"350"

Last year I took a class to fulfill a general education requirement in information literacy, UUNL206x, which was taught by Irina Holden. This class was aimed at research in the physical and natural sciences. Entering the class, I did not have many expectations besides completing my requirement in information literacy, but the class proved to be very valuable to the rest of my college career thus far. One of the things that stuck with me after completing the course, besides some of the very valuable research techniques, is that I continue to read the New York Times via the Internet. This was required for the class but the habit remained after the course because of the valuable information, particularly in the science and health sections.

One article in the science section caught my eye in its relatedness to this class. The article is titled “Campaign to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Picks a Number” by Andrew C. Revkin and was published on October 24, 2009. The article focuses on the number “350”, its significance, and why environmentalist campaign’s are choosing to display awareness of this number. The number 350 is in reference to the number of carbon dioxide parts per million (ppm) present in our atmosphere, that if surpassed can cause drastic effects on the atmosphere and climate. Currently, the number stands at 387 ppm according to the article, a significant increase over the recommended maximum. Some scientists say that 350 is an impossible goal at the present time or in the near future and almost seems absurd. Regardless of the actual number, the goal should be to decrease the current level not slow the rise or halter the increase. www.350.org has some valuable information on the subject matter and is run by environmentalist Bill McKibben. Sociologists question this older tactic in the fight against global warming and deleterious environmental effects, and say that a fight with legislation and litigation would be more effective. I agree, but this is a start and awareness is always the first step in progress.

So how can we decrease this number? Well one way is to decrease and limit emissions of various harmful substances that we have become so accustomed to. (i.e. fossil fuels and coals) We must plant trees; not destroy them. Overall this is a problem that we (the human race) will have to deal with and the main focus as we have so eloquently discussed in this class is “change”. Renovation of our current lifestyle and overhaul of the things we depend on and use for energy.

References:

http://www.350.org/understanding-350#6

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/science/earth/25threefifty.html?_r=1&ref=science

Back to the Old Days

From what we have learned in this class the future of ours and other nations is one of forced restrictions of energy and consumer goods. With the coming events nearly inevitable due to peak oil as well as global warming it is necessary for us to rethink the way we conduct our lives. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle to this is peoples expectations of what their lives should be. Many people who belong to the upper and middle classes have been blinded by consumption and now are unable to see the illogical nature of their behavior. The evidence for this is the fact that while the evidence of our future crises is clear many seem oblivious to reality. People continue to consume energy at an accelerated rate irrespective of the present need to conserve. I personally know a handful of people who would be unable to cope with a situation similar to that of Cuba as we saw in the movie. I believe that this is because many people have lost touch with our primitive roots and are now unable to deal with a life closer to the earth. I would hope that even though we may not react before a crisis occurs, we may be able to react fast enough once it has happened to overt disaster. The fear I have is that the people who are disconnected now may be thrown into denial when the crisis occurs and may damage our chances of having an effective reaction. After this stage of denial I believe that these people will panic and once again damage our ability to react effectively.

Monitoring Earth

While on the internet earlier this week I came across a couple of articles that I found interesting and that both correlated with each other. The main idea of the first article was about various space agencies teaming up with google to monitor the rates of deforestation of tropical rainforests using satellite imagery. This monitoring of the forests from space is providing even more accurate and credible data on deforestation rates and carbon content of the forests than we have had before. A similar project has been started monitoring the ice sheets in Antarctica and the rate of these ice sheets melting. New more accurate results show that the ice sheets are melting at a slightly slower right than was being estimated.

I think these new methods of gathering more accurate data are great ideas but I also can't help but wonder if it will have any different effect on producing a solution. While this data may be more accurate it doesn't seem to me like it tells us anything we didn't already know. The forests are still being cut down and the ice sheets are still melting because of global warming. In my opinion our energy would be better spent working on solutions to the problem instead of trying to polish the knowledge we already have.

http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/40613

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/40604

Less Needs to be More

In today's video we saw how Cuba had to react to an overnight change in the availability of oil. They were forced to make changes so they would be able to survive. According to the video, Cuba uses one-eighth of the energy that the United States uses. That is a significant difference in energy. One would expect or at least i expected that their life expectancy would be lower than ours roughly based on the energy consumption. Well boy was i wrong, Cuba and the United States have equivalent life expectancies. I feel that this speaks worlds about the excess energy the United States uses. There is no excuse for the excess energy. We can't argue that that it is necessary for human life to continue or for longer life expectancy when we can see that Cuba is doing just fine. I believe some of the speakers hit the nail right on the head, Americans need to change the way they think. One example a man used was about asking everyone to turn off lights to save energy. The Cubans turned off the lights because they knew it would hep. He said that if you ask americans the same question they're going to ask why? and say that they pay for it. I agree with his answer on this. As Americans we grow up learning that if we do well in school we'll go to good colleges and if we go to good colleges we'll get good jobs and good jobs have high salaries and benefits. We know that if we work hard we deserve the credit and should have something to show for it. We pride ourselves in the fact that we "have come so far" technologically. We currently crave biggER, fastER, newER, bettER things. The "ER" implying that its improved upon the old. We update cell phones, ipods, and TVs like its a necessity when most of the times it usually cosmetic. I feel like this notion is apart of why it's be so difficult for people to accept living differently and using less energy. Our way of life consists of working hard to improver or better ourselves and with that comes more possession and better possessions. The luxuries of not having to wash dishes but have a dish washer, or having a maid, or a driver. Just the other day i was saying that i hope i am wealthy enough to never wash my own clothes or my own dishes. It's the society that we live in. I can not imagine living a different life style and i am sure there are plenty of other people that feel the same way. Matter of fact at the begining of the semester when i was reading the cartoon guide for this class my friend asked what class the book was for and i told him and we started talking and he said "oh stop it Katie, you know we not gonna have to worry about a shortage of oil during our life time" and he's not the only on i know who feels this way. People do not think its as real of a threat as it is. They don't feel that they are the one who should be responsible for fixing the problem either. So i can't imagine the US handing the change very well. I believe if it was a necessity we'd be able to but if it was a voluntary attempt was made to be less reluctant on energy it would not go over well. I hope that we can learn from the Cuba video. I would love to see Americans working with one another to change the fate of the planet but were gonna need a lot more education on the topic. The video also pointed out just how many books and articles that have been written and they've helped but still its not enough. It makes me wonder what type of catalyst would be needed to really get the ball rolling. Especially among government officials.

Kittens

I was home sick last week with what the University recognized as a "flu-like illness". When I returned to my home to Springfield, my parents surprised me with two new kittens! It is amazing how much you can learn from such tiny creatures. For example, they have never been outside before. I opened the door to let them sniff the air, and they were petrified! It reminds me of those who are afraid of the necessary changes in our energy production--too frightened to step into new territory, despite all of the incredible opportunities it may hold.

NItrogen Fertilizer Decrease, Healthy Americans Increase

Enriching the Earth chapter 8 we see that it touches base again on the U.S. and what we would face when nitrogen based fertilizer is no longer available. Smil hits on the fact that the US currently supplies 3600 kcal/capita, our need is about 2000 kcal/capita. This is quite a difference and shows that if we did lose our nitrogen fertilizers it wouldn’t effect us negatively. In fact we would still have leftover food after our specific need.
So it brings up another point, America needs to slim down and when we are faced with a tightening of food supply I think it could be in one sense or another good for the people. You always hear people talking about obesity trends in the US but there hasn’t been any huge change to reverse this trend. The first day in my nutrition class this semester Dr.Wulff put up several slides to show the change. Over a period of 18 years some states have increased from 10% obesity rate to 30% obesity, that is a huge difference. How can it be that some countries are starving while the US gets almost double what it needs which results in a large amount of obese people. In chapter 8 Smil says that soon we will have to adopt a Mediterranean type diet, which is not a bad idea at all. A Mediterranean diet includes healthy fats (olive oil, canola oil) , lots of fruits and vegetables, healthy grains such as pasta and rice, and emphasis on the small amount of red meat you are allowed to consume. If America was put on this type of diet we would see the obesity rates falling because a large part of our diets consist of red meat which is high in saturated fat which ultimately contains high calorie content.
So once agriculture has to tighten their belts they will no longer be able to sustain the meat industry since so much of its cereal and legume production, around 70%, goes directly to feed for animals. When it is no longer plausible to expend so much of a harvest to feeding the animals cut backs will have to happen so animal meat will not be so readily available. The new goal will to make sure the people are fed and it will have to be that in order to do that we have to make some changes. I think the changes will not be so bad on the people. Even though Americans are so dependant in their lifestyles to food always being there and in abundance that once food production decreases we have the opportunity to grasp a new healthier lifestyle.

Sources
Enriching the Earth- Smil
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4644

If She Were My Mother

Historians note that the Industrial Revolution as one of the most important events in the twentieth century, and it was. It completely changed the way we live life. An abundance of cheap energy had found its purpose. New and improved technologies like the steam engine, the sowing machine, the automobile, and the airplane. It also was the cause of mass urbanization in everyplace that chose to participate.

While these great things were born from such an exciting time, there was also a serious negative consequence both to the planet and those who live on it. Industrialization, with its mechanized, large scale manufacturing produced fly ash, and massive air and water pollution. We still continue to strip the earth for her resources, fill her waters with poison, and infect her land with our junk.

Sometimes I feel as if we treat the earth like we have somewhere else to go. It’s not like when we trash this place we’ll just get a new one. A bigger, better version of what we had. Right now, humankind has this relationship with the earth where all we do is take, take, and take. For a century we’ve refused to think of the long-term consequences of our lifestyles. All I know is if Earth was my mother, she’d be pissed.

I hope that in the light of all this green talk that nations and all the individuals within them will make steps toward more sustainable lifestyles. I hope that we begin to live like the world is ours and she’s all we have.

(Industrial Revolution information came from my His158 class with David Bassano)