issues in a way that makes it understandable and simple enough to where people feel that they can really make a difference and have a voice in a problem that may originally seems too big to handle. I think that programs for child education in sustainable and environmental science, like mentioned in our guest lecture today, are great ways to start.
DeleteVictoria,
DeleteI totally agree with your statement, if we concentrate in educating everyone around the world about fossil fuels and all other topics including alternative or renewable energy, the future generations will live healthier and better lives and so will our planet. We need to focus on education. As many have stated in lectures, presentations and conversations in our class, it is important to make sure that all the information available to us is passed down effectively to others with the purpose of educating them and triggering questions, experiments, investigations and even sustainable solutions for the problems we face nowadays with energy, fossil fuels and alternative sources. It is also important to understand that as society grows, if we don’t do this now, the negative effects of exploding fossil fuels will hit them faster than predicted in coming years.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“It can (and in the best of today’s companies, it already does) recreate the sense of belonging that has been lost due to the forces of modernization and globalization” – World Watch pg 172
ReplyDeleteIn nurturing a community rather than just workers in a corporation, companies can maximize the performance of individuals. A community where every worker feels included in a common effort allows for them to feel ownership over the end result of the corporation. Not only this but the atmosphere in the workplace is one of familiarity rather than uniquely professional, encouraging individuals to share skills and network so as to know their peers. Both of these factors can motivate the drive for success both in a personal and communal level. Adopting this model could be more beneficial than the “professional” environment established nowadays, could there be any drawbacks to this model?
Daniel B.
"Fossil fuels represent a generous one-time gift from the earth... If society waits until energy scarcity forces large-scale deployment of such alternatives, it risks falling into an Energy Trap in which aggressive use of energy to develop a new energy infrastructure leaves less available to society in general.” WorldWatch p.183 Do you think that our society has become too dependent on fossil fuels to turn back? Can we make the transition towards more sustainable energy sources in the future?
ReplyDeleteLilia,
DeleteIn my opinion, the transition towards more sustainable energy sources has too many barriers to be achieved in the time we need to reverse the effects that we have already caused on our planet. Not only does political interests hinder the development of these technologies, but the challenge of power storage also poses a major drawback. However, that doesn’t mean that we should stop striving toward a smoother transition. Political interests can always be trumped if public opinion is strong enough to lead into action. Our society can no longer use non-renewables if it wants to leave a planet for future generations.
Even though it seems as if we have gone too far with fossils fuels to turn back, there is always hope for the future. I think that with enough effort it is possible to transition to sustainable energy sources. I agree with the quote that if we wait too long we will be falling into a trap because there is only a limited amount of fossil fuels. That is why it is so important that we start the transitioning now instead of weighing our options. This transition has to happen in our government and with our leaders in order for it to be able to go into full swing. Also, technological developments have, and will continue to, make the transition a little faster and smoother as long as we keep on track and utilize them in the correct, most sustainable ways.
DeleteHali McKinley Lester:
DeleteI don’t think that we can necessarily turn back our use of fossil fuels, but that does not mean hope is lost. In the wise words of Rafiki, “The past ban hurt, but the way I see it, you can either run from it, or learn from it.” Right now, too many people are trying to run from the results of our use of fossil fuels by refusing to deal with the issue. We cannot undo the damage we have done already with fossil fuels, but we can learn from our mistakes to improve. We need to reduce the excessive consumption of fossil fuels. For example, we need to create a societal norm/safe way to have people walk or bike places that they usually drive to. I truly believe that we can turn toward more sustainable energy sources, but it is going to take a lot of work and that work needs to be communal. We cannot leave the problems for the scientists to solve. Instead, we must make all people accept responsibility, we must make politicians enact laws to protect our environment, and we must encourage scientific research for sustainable energy sources that will not bring unforeseen consequences. It will be a difficult process, but people must accept its necessity.
“To illustrate the difficulty of storage, a lead-acid battery big enough to provide the United States with adequate backup power would require more lead than is estimated to be accessible in the world and would cost approximately $60 trillion at today’s price of lead.” (World Watch, 178)
ReplyDeleteFinding alternative energy sources is not the issue, for there are countless new and creative technologies that harbor a possibility as a viable option for renewable energy. The issue is in finding an alternative that can hold on to the energy produced. Solar panels, for all the ecologically sound practices that they create, have this major issue. This is one of the main causes for our dependence on fossil fuels, and continues to be a challenging drawback for several alternative renewables. I appreciate how World Watch illustrates this drawback using a hypothetical battery, because I feel that it is more easily understood than using figures and numbers that may not be readily understood by many.
“Forays into geoengineering could, conceivably, be part of the move to a more just and sustainable social order—but only if the technological development that geoengineering entails is tied to the cultivation of humanity’s oldest political virtues, including humility and compassion” (WorldWatch 331).
ReplyDeleteI thought that this quote pointed out one of the most important aspects of what holistic sustainability is all about. No matter what, the number one priority in all technological development should be towards the well-being and safety of humans, not just economic gain. Not just that, but the well-being of the natural world should not be forgotten as well. Innovation for economic gain can only go so far until greed takes over and destroys its success. But when its goal is to promote human dignity and work in a way that tries to sustain and better what we have now for the sake of the future, that is when the world can come together compassionately and create the most sustainable change possible. Holistic sustainable technological development involves using our skills to help better the entire planet, as it is our responsibility to grow in a way that combines the needs of both the natural and human world.
“Affixing a thermostat to the planet’s climate system should be considered no small task for a species that struggles to control the temperatures in its meeting spaces.” (Worldwatch pg.324) This analogy stood out to me because it is very critical of our society and the kind of challenges that we face. While some of us are trying to (or should be trying to) save the earth from further global warming, it is not an easy task that can be achieved overnight. We as a society face many problems that we first must overcome in order to be able to make a change to our environmental habits, starting with our government and leaders.
ReplyDeleteHello Alyse,
DeleteThis quote stood out to me as well as I was doing the reading this week. The metaphor reminded me almost of the metaphor Agnes Ngoma Leslie was discussing between the hummingbird and the elephant. Some people are so willing to sit by and not participate in making the world more sustainable because they cannot see the value of an individual. I think that this quote really allows the reader to understand the true challenges we are facing in reversing some of the damage we have done. Global warming is not an easy fix and I agree with you that society often finds it easier to defer from the truth and do everything they can to disprove the harsh reality of the situation, rather than face the problems head on and try to do as much damage control as possible to ensure a sustainable future.
Alyse,
DeleteWow! I really like the quote that you chose to write on! I think it was paradoxical in that humans are struggling to control the temperature of rooms, which uses energy thus adding to global climate change! To me this means we as citizens, policy makers and leaders need to look at the microscale as well as the macroscale of sustainability. By microscale I mean action on the community level rather than the national or international scale. For example this could be improving cook stoves that cause air pollution in Asia or building apartments and houses in a community with better walls for natural lighting to decrease community energy consumption. I believe this microscale in sustainability relates to the "bottom up process" that has been encouraged by guest lecturers including our most recent lecturer, Dr. Tarrant, who encouraged the class to get involved with community outreach to learn and create a bottom up process!
“Some energy sources are available for individual implementation, allowing distributed power generation as opposed to centralized resources. For example, a passive solar home with PV panels, wind power, and some method to produce liquid fuels on-site would satisfy most domestic energy needs in a self-sufficient manner”. (The Worldwatch Institute: Is Sustainability Possible? P.178, 1st paragraph)
ReplyDeleteI find this quote to be pretty interesting, as it basically states that we do not need to depend on the major resources, instead we can produce enough energy to cover our needs by implementing some innovations to our houses. These implementations will not only detach us from centralized resources, but they also will help with lowering costs and the carbon print in our environment. This is a big deal, nowadays technology has enabled us to break from our day to day practices and become aware of more sustainable ones. Having such technologies available to our houses is an example of the good usage of knowledge and resources, and also has a bigger impact in many of the big industries, lowering the need for the abuse of fossil fuels and contamination, between many others. Do you think having these technologies at our houses is a sustainable practice? What do you imagine energy producing companies think about this idea?
“The difficulty is deepened when we recall that the wealth and welfare of the advanced industrial nations over the last two centuries…were gained through their exploitation of vast quantities of fossil fuels.” (Thiele 105, last paragraph)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is interesting because it really sums up where our world is at in terms of progress. We’ve made all of this remarkable progress and what has it cost us? Do you feel that the progress we’ve made is worth the environmental toll it has had?
This reminds me of the speaker we had last week who talked about matriarchal societies in Africa. In the Western world we are so quick to look down upon and feel pity for the people in underdeveloped places like Africa. The fact that we are more technologically advanced seems to make us think that there is nothing African’s know better than we do. The presentation we heard made it very clear that is not the case. I think we would be better off if we looked to Africa for inspiration on resilience, simple living, and a matriarchal society.
DeleteI think the technological progress we have made has come at a huge cost. It has instilled the urgency for short term gratification rather than the value of achieving goals through hard work. The progress we have made is coming at the cost of destroying the environment. I do not think it is worth it.
"Externalities disguise the actual cost of goods by leaving these costs or benefits unaccounted for in product pricing and in corporate reporting" (Worldwatch, 176).
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out for me because it shows the clear connection between sustainability and economics. The negative externalities of producing and consuming many products in the United States is often undetectable and is not incorporated into the cost of producing the product. These negative externalities can not only negatively impact the environment but they can also harm other people. For example, someone smoking a cigarette releases nicotine in an environment in which other people are able to inhale it and be susceptible to second hand smoke. However, this negative externality of consumption does not factor into the cost to produce cigarettes, so producers will continue to produce cigarettes without much regard to the health disadvantages to the nonparticipating third party. This is similar to the way in which the combustion of fossil fuels impacts our environment severely and has caused the extensive amount of air pollution we have today. As the book elaborates on, many companies will not report their negative externalities such as burning of fossil fuels because they are technically more hidden and do not factor into the numerical cost of producing the item.
“While some current economic activities use little energy or physical resources, no activity can claim zero use. And energy intensive activities (such as agriculture, transport, and thermal management) will establish a floor below which the economy cannot sink. So an end to energy or resource growth ultimately means an end to economic growth as traditionally defined” (Worldwatch pg173).
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because I found it very interesting how it was brought up that no economic activity is zero energy use. It is important to note that although all activities require the use of energy, some require much more. Agriculture, transport, and thermal management are a few that are energy intensive, as stated above. My question to you is how can we reduce energy use in the activities that require a lot of energy?
"He believes that encouraging more hands-on experience with nature is a better way to introduce children to science than relying on textbooks... He explained, that during the nineteenth century, nature study, as it was called, dominated elementary science teaching. Now that nature study has been largely shoved aside by the technological advances of the twentieth century, an increasing number of educators have come to believe that technically oriented, textbook-based science education is failing" - Richard Louv. "Last Child in the Woods," Page 212. Referencing Dennis Doyle, principal of Torrey Pines Elementary School.
ReplyDeleteI have always believed that students are better visual learners than critical thinkers. Sure having critical thinking skills is necessary in our advanced world, but visual learning allows students to actually recognize and understand the material easier. My question is; if this pattern exists across the country, and even the world, why do schools still rely on textbooks rather than physical encounters to educate students?
I agree that students should have more hands-on learning and experiences versus a traditional classroom setting. Personally I think that there should be some sort of a system where students are taught a specific lesson in the classroom and read about it in a textbook or something like that; but afterwards have some sort of physical encounter or visual experience with this lesson so they can see first-hand what is going on. This will only reinforce what they are learning and drive it deeper into their memory. It is so much easier for students to remember things if they have both this textbook-style learning combined with visual learning experiences. I honestly do not know why this isn't utilized more in schools around the country, I think it would be so much more effective and provide results that would speak for themselves.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHali McKinley Lester
ReplyDelete“Tools and machines designed for wholly benign purposes-such as automobiles, energy plants, factories, and agricultural implements-have had the unintended consequences of upsetting the balance of life on the planet by changing its climate, polluting its land and waters, and decimating its biodiversity. Technology produces unintended consequences” (Thiele 97).
I think this quote is important because it emphasizes the fact that our daily technology that we think makes us so advanced really has detrimental effects. We often wonder how people lived without cars, and now that we have them we are definitely not prepared to give them up. I know cars make it possible for me to see my family or go explore a new place. Society is more accepting of reducing our use of these harmful technologies, but we never want to give them up completely. Additionally, we feel like these new technologies make our lives better and easier, and people refuse to consider eschewing certain technology because it would be too “backward.” Do you think there are any harmful technologies that people would be willing to give up, or will the argument that we can’t go backward always prevail?
"The most obvious way to prevent further warming is to stop putting excessive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere. Failing that, the warming effect of these heat-trapping gases could, in theory, be counteracted by scattering or deflecting some percentage of incoming solar radiation." (World Watch, pg. 319)
ReplyDeleteThis is essentially saying, "The best way to stop destroying our Earth would be to stop doing things that destroy our Earth. The second best way is to use this cheat code that works in theory." Seriously? This reminds me of those people in high school who decide that the 10 minutes it would take them to work out a math worksheet isn't worth it- instead, they'd rather spend an hour tracking down a website with the answers or someone else to do the worksheet for them. While this idea does seem pretty cool, and the science makes sense, I can't help but wonder why as a society, we are so unwilling to change our ways when it comes to the emission of greenhouse gases. Why do we refuse to make the changes necessary to save our Earth, without going so far as to engineer crops with reflective leaves?
“At times, the adaptation of an age-old discovery might be best, such as traditional methods of crop rotation and permaculture that preserve soil fertility and prevent erosion,” (Thiele, 91).
ReplyDeleteThis quote appealed to me because I often feel that we are too engaged in modern technology and do not look back on more simplistic methods of the past. We try to build more technology to fix things that technology itself destroyed. Technology and industry have created a lot of modern problems, so perhaps by looking back on old ways we can find solutions to these problems. What is something from the past that we should try to implement to fix a current problem?
Haley, I too think about which areas technology has achieved meaningful solutions and others which have only been hindered in efficiency or in environmental efficacy. I think that permaculture is a great example of this, as going with the grain of nature is always the better solution the trying to cut against it. Another good example of this is our use of wood. As a species we've been using timber products for millennia, and try as we may to make a viable alternative; plastics, metals, and other intended solutions. They have only required more energy and difficulty to produce, while being non-biodegradable. While also lacking the added benefits of carbon sequestration and increased biodiversity. This proves that sometimes the most obvious and simple solution is the best one.
DeleteI agree with your statement that we focus too much on modern technology in today's society and overlook methods/technologies that worked in the past that could be helpful to us today. We often assume that because a newer way is developed to do something it is automatically better, which isn't necessarily the case. I think that polyculture farming techniques are something from the past that could be used to address some of our agricultural issues of the day. Agriculture today is mostly based on monoculture, which leads to issues when it comes to pests because an infestation can literally wipe out the whole farm. Also, diseases that harm the crops can have enormous negative implications for farmers with monocultural practices. In the past, polycuture was primarily the way that farming was conducted because it was a much more sustainable practice than only growing a single crop.
DeleteYour post made me think of the point the guest speaker was making this past Tuesday on how we’ve become over reliant on technology, and in the process have lost some of our basic human survival skills. I think the greatest, and most necessary, skill that we have lost is our ability to work together. Although some parts of the video shown came off as a little hippie-ish, the one thing that stood out to me is their communal values. Everyone worked together and helped another, and everyone was there for the same common purpose. I think if we can bring one thing back from the past to solve problems, it’s the idea of working out of the best interest of the community instead of the individual.
Delete“At ground level, the basic strategy is to make some portion of the planet’s surface shinier. Some scientists are betting on the genetic engineering of crop varieties with more reflective leaves. If deployed on large enough a scale, such an innovation could reflect some measurable amount of solar radiation directly back into space. Other ideas include the creation of oceanic foams or the addition of reflective bubbles to expanses of the world’s seas or the placement of reflective materials in deserts, over areas of polar ice, or in the oceans.” – WorldWatch (320)
ReplyDeleteI found this discussion on geoengineering, and more specifically solar radiation management, fascinating. I find it incredible that scientists are actively developing ways to deflect the sun’s energy, and the solutions proposed above seemed radical, yet feasible. Do you think that geoengineering is a positive step toward sustainability, or do you there could be unforeseen negative externalities to disrupting the natural order?
Monica,
DeleteI actually posted my comment about almost the exact same thing. I think it is great that people are being innovative and tackling the problem from different angles. That is the great thing about humans, we are great under pressure and deal with adversity well. However, it will be incredibly expensive to implement any of these things, money which could be spent on shifting our energy to renewable sources which would also help solve the problem. Of course doing both in tandem would be the optimal solution, but that seems rather unreasonable. We have too many other problems to deal with to focus that much amount of time and energy into their solution.
Monica,
DeleteI think that these approaches truly embody human innovation. The ideas depicted are something that seems almost impossible. The very fact that the ideas are as radical as they brings forth uncertainties. They are good ideas in theory, but after all of the money, energy, resources, and time put into researching the ideas and implementing them, is there any guarantee that the idea will work? Will it be worth it? Can we afford to take the risk, when there are so many other ideas that are simpler, and could possibly be even more effective. Geoengineering is definitely a point for human innovation and the ability to be creative, but by reducing our carbon emissions and resource consumption, we could mitigate some of the issues without dedicating so much money, time, and resources into theoretical solutions. Our resources would be better spent on obtainable solutions and projects that could immediately help us mitigate the damage in hopes of turning toward sustainability. Great question!
“Some scientists are betting on the genetic engineering of crop varieties with more-reflective leaves. If deployed on large enough a scale, such an innovation could reflect some measurable amount of solar radiation directly back into space.” Worldwide 320
ReplyDeleteThere are several problems that I want to address with this quote. First of all, although it is a nice thought, it simply does not address the problem of why the earth is warming. Emissions of carbon dioxide are the main cause and this does not provide a solution. Second, the technology needed to do this would be incredibly expensive, if it is even possible. Third, how do we know that doing this would really solve anything? So much land would be required and how much radiation would realistically get sent back into space? I like the creativity and the innovation, I just do not think this is a potential solution. Thoughts?
I believe it will take a combination of innovative ideas and efforts such as this one combined with a change in our culture to truly turn things around. As you said this isn't exactly a solution. We are still putting out more pollution and co2 into the atmosphere than there should be. There is never just one set solution to a problem of this scale. The global scale. It will require a multitude of efforts from all industrialized countries to see our environment make improvements instead of degrading further than it already has.
Delete"Replacing incandescent bulbs with highly efficient LED lighting systems in the next two decades could save almost as much electricity as is currently being used for lighting in homes." (Thiele,91)
ReplyDeleteThis really caught my attention because it illustrates how drastic of an impact a single change can make. It's interesting how making a minute change like switching to a different type of light bulb can have a tremendous positive benefit in terms of conserving energy. This made me wonder about all of the other small changes that can be made in order to limit our use of resources. If more people were aware of the difference they could make by switching to alternative forms of common items, do you think there would be an increase in the number of people that use them? What would be a way to motivate people to make these simple switches?
"Many of the best-known geoengineering proposals read like science fiction.
ReplyDeleteOne widely circulated idea is to launch giant mirror arrays or sunshades
into near-Earth orbit, in an attempt to reflect some amount of solar radiation."
Worldwatch Pg. 317
I think that this is a big issue with many engineering projects that aim to help advance many ecological issues today. All to often these projects are large-scale hypotheticals. If we can spend billions sending all of these mirrors to space they should in theory reflect sunlight. In the end, wouldn't it just be easier to focus on reducing greenhouse gasses and stop trapping the radiation in the first place?
I completely agree with you Michael, I feel like the passage you choice as well really says it all. A lot of these experiments, and ideas seem a little far fetched, or at least seem a lot like something you would watch in a science fiction movie for sure. Instead of spending so much time focusing on projects that are just putting a bandaid over the problem, we should be going back to the source of the problem. It would definitely be easier and cost effective to concentrate on reducing greenhouse gasses and stop trapping the radiation in the first place.
DeleteI agree with you, however, it seems that it is easier said than done. It is hard to stray away from these technological "advances" when there is pressure on politicians for a quick-fix for environmental issues. Politics plays a much bigger role in environmental policy than it should and the politicians are just as short sighted as their voters. Changing the mindset and the norm lifestyle of the general public is perhaps the most direct way to solve climate change and other environmental issues. Reducing GHGs is an excellent start towards a large-scale solution.
DeleteI feel this is an example analogous to the idea of a "magic bullet" in medicine. The idea that we can create a remedy that goes straight to the source to cure an ailment without effecting anything else in a negative way. It seems this ideology is used all to often in the western world; instead of fixing the problem from the root, we treat the symptoms. I agree that it would be much more realistic and cost effective if we just changed our habits on earth to become a more sustainable and productive population, but it seems there is currently not a large enough following of this idea. Maybe we can use these alternative feats of engineering to ensure that we have more time to build a system of beliefs that coexist with a sustainable future.
DeleteI feel this gets right to the heart of the problem with sustainability efforts. Most people are looking for after-the-fact solutions and technologies that will allow us to continue living the way we do while reversing all of our damage. However, we have already gone too far. While creating technologies that lessen our environmental impact would be great and is definitely a goal to strive for, the most effective way to address the issue is to change the way we live in the first place. We need to stop wasting and overusing resources ore urgently than we need to find a technology that will allow us to do so with less significant impacts.
Delete"The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at
ReplyDeletethis time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy
history." - World Watch pg. 183
This quote emphasizes the unfortunate truth which all sustainability-centric individuals must face up to. If economic viability were on our side then we wouldn't be having such an uphill battle trying to persuade people to do the right thing. However, with research, investment, and a bit of time this unfortunate truth will become the most marketable point of sustainability. But in the meantime how can we convince those people to be apart of the sustainable movement when what they care about most is their bottom-line?
The truth does hurt. I love when i discuss sustainability with my peers and they tell me how easy it is and to “just stop using fossil fuels and use electric," especially when referring to cars. Sad fact is that a HUGE portion of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. People who do realize our conundrum say "oh we will just create something." I wish it was that easy but relying on some mystery save the earth machine does not seem all that safe when our end is staring us in the eye. The bottom line analogy is so dead on. I "love" when people buy technology and equipment that JUST meets the standard for being green. If you go to home depot everything from a fridge to a vacuum has an energy efficiency badge and it is sad to realize how little this badge has to do with the product being purchased. I cannot remember the last time I was over a friends and saw their dryer or fridge was higher than average in terms of its green chart of efficiency. The movement is starting to roll but to create the snowball act we all need to stop waiting for a miracle cure and each do our part to better the planet.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Any scientist will affirm that indefinite growth in any physical measure is impossible. Energy use in the world has grown by approximately 3 percent per year for the
ReplyDeletepast few centuries." (World Watch pg. 173)
The Idea of indefinite growth seems to be one which humans believe that we can achieve. It's some what surprising that we have not learned the simple concept that "what goes up, must come down" and with the constant increase in energy use as the population grows and more and more nations have begun to become more urban it makes me wonder how long do we have until things start to come down. When will our population actually surpass the earth natural carrying capacity or should I say the artificial one that has come as a result of our development? And who is right, the pessimists or the optimists? We have worked very hard to alter the earth so that it may accommodate our lifestyles but you gotta think that sooner than later our lifestyles will have to change to accommodate the earth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Similarly alarming statements can be made about population, resource use, or anything that has seen sustained growth over the past few centuries. Obviously, the “normal” world of growth is a temporary anomaly destined to self-terminate by natural means” World Watch page 173
ReplyDeleteThis quote was very interesting to me, because it reminded me of why it is important to act on sustainability now. With the ever-growing population, more resources are becoming depleted. Our population is currently at seven billion people and is growing at a much faster rate than our resources are renewed. My question to you all is: what are some ways we can solve this issue of decreasing resources while faced with an exponentially growing amount of people who demand those resources?
We do not need more resources to sustain the population growth. What we need is to utilize the resources at hand more efficiently. We must learn to reduce our consumption and waste. We must reuse what can be reused rather than disposing of things that still can serve the purpose. When reusing is not an option, we must recycle or repurpose our goods such that we are using everything to its full potential. We heard of a number of ways to implement the 4Rs in our 4Rs presentation. Those are the first necessary steps.
Delete"Fossil fuels are a finite and diminishing resource. It is likely that we have already passed peak oil, the point where the supply of inexpensive oil on the planet can continue to meet ever-rising demand. And even if reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas prove sufficient to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly wealthy global population, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the burning of these fossil fuels at current rates, let alone increasing rates, will accelerate climate change to a catastrophic degree." Thiele. p.105-106
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt brought to mind some thoughts concerning climate ethics, and environmental ethics in general. Since the Industrial Revolution, our consumption has led to what many are calling the Anthropocene Era, a new, unofficial geological time period. This has come about because of the vast impact humans have on the earth. This excerpt refers to fossil fuel consumption in regards to supporting the upcoming increasing population. It also presents many issues in this respect. Previously, Thiele mentions that nations with somewhat stable populations, only reached that point through the vast consumption of fossil fuels. There are many developing nations that are just now reaching the point where they have the ability to purchase cheap oil and build their economy, infrastructure, etc., using such resources. The ethical issue that arises, then, is who are we to tell nations they cannot utilize such resources, when we have, and are so unwilling to change. What can be defined as ethical in regards to halting an increase in developing nations' quality of life, or mitigating the effects of fossil fuel consumption and climate change. What is the appropriate action, and, more importantly, how can the world come together in its entirety to decide on matters of human dignity/rights, economic issues, climate change, and mitigation techniques for the sake of future generations?
“Currently, the world’s population is growing by about 80 million people each year. That growth produces no small demand on natural resources. Each and every day, food, clothing, housing, schooling, employment, and an abundance of other resources have to be found for an additional 225,000.” (Thiele 102)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is not only striking to me because of the staggering number by which our population is growing, but because of the implications this fact holds. It is important to note that population growth is actually decreasing in developed countries, due to access to contraceptives, better healthcare, and the fact that having a child in a country like the United States puts you at an economic disadvantage. However, it’s in developing countries where the rapid growth is occurring. So, not only will the impoverished people of the world be inflicted by overpopulation, but they will also bear the worst burden of the effects of global warming; as discussed in another class, climate change affects those in stressed situations the worst, since it will only become more difficult to farm, provide for families, and migrate to different locations. This is especially true for a country like Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, as they deal to severe flooding due to rising sea levels.
Alex, you're right for pointing out that the developing countries will be the ones with the rapidly growing population. This saddens me, and it's in our hands, as part of an advanced nation, to try to end this vicious cycle. We import the food in these underdeveloped countries to feed our own people, with much of the food going to waste. The very own countries that provide and cultivate our energy is left malnourished and hungry. I don't the cure-all solution for this growing inequality between rich countries and poor countries, but we must continue to enforce fair-trade agreements and discontinue buying products from companies who disagree. That's certainly a way we can take a stand to these problems at a personal level.
DeleteI totally agree because humans are using desperate, inhumane measures to feed such a large, demanding, and growing population. Each human consumes so much meat and food in a day that collectively, there is a very high demand for food. To meet this demand, there have developed immoral practices when treating animals and plants to get the food supply we need. These practices can include animal cruelty or modifying the genetics of plants and animals to meet our needs. However, these practices are controversial. There needs to be more education on the source of our foods, and a greater effort to get our food from sources that are sustainable and promote a healthy environment.
Delete"In turn, practicing sustainability means remembering that not every problem has a technological solution. As importantly, we must recognize that every technological solution creates new sets of problems." (Thiele. pg 91) This is a very important piece of advice that many people need to hear and spread. Technology can only do so much to mitigate the effects of climate change. Gardeners know that to get rid of weeds, you have to pull them up by the roots. Likewise, technology only pulls at the stem of our climate change, while the true solution to climate change is more of a mixture of technology and a change in human behavior and how we live. For example, instead of relying on geoengineering technology to decrease the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere or reflecting sunlight, switching to more sustainable fuel sources and reducing the amount of energy and resources used per capita as the first course of action and technology as a supplement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your interpretation of this passage, as well as how we should practice sustainability. A combination of technological solutions in addition to changes in human behavior is necessary. We cannot just rely on technology to make all of our problems go away, or ignore potential negative impacts that can accompany it. I think that a combination of geoengineering with societal adjustments would have the highest impact. While it is dangerous to blindly test geoengineering theories and heavily rely upon them, at the same time they have the potential to (combined with attitudinal changes) create massive positive change. Climate change is a huge and growing issue, and pretending that some kind of technology will magically save us is just silly, as well as perilous.
Delete"Few of the options face serious barriers to acceptance, especially when energy scarcity is at stake. Some energy sources are available for individual implementation, allowing distributed power generation as opposed to cen- tralized resources. For example, a passive solar home with PV panels, wind power, and some method to produce liquid fuels on-site would satisfy most domestic energy needs in a self-sufficient manner." (WorldWatch 178)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think will replace fossil fuels? I think here in Florida we should be utilizing what we have most, the sun. Solar thermal energy in the right places can be more than an abundant energy source.
I believe in the future we will use multiple sources of energy. Currently, the US still uses coal as 40% for its energy. Countries such as Denmark are already moving toward a more sustainable future, however. The country plans to reduce its energy production dependent on fossil fuels to 50% by 2020 and completely eliminate it by 2050. Others, such as Germany, are moving to other sources, namely solar. Currently, 10% of the energy used in Germany is produced by solar sources. So I think these two forms of energy production will be predominant in the future, in lieu of fossil fuels or biofuels.
Delete
ReplyDelete“Our species has become the dominant species on the planet owing to its technological power. The myth of Prometheus illustrates that there is a price to be paid for such power. But there is also no going back.
As humans we feel like the creators to a Lego masterpiece, we are dominant and we treat the world as our pet. With all the cool and hip technology we see and how easy our lives can be it is easy to assume we are so advanced and better than our ancestors. I truly is funny to hear the opposite, especially in terms of sustainability. We are so entangled in our technological mess and there is no becoming undone.
^^^^^^^^ this was Thiele page 96 by the way!!
DeleteI do not think that we can place the blame on these technological advances themselves, but rather how humans make use of them. In the story of Prometheus, the trouble did not lie in mankind having fire; the issue was that Prometheus had stolen the fire from Mount Olympus. This ultimately led to a violent war between the Greek gods, all because of Prometheus’ personal agenda. This is also displayed in humans. When presented with new innovations, humans tend to manipulate them to benefit their own personal self-agenda, versus the whole planet. I do believe that there are beautiful and wonderful ways to use these technological breakthroughs that can give us the ability to thrive as a species, but only if we allow them to.
DeleteHi Tyler,
DeleteI think this quote ties in with a lot the topics on alternative energy and geoengineering touched upon in the Worldwatch report. I do believe that our technology in industrial development has played a large role in causing negative effects on the environment, and of course in society, but we cannot forget how recent advancements in technology and awareness of climate change has helped and is helping make a difference for the betterment in the world of sustainability. Scientists have come up with ways of generating energy and electricity from solar power, hydroelectricity, geothermal electricity, wind power, tidal power, and so on, which have been proven to work for the most part. Scientists in geoengineering are even coming up with these crazy, out of this world, ideas like putting mirrors up in space to reflect sun rays and prevent them from getting into Earth’s atmosphere, or whitening clouds and roofs of buildings, or putting sulfur in the atmosphere to lower the temperature. There are many other innovations out there that are intended to protect the planet from global warming. However, most of these ideas have drawbacks and can actually have potential catastrophic consequences in the environment if implemented that were not expected because there hasn’t been enough testing or research on many of them. And although these are all great ideas in theory, they are also very expensive and unpredictable, and so I believe the ultimate, best solution is to work on changing the culture and habits. As we’ve heard already many times, every sustainability issue is first a social issue. So we should focus our time and efforts on these issues on a socio-cultural level first.
Yet even while many geoengineering proposals sound fantastical, the eld is beginning to receive sustained attention from serious people and groups. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has con- vened expert meetings to consider the topic. So too have other important scienti c bodies around the world. In the United States, government agen- cies from the Pentagon to the Department of Energy have advocated that federal dollars be devoted to geoengineering research, and research teams in universities and the private sector in many countries are looking to move beyond theorizing about global climate control to technological develop- ment and deployment. (Worldwatch 317)
ReplyDeleteThis quote made me think about the role of government in dealing with sustainability issues. For decades the federal government has shielded big corporations that pollute and harm the environment. Now it seems like their actions are finally starting to change. Do you think the federal government has to act directly to promote sustainability by initiatives like geoengineering, or should it stay on the sidelines, a view which has been taken by a great many americans on the role of government? Is the answer more or less government? Centralized or decentralized?
This is a really divisive issue, but nonetheless important and deserves to be talked about. We're at a point in global politics and economic movement where unless change is ordered, things like climate change and pollution are not going to decrease at a fast enough rate. Since the 90's, things like the Clean Air and Water Act have helped curb the rate of pollution. However, without direct actions and initiatives not enough will be done. This is especially true globally with developing countries having their industrial revolutions. Thus, although maybe more government regulations isn't key to helping the U.S. right now--a cohesive idea of global sustainability needs to be enforced around the world.
Delete"The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at the this time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy history. Fossil fuel represent a generous one-time gift from the earth. From our current vantage point, it is not clear that energy...will be as cheap, convenient and abundant as it has been during our meteoric ascent to the present." (WorldWatch, Pg. 183)
ReplyDeleteThis chapter does a very good job of highlighting the realities of sustainability in regards to energy. Which is to say, grim to cautiously optimistic; reason being because fossil fuels, despite all our efforts to depict them as horrible, polluting, and the core of our problems, really were the ideal energy source: cheap, easy and (previously) abundant. That means that we are going to have to work hard, and most likely compromise substantially, if we are to either improve the renewable resources we have at hand, make new sources, or simply adjust our style of living to meet decreased energy demands. And none of these options are going to be easy for our generation (and future ones) to slip into.
Great point! I think that as a society we do have the potential to overthrow the current monopoly that is the oil industry. In the past, authors such as Rachel Carson have had the power to evoke emotion in American citizens so much so that the entire world banned DDT as a pesticide. The pesticide was abundant, cheap, and effective; however, the impact on the surrounding community of birds (their shells being too soft to nest on) was enough of a wake-up call that society banded together in order to live more sustainably. If we can get the average citizen to notice the damage, we can potentially evolve into a less fossil-fuel dependent nation.
Delete“Fossil fuel stocks are known to be finite, and by most accounts their extraction rates will peak this century. Thus in the long view it is a near certainty that the current age will be known to history as the Fossil Fuel Age. It is the time when humans discovered Earth’s battery—solar-charged over millions of years—and depleted it fast enough to effectively constitute a short circuit.” (Page 172—World Watch)
ReplyDeleteWith former presidents such as Ronald Reagan, who blatantly removed the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House, it is no surprise that the oil industry will be the pinnacle of our current generation’s memory. Does anyone think that the current legislature has the power to transform our nation from the Fossil Fuel Age, to one with a better connotation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at
ReplyDeletethis time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy
history. Fossil fuels represent a generous one-time gift from the earth.
From our current vantage point, it is not clear that energy—vital to our economic
activity—will be as cheap, convenient, and abundant as it has been
during our meteoric ascent to the present."
The economic investment seems to be one of the biggest steps to over come in our movement towards a sustainable energy future. Fossil fuels have been used and abused and this means that either we spend a lot to use the limited resource of we spend a lot to implement a new more planet friendly resource! To me the next move seems obvious but making that change will always be the hardest part! Although renewable energy sources may have their downfalls we really need to get the ball rolling. Why is it that making this change so hard?
I think that making this change is so hard because of our culture's tunnel vision in only seeing the here and now, rather than investing our efforts, time, and money into the future of our planet. Basically, the current choice humans have in relation to resource use is between sacrificing financial costs or choosing to forfeit environmental damages. Since our world is one that revolves around money, people generally side with paying for production with our Earth rather than our money, which leads to institutions and corporations also following this pattern. What ever is cheap, fast, and convenient is valued over a more pricey venture, that will hold up better in the long run. As a species we need to wake up and realize that whatever the cost, saving our planet is worth it. However, this shift is a difficult one due to our embedded mindset that the only things that matter are the things relevant to us at any given moment. Such a view is selfish, and is destroying the home of the human race. Cheap fossil fuels need to be reduced and renewable resources such as wind, water, and biomass energy need to be utilized no matter the upfront cost that they demand.
DeleteI think there are multiple answers to your question, but I’m only going to touch on one. We’ve not seen a shift towards renewable energy in the US because in addition to the high investment cost to get off the ground, the power of special interests in our legislature (and political system in general) is astronomical. Groups like the coal lobby can influence politicians through campaign contributions and keep our leaders from acting against those industries which are hurting us. Those corporations and the system of moneyed interests are so ingrained in our political system that they have built relationships and connections to people over extended periods of time. These groups have a high stake in keeping the status quo where renewables are kept from the public, and will use their influence to keep the ball moving in a position they like. For instance it’s illegal in Florida to put solar panels on your house as a private citizen to sell energy back to the grid. This makes it extremely difficult to recoup the costs of the solar installation. You can thank Florida’s energy companies for that piece of legislation.
Delete"The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at
ReplyDeletethis time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy
history. Fossil fuels represent a generous one-time gift from the earth.
From our current vantage point, it is not clear that energy—vital to our economic
activity—will be as cheap, convenient, and abundant as it has been
during our meteoric ascent to the present." (WorldWatch, p 183)
Fossil fuels played a major role in society's economic and technological development. Is there a way to continue growth as a society without such a heavy reliance on energy?
Elizabeth Roberts (Group 1)
DeleteI don't think it's necessary to shift away from such heavy energy consumption. In fact, I think to progress as a society, we need to maintain or increase our consumption of energy. Having said that, the issue lies in which energy sources we utilize. Obviously, we cannot rely on fossil fuels anymore, WorldWatch gives an excellent analogy; the fossil fuels the earth took millions of years to create were a catalyst for humanity to become great, but it was only that. Our reliance on fossil fuels is impossible, it's outdated, it's by no means sustainable. The earth gave us this gift to begin our journey but they were like training wheels made of papier mache, they were never meant to last. We've dug ourselves into such a deep hole, we have to shift to clean sources of energy.
"Human beings distinguish themselves from the rest of nature by technology...only humanity has truly reshaped its world... by way of technology." (Thiele- Page 94)
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how the only thing that humans can pride themselves in as a strength over other species is also the thing that is ruining our planet. As Thiele mentioned earlier in the chapter, technology can be the tool we use to create safe and sustainable production and practices, or it can be the cause of pollution, global warming, and other issues that will destroy our earth. Maybe instead of using technology as a means to boost our ego as a species, we should look at the sustainable lifestyles of other creatures, and strive to incorporate their practices into our technological mindset. If we keep believing that new and more advanced inventions will be enough to save our planet that is quickly being stripped of its resources, then we are soon to get a paradoxical reality check.
I completely agree that we should change our technological mindset, because our ignorance of our “progress” is the cause of the destruction all around us. Changing people sounds perfect in theory, however it is beyond difficult to tell someone that the way they are living their life is incorrect and should be changed. There may be other ways to present this matter, but people are often closed-minded to change. It presents vulnerability and insecurity because you are putting this person in a position of discomfort. We are creatures of habit, change is a hard pill to swallow. Once people understand the benefits though, the chances of someone being more tolerant of a new lifestyle would increase.
DeleteJaneshly Algarin
Elizabeth Roberts (Group 1)
ReplyDelete"Suffice it to say, some CDR schemes on both land and water would de-pend on the willful augmentation and use of existing biological or chemi-cal systems, while others would require the development of entirely new mechanical arrays." Worldwatch p.323
I found this section of the book to be extremely provocative and interesting; much more so than most of the other content we've gone over in the class. While I appreciate the philosophical and psychological approach to addressing peoples' mindset about issues of sustainability, the matter stands that we cannot change anything unless we also support our paradigm shift with scientific achievements. While many of the approaches to dealing with Sun Radiation Management seemed far-fetched and as if they were ripped from some science fiction work of the forties, their validity still stands, and their ingenuity is what strikes me as most inspiring. Of course, for these engineering feats to be figured out, much less implemented, requires an evolved systems approach to the environment and every little organism and possibility that could result from the technology. What's worse is so many things can't be predicted, evidenced by the shrimp consuming the phytoplankton that bloomed from the iron insertion. There are so many unknowns to consider when dealing with environmental engineering, and I think it's easy to be discouraged by them, when we should really, as a culture, be more willing to go out on a limb for our environment.
"The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at this time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy history." (World Watch, 183) Society is expecting scientist to come up with a technology that is superior to fossil fuels and is green. However, our energy has been provided by a cheap source, which cannot be out competed by science. Our transition must be motivated by peoples demand/desire. Although, I believe the transition will be demanded when fossil fuel prices rise above that of green energy due to declining resources. At that point, it will almost be too late and our fossil fuel reserves will be low beyond sustainable levels. There must be green education within schools and motivation of the people to act as a collective towards sustainable initiatives in order to help create a demand for green energy rather than waiting for a superior substitute.
ReplyDelete“Built environments and production systems have made the earth into a human world. Built environments include all of the constructed dwellings, industrial and commercial buildings, walkways, bikeways, and roadways, energy delivery systems, sewer and waste disposal systems, and other forms of infrastructure that provide humans with places to live, work, recreate and travel.” Thiele (p.90)
ReplyDeleteThis quote paints the perfect picture of the world humans have created. It made me question how we have allowed it to get to this point, and how we have the audacity to call it “progression”. We have excluded ourselves from the natural environment of this planet to create our own—one that is out of tune with Mother Nature and we are experiencing the repercussions of it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“We need a better accounting framework, one that reflects both positive and negative externalities in a corporation’s financial statements and thus makes transparent not only its holistic impact on the economy, society, and the environment, but also its exposure to risks of resource constraints and regulation.” (World Watch, p. 172)
ReplyDeleteThis brings up a really good point about the relationship between businesses and the environment. Nowadays, most people view a business as successful if the business is profitable. Our materialistically driven society fails to notice the consequences that come from being solely profit driven. Many times companies are faced with having to choose between maximizing revenue or making the decision that works best with the environment and will help future generations. Money is an essential component of our society and to deny the influence it has on people would be irresponsible. I think that it is important to find ways to combine economic sustainability with social and environmental sustainability.
How can we encourage businesses to look beyond short- term profit to see the long term impact of their decisions?
What are some business models you have heard of that are economically sustainable and profitable, but also promote social/ environmental good?
Hello Marcela! I like that you took a more business approach with this blog post, it is an interesting perspective. I definitely feel that many businesses are not looking at the long term impact they have on the environment. Although as the world we live in is changing, they begin to see the damages they have caused our society. Businesses are slowly changing and becoming more "eco-friendly." An example of this is Kind Bars: they are non GMO, contain on pure products, and have environmental advisors for the company.
DeleteYou make some great points. Like many issues that we have discussed, a lot of difference can be made if people simply had the will to put the planets well-being above short-term profits. Unfortunately corporations are set up so that this is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve on a large scale. Their are a few companies (many of them outdoor equipment companies) that have really taken corporate responsibility to heart, but for the most part its simply paid lip service. CEO's of companies must answer to their shareholders. No matter how well-intentioned a CEO may be, they are still responsible for their shareholder's profits. If that huge quarterly dividend does not come because the CEO has decided to sacrifice revenue for sustainability, that CEO is likely out of a job. It is difficult enough convincing people that they have a responsibility to the planet. It may be near impossible to convince business-people to give up some of their profits for benefits that are largely unseeable, especially in the face of the fact every other company isn't doing it either.
Delete"The stable or declining populations of the advanced industrial nations demonstrate how expanded education and economics opportunity, substantially based on technological development, is the best means of lowering fertility rates."
ReplyDeleteThiele pg.105
This is an interesting idea that implies that if we want to fix our overpopulation problems we should include "helping undeveloped nations develop" into the mix of things we should invest in to meet future global demands
Even though helping underdeveloped nations develop will include introducing things such as birth control to people who have never had it before, is this really going to fix the overpopulation problem? Sure, women will feel like they have control over their personal lives and this could empower them to make a difference in their new, developed society, but with a developing nation comes the advancement of science and technology. While women might take advantage of birth control for the first time in their lives, scientists in these newly developed nations might discover how to increase the human lifespan by 10 years. The addition of ten years to every human’s life will indeed raise the population quite a bit.
DeleteThe above scenario is just an example of one of the many things that could happen by developing an underdeveloped nation. While developing a nation may initially solve some fertility ate issues, will it always stay like that? Developing a nation could cause more harm than good in the long run when other factors, such as increasing the human life span, could actually cause populations to rise.
"Any scientist will affirm that indefinite growth in any physical measure is impossible. Energy use in the world has grown by approximately 3 percent per year for the
ReplyDeletepast few centuries. At this rate, the current 16 terawatts (TW) of global
power demand would balloon to equal the entire solar output in about
1,000 years and match all 100 billion stars in our galaxy inside of 2,000
years (World Watch Institute, pg.173)
Hello everyone! I just wanted to start this weeks post off with something a bit different. The many guest lecturers that Dr. Chandler has invited to class have offered me valuable insight into the wide range of topics that pertain to the sustainability world. I was just wondering if anyone was as affected by these lectures as I was? These lectures really go to show that sustainability is in every aspect of society. It also proves the point that sustainability is truly an up and coming area of study.
This excerpt fits with this topic I wanted to discuss because it proves that our resources do not have an infinite flow. As time passes by, if we keep utilizing our resources (energy) the way we are now we will soon be left with nothing. As resources continue to become slimmer and slimmer this will become a much larger issue in the world. As this time slowly approaches, sustainability advocates are becoming a much more vital part of the community. It is our jobs to change the way people view the environment; we need to treat our Mother Earth as our friend. Does anyone else feel they see the importance of sustainability rising? Is this becoming a more major issue in our society?
“Not infrequently, technological transformations have led to the destruction of societies…The ancient societies of Easter Island, the Anasazi of southwestern North America, and the Maya of Central America all collapsed primarily owing to their degradation, overuse, or overconsumption of natural resources. In each case, the technological capacities of the societies in question, coupled with population growth, likely produced the environmental destruction that led to collapse.” (Thiele, pg. 94-95)
ReplyDeleteThis concept and the evidence supporting its concern are formidable. Is this the same kind of situation we find ourselves facing today, only at a global scale? Technological advancement has almost always been perceived in a positive light, but if it means the destruction of society, perhaps we need to rethink this standpoint. Could there be a way to have a positive technological transformation that could prevent this destruction of society?
I really enjoyed your response to this quote. To me personally, I was always raised to perceive technology from a negative standpoint because of the fact that we live in a materialistic society. However, that is not to say that there have been positive technological advances- such as the medical field. However, I believe that we must find a technological balance in which humans can use technology to our benefit. Moreover, I truly believe that most of our problems are man-made and can be fixed by us- with our without technology. If we must improve technology, we must first do it in a way that benefits our world socially, economically, and environmentally!
Delete"To achieve sustainability on a global scale- given our current and still growing population, the need to feed, clothe, and house ourselves, and the aspirations we have for our cultural lives- will require much technological innovation... Sustainability requires us to find "the right tool for the right job."" (Thiele, Page 91)
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting about this specific quote is not that the author clearly states how homo-sapiens can achieve sustainability, it is that it requires technology to do so. Recalling class on Tuesday, October 13th, our presenter discussed that in order to reach sustainability, we must go back to our roots. Our presenter discussed that we are unable to do the most simplest tasks, even suggesting that we would not survive in a forest. However, my question begs to ask: which do you think is how our world could reach sustainability? By pursuing technological innovations or going back to our roots? Moreover, what kinds of technological advances will our world need to make in order to sustain an environmental, economic, and societal balance? With the negative connotations that technology holds in what seems to be a materialistic society, will more people be weary of more technology in our world? Moreover, reflecting on this quote, it mentions that sustainability looks for the right tool for the right job. What is this answer? Is man the right tool for this job or technology? For me, it would have to be both. Recalling what was learned in class, Dr. Chandler spoke of how every problem is first a social problem, which means it is a man made problem, which means we are our greatest solution. I believe that because we are the ones who created this world crises, we will be the ones to fix it.
"Even the most gleeful of technological optimists have not figured out how the increasing resource needs of 7-10 billion people can be sustainably satisfied on a planet suffering from ecological degradation, dwindling biodiversity, sizable declines in key natural resources, and climate change." (Thieve, 105)
ReplyDeleteWill technology advance enough in our lifetime to even show promise for a sustainable future? With the shortage in natural nonrenewable resources, will this advancement come at a more timely manor, or will the shortage not affect the rate at which the technology is produced? Should we be worried for the next generation?
Hi Jordan,
DeleteI love the quote you picked. I really enjoyed reading this section about energy because I never truly understood the detrimental usage in our world. You posed a good question--will technology solve our problems? I really don't think that it will. If you look at our past, we have tried to use technology to solve a lot of our problems, but technology cannot solve a lot of what we have learned in this class. It cannot make us another Earth or make us things that the Earth naturally provides. In the WorldWatch readings, there are so many alternatives relating to reducing fossil fuel use, however, even the solutions they put cannot help us. In my quote, I asked if these solutions are even possible nowadays. It does make me worried for the future generations,, I don't know what they will do to compensate for the harm caused by previous generations (including ours)
Colette Spieler
“Richard Branson, for instance, chairman of Virgin Atlantic airlines and a host of other companies, is a well-known proponent of geoengineering: ‘If we could come up with a geoengineering answer to this problem, then [international climate change meetings like] Copenhagen wouldn’t be necessary… We could carry on flying our planes and driving our cars.” (Worldwatch pg. 324)
ReplyDeleteIt is exactly this kind of mindset that creates misconceptions and tries to put a band-aid on a wound instead of disinfecting it so it can be cured. Geoengineering is like the band-aid on global warming that doesn’t get rid of the pollution or fix any of the real problems at their source. It is no surprise that the government is looking more into these high-risk, unknown consequence inflicting geoengineering methods of manipulating the climate that are potentially going to put our planet in greater danger. Instead of focusing on reducing our carbon footprints and changing our habits and behaviors, they are putting money into and giving serious thought to these expensive projects, which are not tested and can actually have worse effects on the climate later on which could affect the social fabric and cause massive disparities in human dignity. This mindset is common among those who own companies that emit greenhouse gasses. They see geoengineering as a way of keeping cars and other carbon dioxide emitting vehicles or plants/factories in our cities so that they can stay making profits and it would be easier for us to not have to change our habits. It blinds us from what needs to be done. It gives us a false hope that some scientists somewhere, some day, will come up with a technology that will save the world from global warming, except the answers are right in front of us. It just involves a change of habits and culture. And I guess people prefer to pay for some expensive device with unknown, possibly catastrophic consequences than to change their ways of living for a more sustainable planet. What is your opinion on geoengineering? Is it worth it? Or is it more of a last minute, desperate option?
Question:
ReplyDeleteThe second section of the world watch reading is full of nuggets like this: “The trick, for geoengineers, would be to reproduce something like the Pinatubo effect over a sustained period and in a controlled fashion. A steady supply of sulfate particles, or perhaps some other material with similar properties, could conceivably be introduced into the upper reaches of the atmosphere via ballistics—which is to say, as historian James Fleming has put it, by “declaring war on the stratosphere” (321).
This kind of thing is really scary to me. I recognize this is probably because I don’t understand a lot of the science beyond the basic principles of “put a shiny gas in the sky to reflect light;” but there’s something inherently suspicious to me. I’ll also admit that I don’t know how much research has been done on this project; there could very well be a large body of literature on the this kind of project that details it’s viability (especially over time). All those caveats aside, this technologist response to climate change is troublesome. It says we can keep up what we’re doing and eventually we’ll come up with new technologies that will save us in the end. These technology as salvation arguments ignore why we are acting the way we are, and encourage us to keep on the current unsustainable track because we’ll figure it out soon. These technologies also scare me for the unknown side effects that we may not know. Many of the environmental issues we face came about through not understanding the technologies we invented. Shooting sulfate particles into the atmosphere via missiles seems like it could have some unintended consequences. This leads to my question: I think we’ll need the aid of some technologies to combat the environmental crisis, but how do we ensure these novel technologies can be used safely and effectively?
"Practicing Sustainability means remembering that not every problem has a technological solution. As importantly, we must recognize every technological solution creates a new set of problems." (Thiele 91)
ReplyDeleteI cannot begin to explain how much truth I believe comes from these two sentences. In our day and age, we have become so technologically-savy and dependent; it seems that no one cannot be without their phone or laptop for over an hour without going crazy. Most people believe, that since technology is the "wave of the future," that all of our problems will be solved through this medium. That assumption is so far from the truth; if anything, it makes finding solutions, especially for sustainability, even harder. I believe what people need to do is go back to the basics to become more sustainable; specifically, like in the video Seaton Tarrant showed us on Tuesday. We need to learn how to become more "one" with nature and earth. This will lead us on a more significant path to sustainability versus using technology to solve all of the earth's problems.
Leanna, I really like the quote you chose and agree with the things you have stated. Technology is omnipresent, and it has come to the point where we are too dependent on technology to the point where we can be lazy to solve problems on our own. We tend to simply shrug off our responsibilities to sustain the planet to technology, believing that technology can solve every environmental problems. But we need to realize that technology itself can be a problem as well, and the most efficient way to make our community, and even the world, sustainable is through our actions. The simple habits can solve the world to be more sustainable, such as turning off water while brushing our teeth. Again, as you said, we absolutely need to take role to lead a more sustainable environment rather than depending on technology.
DeleteTo expand on your point, I believe that in a lot of situations, technology has put a divide between us and nature. This is why Seaton Tarrant's message about us having to reconnect with nature is so important. In order to be a sustainable society, we must feel like we're a part of nature and that we rely on nature versus seeing it as a burden that we need to take care of. I believe a lot of the people in the public sphere that argue for economic growth versus environmental protection are the ones most disconnected from nature. They see all that technology has done for us and refuse to see the damage that it has also caused. It is important to keep a balanced view of things, and not believe that there is an immediate solution to our problems without immediate consequences as well.
DeleteLeanna, I completely agree with the argument you have presented. Today's society is so utterly dependent on the technology we have available to us. As you mentioned, we as a culture now focus on finding a "solution" through technology when a lot of the time it would be more beneficial for us to take a step back and attempt to live more simply. Take the pharma industry for example; we're told by doctors to take a pill that was created in a lab for most of our health problems, when it would be far more beneficial to take that step back and look at the causation of the problem; if we were to nourish our bodies with real food such as vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts, etc., we would be curing and preventing disease at the same time. Let's use real food as medicine instead of covering it up with a "solution" that will cause other problems as well. I understand many people do need the use of pharmaceuticals, but we're far too quick to push it on many people; just like we're far too quick to push these technologies on our planet, without knowing adverse effects.
Delete"In this light, our present state can be seen as a reflection of historically
ReplyDeleteavailable energy" (WorldWatch, p. 172)
I found this quote very applicable not only to the fossil fuels mentioned in this reading but to the majority of the resources we have and take for granted today. I perceived this quote in a way that resources are finite that if we do not use and sustain them carefully, they will eventually diminish and become something that the future generation would not have. The resources would simply be a historical thing that occurred ages ago to the future generation. This quote also reinforced that everything has its limits. Even water is a limited resource that is gradually lessening today because of the increasing population and our overwhelming and sometimes useless ways of using water. To realize that the resources we take for granted today could plausibly be a mere historical object to the future generation made me reconsider the ways I can efficiently use the resources available today and HOW to sustain them throughout generations.
I completely agree and I think that the biggest reason we have a destruction of our environment is because we don't understand that everything is limited and so easily destroyed. If we understood that destroying a tree truly meant less oxygen for us to breath then we might not destroy that tree. But if we think that we are separated from our environment and continue with the belief that there are endless resources, then we won't change our behavior. We need to change our behavior, but we need to change our connection with our resources first. And that starts with a proper education, the foundation of all behavior and actions.
Delete"For indoor lighting applications, whale oil replaced beeswax; kerosene de- rived from coal replaced whale oil; petroleum replaced kerosene; and now we use electricity derived from coal, natural gas, hydropower, nuclear, biomass, and a smattering of renewable sources. The lesson seems clear: new, superior sources come to bear, rendering the prior solutions obsolete. Why should there be any deviation in this recurring storyline as fossil fuels give way in the future? Considering solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wave, and biofuel sources, it appears that the menu of substitutes is full to bursting.” (WorldWatch 174).
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I’m really glad this week is centered around energy. It is, of course, a facet we learn about in this class but I always think it falls towards the end of them in importance to people.However, this is not how it should be. We need to consciously make an effort to produce safe energy in order to have a sustainable world. This quote stuck out for me (even though it was right at the beginning) because it embodied what the rest of the readings were about—creating a solution to our unsustainable energy usage. This quote shows how many options we have when reducing our fossil fuel use. Some of which I had never heard of later on in the readings. My question is: why aren’t we taking the initiative to put this into effect? Personally, I think we are all concerned with money as a country. I would love to hear other opinions as to why.
Colette Spieler
Hi Collette! I think it almost goes beyond money - oil companies rule a lot of politics and energy advances. They thrive on dependence for oil, and sustainable energy shifts that power away. In the past, oil cartels have been somewhat responsible for starting wars and supporting nation leaders that will cater to what they wanted. They changed the structure of some of the world to force a dependence on their product; now that we have the technology to change that, it's a threat to many of the world's government. Therefore, I think politics are the way to steer towards cleaner energy. I don't think it will be easy, but communities involved in cleaner energy provides less dependence on fossil fuels, and policies in place to help bolster development of that cleaner energy will set an example that the world could follow.
Delete“The lesson is that a transition away from fossil fuels does not appear at
ReplyDeletethis time to involve superior substitutes, as has been characteristic of our energy
history. Fossil fuels represent a generous one-time gift from the earth.” Pg.183
World Watch-Is Sustainabililty possible?
The biggest issue when it comes to making a transition away from fossil fuel is finding something for our population that is equally sufficient however, as stated here, whatever that may be has not been found. We all know that burning fossil fuels is good for the environment, but at this point, we don’t have a completely fulfilling way to stop it. This relates to the previous reading when our society was being compared to those who learned how to fly by gliding without knowing the rules of aeronautics. They tried something before knowing the consequences of it, and as a result their gliding period is coming to an end. We are slowly reaching the ground and we can see an eminent crash is possible, yet we are currently unable to lift ourselves back up to a safer height. At the moment, I wouldn’t see a need to completely steer our economy away from fossil fuels, but I do think we should use all of the alternative energies mentioned in World Watch on a smaller scale in geolocations where they would be most proficient, in order to slowly steer us as a whole towards the impending doom of continued overuse of fossil fuels.
Janeshly Algarin
"If society waits until energy scarcity forces large-scale deployment of such alternatives, it risks falling into an Energy Trap in which aggressive use of energy to develop a new energy infrastructure leaves less available to society in general" (Worldwatch, pg. 183)
ReplyDeleteIt is important to note that although we know fossil fuels are finite, there is not as much urgency as one would like to see. What sort of strategies can be implemented to force a quicker shift to alternative renewable energy sources? What do you believe is the largest factor preventing urgency?
To answer your question Nicolas, I believe the quickest way to implement change is our society, so there is a switch to alternative energy. Would be to raise the prices of the fossil fuels, to above their inflated value. The increased cost in basically everything we do, would cause an uproar in my opinion, which would result in the stressed push to rely on alternative energy. If you think about it, the majority of everything we purchase or consume has some sort of correlation to the cost of fuel. Whether its the production of it, to the transportation of it. If we raise the cost of fossil fuels, an extremely large percentage of everything would increase in value. If one thinks about what causes the most issues with our society, it is in my belief money. People want to have as much of it as possible, and if there is a way to save it, the large majority of people will. Thus solving our dilemma of not transitioning to alternative fuels.
DeleteNicholas,
DeleteTo answer all parts of your questions would take a lot more than 100 words so I will address what I found most important: I think the question you asked of what do we believe is the largest factor preventing urgency is extremely crucial not only when it comes to renewable energy sources but in all sectors of sustainability on our planet. This everlasting problem needs to be what we overcome and I think as Dr. Chandler said in class from day one, fear is a huge driving factor when it comes to people ignoring the facts. Along with this selfishness, the fact that people blindly consume beyond their needs and don’t take into account our world and environment is terrifying. Fewer and fewer people are cognoscente of their actions and how accountable they really are for future generations. Not to be biased, but in especially the older generations we see this because they weren’t exposed to the technology and knowledge that we see today of what we are capable to do and have done to our planet. Not to turn this political but just yesterday I overheard a conversation between my roommate and her mom about how Bernie Sanders said his greatest fear for America is climate change and global warming. My roommates mom thought that was a ridiculous answer yet but my roommate and I understood where he was coming from. How we treat our planet can no longer be left on the back burner. We are a generation capable of starting the motivation for change and we need to figure out how to overcome the fear and lack of consideration that is so prevalent.
“At this rate, the current 16 terawatts of global power demand would balloon to equal the entire solar output in about 1,000 years and match all 100 billion stars in our galaxy inside of 2,000 years. Well before this – within 400 years – enough direct heat would be generated on Earth to bring the surface temperature to that of boiling water.” – Is Sustainability Still Possible? Pg. 173
ReplyDeleteSo many changes have taken place in our society since the dawn of the industrial revolution, it's easy to see how the general public could see our growth as sustainable. However, as clearly stated in the excerpt above this not the case at all. I think most people fail to acknowledge the fact that many of our consumption rates for many different areas have been gradually growing in intensity for as long as we have been the “dominate” species. No one sits around on an average day and just contemplates how much our energy consumption or our global population has increased. This must stop. The book addresses the great number of alternatives to the fossil fuels we are known for using, and while none compare in the convenience of the fossil fuels they all provide excellent choices for the common person to advocate for. How long must we wait until the general population realizes this need?
I really do feel that this problem is largely a culture issue. As a person that has done a fair amount of traveling for school as well as for leisure, I can honestly say that the US is one of the more wasteful cultures I have experienced. However, this is not an issue of changing from a person that lives in a functional home to living like caveman. It is simply shifting everyday behaviors like unplugging appliances when not used, turning off the TV when sleeping, or buying too much into the materialistic lifestyle companies try so hard to sell us. So many countries like Costa Rica or Sweden are so energy conscious, and it is not because of corporations or politicians telling citizens to do so. It is part of the culture of the people. They all care about the environment and how much of the Earth’s resources they use. In the US, it is often not a second thought. We simply must make people aware of these issues and teach more sustainable practices. Although this seems to be a daunting task, I believe it is possible, as littering went from something universally practiced to something very looked-down upon in one generation. The sustainability movement is steadily growing in the US and I believe will make a big impact in upcoming generations.
Delete"Build environment and production systems create and comprise the material components of civilization. The way these material components of civilization are generated and maintained currently constitutes the most prominent threat to sustainability." (page 90, Thiele)
ReplyDeleteKnowing this is one thing, but seeing it in writing is another. Knowing that literally the way we developed as a species is the main threat to our planet is extremely discomforting and makes me feel helpless. How can we reverse the damage that is done if everything we've ever created is the damage?
Thank for sharing Abby.
DeleteI agree that this is a very daunting thought. To know that virtually everything we've ever done has damaged the earth to some extent is a scary thought. However, it's important not to lose hope and give up. That would be the wrong attitude. The right attitude is that our problem is fixable. It is simply going to take change. And a lot of it. In my opinion more is needed than simply new technology or a few new ways to conserve water. I believe that humans as a whole need to change their thinking- A 'sustainability revolution' is likely necessary to undo the damage we have created. Much like the world changed during the Industrial Revolution and the Agricultural Revolution, a Sustainable Revolution would allow us to make the major changes that are necessary for humanity to undo much of the damage that the earth has had to endure.
“Today, our problems, needs, and wants are much more complex, and their technological solutions are much more powerful and dangerous. Our 2 million-year experiments with technology have demonstrated its massive benefits. We have also experienced its frequent – and often catastrophic- side effects.” (Thiele pg.114)
ReplyDeleteThis quote tackles a complicated issue. We as a species have begun to rely on technology and frankly, are far to quick to put our trust into it. As Thiele says, there have been immeasurable benefits to technological innovations, creating a better quality of life for most people on the planet. But there’s also a dark underside to new technologies. We don’t operate under the precautionary principle anymore; most of the time when we find out about a destructive side effect from said technology it’s after we have already implemented it. How can we ensure a technological solution is the best solution?
“The gathering brought together an array of geo-engineering luminaries. While their main goal was development of a scientific research agenda for this developing field, a central theme over the two days of conversation was impatience and frustration with the traditional suite of measures put forward to tackle climate change. United Nations sponsored political negotiations, carbon trading schemes, attempts to promote alternative energies— all were seen by those in attendance as doomed to fail or to be progressing far too slowly to avert disaster.”
ReplyDelete(World Watch Institute, Is Sustainability still possible? pg. 319)
I particularly found this chapter very interesting, in regards to the different solutions people have developed and want to implement in order to solve our global issue with climate change. The reason why I chose this quote in particular was because of how it demonstrated Mr. Seaton’s concept of Poo’s and Eeyore’s. Though the Eeyore’s in this case being justified for their beliefs on the impending failure for the current attempts to fix our impact on the climate. Those same “negative” scientists also had a Poo mindset when it came to thinking and developing possible better solutions. To further connect this to what Mr. Seaton was trying to portray with his analogy to Winnie the Poo, I believe that this chapter in particular shows that one must need both view points in order to be successful in evoking sustainability. If one solely has the Poo mindset, than that person may never see the current attempts of fixing the solution, as unsuccessful, thus never getting anything done. With the same regards, if one solely has the Eeyore mindset, that person will never see potentially new ideas, thus never getting anything done. It is the combination of the two that will evoke change that will eventually lead to being successful. What are your thoughts? Do you have any criticisms (Eeyore mindset) to the possible solutions? If so, what could be done to change the idea so it could potentially work?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Fossil fuel stocks are known to be finite, and by most accounts their extraction
ReplyDeleterates will peak this century." (Worldwatch, 172)
To many this may be a rather concerning statement. The fuel for basically everything we run the modern world on could be rapidly on its way to complete extraction relatively soon. However, I think of this as a positive thing. The lack of fossil fuels available will force humanity to seek an alternative (hopefully one that is cleaner). Many scientists even say we have already reached peak oil. My questions to you are: Do you think we have already reached peak oil and when we do run out of fossil fuels what do you think the most viable alternative will be?
We are currently harvesting our natural resources at a much high rate than discovering resources. I think there is still many natural resources left on the planet but at the rate we are harvesting, future generations will not be able to access them. I too believe this will cause a shift in energy supply to cleaner energies such as solar. There is clearly an abundance of sunlight and technologies being produced today are allowing us to harvest as much of that energy as possible. Although these projects will be costly, I believe solar energy is the future and we are not as far as many think from converting much of the Earth’s buildings, which consume over 40 percent of the world’s energy supply, to cleaner technologies. This will take support from our government along with international governments, but if this becomes a priority (as it should) we can implement this change within our lifetime.
Delete“Without drastic improvement in and diffusion of green technologies, we will not reverse the ongoing ecological destruction and secure a decent livelihood for all of humankind, now and in the future.” (Thiele, 91)
ReplyDeleteWith the Earth’s current crisis in energy supply and water supply, I believe that we are already trying to fix to problem down stream. We have lost the chance to be proactive but rather are now being reactive to our problems. Sustainable practices are proactive in nature so as they may not be able to fix the problem completely, green technologies can slow down the rate in which we use our natural resources and thus increase the lifespan of our planet. There are many green technologies that have been engineered but little has been implemented. How long are we as a society going to wait to implement these changes? At this rate it will already take an estimated of $2 trillion a year for the next three to four decades to avoid a “major planetary catastrophy?
"If society waits until energy scarcity forces large-scale deployment of such alternatives, it risks falling into an Energy Trap... If there is to be a transition to a sustainable energy regime, it’s best to begin it now." -Worldwatch pg. 183 This quot stood out me from the reading because it seems to reinforce the importance of starting to change our habits now before we reach the point of no return. Do you think there will be a time when the damage we have done reaches a point that nothing can be done to fix it?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe there will be a time when the damage we, humans, have done will reach a point that nothing can be done to fix it, it already has. The anthropocentric influences we’ve had on this earth have immensely sped up many of the planets naturally occurring processes. Animals are going extinct at a much faster rate than would naturally occur, that is already one way in which the damage we’ve done cannot be undone. I think we will certainly reach a point where our carelessness will cause us to make permanent drastic changes to our lifestyles. We already know that fossil fuels are a finite resource, what happens when they run out? The book already addresses the fact that with current technology alternative fuel methods cannot meet the needs of modern society. These monumental changes may not happen in our lifetimes, but I can assure you they are no more than a few generations away.
Delete“ climate change will cost the global economy if no remedial action is taken” (world watch 321)
ReplyDeleteI wrote in my blog post last week about geoengineering. I think it’s a sticky subject, but it should be discussed in sustainability because of the urgency of the consequences of climate change. Obviously we need to employ permanent solutions to our Comprehensive Problem such as renewable energy and restructuring our food system so that we produce massive amounts of local produce in a sustainable manner. However, I personally believe that we have created damage far beyond what we care to admit and for this reason we need a last resort measure, geoengineering. If we talk about openly about the potential of it, then maybe it could be beneficial. However, much like everything in our society, technology will be utilized for profits and will further destroy our environment, or worst will protect our environment but kill humans. Just look at how awful the recent news about Exxon holding back climate research is and how destructive that has been towards human health. They could have prevented thousands, if not millions, of lives from being lost decades ago if they released their data and showed that climate change is real.
“Some argue that shifting to organic agriculture will save the day…Under certain conditions, organic agriculture may also generate increased yields, in terms of…grain, produce, or livestock produced per acre. But such increases in yield are relatively modest, and would not be able to support predicted increases in human population.” Thiele, pg 103
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that a piece of literature on sustainability would find a negative aspect to organic agriculture. Upon initially reading the quote, I could not see where the downside to the organic movement was, until he related the movement to the ever increasing population problem. The population is growing exponentially, while the output of resources is only growing linearly. This position on organic agriculture seems to push to find a happy medium between options. Would you say the solution should focus more on limiting the population, limiting resources given to people, or finding a way to increase output of the agricultural industry?
I find this very ironic. It is pretty weird about the views mentioned here on agriculture. I feel that the solution to supporting our food/population problem is probably more of limiting resources given to people. As a former FFA member and a current sustainability major, I know we have an abundance of food production, but that we produce so much, that it just ends up being wasted. I also know that I tend to buy too much food, worrying that i wont have enough, and end up throwing out spoiled food all the time. So unless we can fix how people think and make them understand that we usually have eyes bigger than our stomach, I feel that the solution would just be to limit the resources given. Limiting the population would also be useful, but it'd be hard to do that, and increasing agricultural production would probably be the easiest thing to do, especially with the increase of technology, but in the long run, I feel that it wouldn't fix our problem but only postpone it, because eventually greed with kick back in and even though we will be producing enough for everyone, it wouldn't be "rationed" correctly.
Delete"Holdren suggested in 2009, when asked about the
ReplyDeletegeoengineering option, that “we don’t have the
luxury of taking any approach off the table. . . .We
might get desperate enough to want to use it.” (WorldWatch pg. 318)
I found this excerpt extremely relevant in all facets of sustainability we face today. When resolving this large ongoing problem we must not disregard even the most far fetched options for we are in a time of need and soon we will be in a desperate state. No idea is a dumb idea, and taking different options and making them applicable even if they seem outlandish might be our best option in the future. We cannot be picky in this day and age especially in the state we are in.
I agree that this excerpt is very important in the realization that positive change can come from any idea. Limiting one's thoughts based on what is acceptable or probable does not always solve problems. It is those who have gone against the popular opinion who are celebrated for their creative thinking and often change the way we think about things and even what we know about the world. This quote also shows the direness of our situation that we often forget. Stating that taking options off the table is a luxury changes our perspective of what is normal and what is a privilege. The statement also points out that we are approaching desperate times and it is best to be prepared. These statements are coming from Obama's chief science advisor, who in the past said that “belief in technological miracles is generally a mistake.” This also shows the severity of the situation.
Delete"Today a fresh cadre of would-be climate engineers is emerging. They have newly honed scientific understandings, increasing amounts of money, and strengthening political winds at their backs. So what, then, is to be made of geoengineering? Is it a new form of hucksterism? A dangerous folly? Or does geo-engineering have some ultimately positive role to play in the transition to a sustainable future?" (World Watch pg 318) This chapter raises some good questions about the technical future of sustainability and how to help slow down climate change. It also points out that these ideas can only be made possible with public and political support. With the upcoming election, whoever the voters agree with show their beliefs on climate change and what the presidential candidate believes about climate change can affect what actions are taken. Knowing that Trump believes climate change to be a hoax, do you think geo-engineering will be able to progress?
ReplyDelete"Paul Crutzen, in his 2006 article, suggested that the stratospheric sulfur approach to climate stabilization could be developed and implemented for $25–50 billion a year—a small fraction of the 5–20 percent of global gross domestic product that Nicholas Stern estimated, in his much-cited report for the U.K. government, climate change will cost the global economy if no remedial action is taken." For years, we have been receiving warnings from specialists that global climate change was happening. Despite these warnings, no action was taken. Now we must pour money and time into this cause hoping to make up for the years of neglect. Knowing what you know now about global climate change what would you have done a decade ago?
ReplyDeleteQuote from World Watch pg.321
Delete"Solving for pattern is not something that can be done abstractly, theoret ically, or from afar. It must be done concretely by local stakeholders...requires the use of practical wisdom to manage our problems adaptively, and to lear nfrom our mistakes because we directly suffer from their consequences." (Thiele, 113).
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest problems with advocating for sustainability is that people don't see direct consequences. If you are rich enough, or distant enough, you will never see the urgency that environmental degradation produces. Involving those who see consequences, like as Thiele suggested, real-estate, fishermen, and farmers, is important. I think creating concreteness in sustainability is imperative - but how would this work? How would forethought overcome nearsightedness when money is involved?
I agree that it's hard to involve people in solving issues when they themselves are far away from those problems, whether that be from physically distance or emotional disconnection to problems at hand. It's difficult to make things feel personal when they don't directly affect us. I think community programs that would involve everyone - from local farmers to store owners to businesspeople - would directly help this concern. Town meetings and local workshops that invite everyone in the area to address regional concerns, like neighborhood recycling programs and community gardens and composts, could bring the issue of sustainability to the forefront of others' minds. Perhaps then people would not be so nearsighted in terms of sustainability.
Delete"In ancient Greek methodology, technology was seen as a gift from the gods. But it came with strings attached." (Thiele pg. 95.)
ReplyDeleteWith this quote comes an important relationship to something that was mentioned in the book Ishmael. Givers and takers. As technology has increased, i feel it has increased our greed and caused us to even more so be "takers". In ancient civilizations they valued the Earth tremendously. They knew that they were living due to what earth gave them and always gave back. When technology started advancing though, we began to lose that appreciation and went from a Nomadic and giving civilization, to a greedy one that has to fight over goods. Many people can't even imagine our civilization without technology now a days, but I see this as the downfall of our society, that we cant disconnect with technology and connect with nature anymore. Do you agree that technology is leading to the downfall of our civilization or do you believe that we will be able to overcome our greedy ways and use technological advances for our benefit?
Not all ideas, however clever or practical, can scale to meet the needs of modern society. (Worldwatch page 174 paragraph 5 line 1)
ReplyDeleteThis statement brings us back down to reality when addressing the change between saving the earth and providing for its people. As environmentalists, we can at times be narrow-minded crusaders. We seek to implement changes that are positive for the environment without considering the economic or social consequences. I took an energy class last year that was very eye opening in this respect. Although alternative energy can be promising, it is simply not scalable at the moment to meet all the needs of modern society. This however does not mean fossil fuels are the only answer either, I think it would be proper to find a happy medium where fossil fuel energy and alternative energy are combined to meet needs until we can find a more practical alternative source of energy.
"Coal fueled the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, opening the door to accelerated energy-resource discovery and exploitation ... Perhaps the Coal Revolution would more accurately represent the transformational change marked by the nineteenth century."
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because since the industrial revolution, it is true that we have been using coal at an exponentially higher rate, and that the industrial revolution marks the first real big wave of unsustainable practices, and harsh human activity on the ecological world around us. Calling this revolution the coal revolution would be accurate in describing that during this time, humans have used too much coal and have harmed the ecosystem detrimentally as a result of it. However, a coal revolution means that the next revolution we have will use a different means of energy as its source, and so my question is, what will that source of energy be, and will it be more environmentally friendly?
"The technical, economic, and resource challenges to transitioning to a fully sustainable global energy system are enormous, but they can be fully addressed with solutions that exist today." (Worldwatch, pg. 98)
ReplyDeleteI think this is an extremely important factor to consider when we discuss becoming a more sustainable society. We have in our power today to address environmental concerns, but we have to be willing to make sacrifices to fix our current issues. Do you think the majority of Americans are willing to do this to make this country a more sustainable place? Why or why not?
“The disconnection between young people and the global food system is growing. Most young people do not grow up wanting to be farmers. And consumers all over the world have forgotten basic cooking skills because of an overreliance on processed foods. Agricultural diversity is declining: most diets in rich countries consist of just six foods, including maize, wheat, rice, and potatoes. Agriculture is looked down upon as a career and is often viewed as work for the poor or people who have no other options. Farmers also lack access to markets, making it hard for them to earn an income from their work. “ (WorldWatch, pg. 196)
ReplyDeleteThis is an important part of culture that needs to change in order to make our way back to sustainable living. Food has become a business and farmers have become abused and overlooked while, in reality, they hold one of the most important jobs with respect to our global health and environment. People need to be reeducated on how to grow locally, what to grow, and what to eat, and food must become less involved in the business sector, making healthy and abundant food available not only to the people of the United States but also increase accessibility to developing nations.