Month: February 2014 (Page 3 of 4)

I decided to read up on the environmental impacts that this year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi would have and, given the incessant talk on how expensive ($51 billion) the staging of the games have been, I was surprised to find out how poorly Russia kept to its promise of sustainability.

According to this first article, by Kharunya Paramagru, published in TIME: “As part of its bid, Russia told IOC members it would be staging a “zero waste” Games that followed green building standards.”  However, it turns out that Sochi, one of the most biodiverse regions in Russia, has suffered due to “illegal waste dumping, construction that has blocked the migration routes of animals such as the brown bear, limited access to drinking water for locals and a generally decreased quality of life for many in the city of Sochi.”

Furthermore, in this next article, by Andrew E. Kramer, published in The New York Times, Kramer addresses the arrests of two ecologists, one of which was charged with “swearing in public.”  In reality, however, Yevgeny Vitishko, one of the arrested ecologists and “author of a report…on environmental damaged caused by Olympic construction,” was arrested and sentenced to 15 days in jail before completing the report meant to be published before the start of the games.

Igor Kharchenko, an environmental activist, was also sentenced to a five day stay in jail, but was charged with “disobeying a police officer on a street near the route of the Olympic torch relay.”

A third environmental activist, Yulia Naberezhnaya, received a call from the Federal Security Service regarding whether she planned to stage a protest.  She mentions that she plans to leave before she too is sentenced to a stay in jail.

Clearly, while environmental activists and ecologists have done their research on Russia and found numerous causes for distress in regards to the handling of the games in Sochi, Russian officials have done the same as it concerns identifying potential threats to Russia’s reputation.

The image above, taken from the New York Times article, portrays some of the illegal dumping that was done during construction of the site for the games.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/02/05/271997854/california-is-so-dry-some-diners-wont-get-water-unless-they-ask

The drought in California shows that resources such as water that we often take for granted as infinite, can run out.

I would like to begin this post by thanking the Tides Foundation for their contribution to general knowledge of waste and consumerism. The average American is woefully ignorant of economics and hopefully people will continue to learn some of the basic functions of the global marketpace.

One of the lessons we can learn from the Tides Foundation’s production THE STORY OF STUFF is that consumers have options. However as the video illustrates,  not all options available to the consumer are designed to maximize quality. Product Obsolesence is the economic principle that goods are produced with the intention of breaking down as quickly as possibe with the intention of forcing a consumer to replace the product.

However, there are may options which were not designed with this intention. In response to the video I’ve compiled a list of ten brands which stand by a guarantee of excelent workmanship. Hopefully this list will benefit some savvy consumer, somewhere.

http://www.craftsman.com/

http://www.buckknives.com/

http://www.llbean.com/?mkwid=sgaglsXrV_dc&pcrid=30967049817&pkw=l.l.bean&pmt=e&qs=3085166_google

http://www.thenorthface.com/en_US/index.html?cm_mmc=Google-_-Brand+Terms-_-Brand+Terms_Exact-_-north+face

http://www.bonlight.co.uk/bonlight_outdoor_lighting.html

http://www.nemoequipment.com/

http://darntough.com/

http://www.thundertrucks.com/

http://www.vermontteddybear.com/

Link Here

This is an article about scientists being able to bring extinct species back to life. I thought this could help with sustainability because it would allow one of the problems of non-sustainability (extinction) to be solved ; namely, bringing species back to life or even breeding some endangered species.

Some of the arguments against reviving species which were mentioned include: revived species often do not have their original habitat, and they may not be considered true animals by some but only engineered curiosities, since often a full DNA sequence is missing and scientists have to fill in missing parts from other species.

Overall, I think it would be good if extinct species were revived, but only if their original habitat already exists or could be somewhat revived as well. Personally, I am hoping to visit the Jurassic Park in the future… haha

I thought this was an interesting and useful video due to the fact that I was never exposed to the suffering of the environment when I was young. Modern day children are growing up with environmental concepts being taught to them. However, I do think that the video is overly dramatic, most points are not backed up by any actual evidence, and the benefits gained from our current system were not at all covered.

Even though the video is not the best example of how to teach about environmental issues that we face today, I still think that it is needed in order to drill into children the importance of conservation and the environment. The drama of the video helps with this even if it is not appropriate for older audiences.

http://www.google.com/doodle4google/index.html

The headlines for the above link is:

“Draw your own doodle about: If I Could Invent One Thing to Make the World a Better Place…”

I just came across this on Google and there are too many things in my head. But definitely something that is sustainable. Perhaps anything with an unlimited life and is environmentally friendly. One thing I am thinking is that there would be a special machine that transfers computer-generated heat into a heater to preserve extra heat when needed. This way, buildings can significantly reduce the use of electricity and gas on heaters during winter. I do know that Johns Hopkins University’s one library do not need a heater due to a large number of computers into a library. Unfortunately, when the library is closed and all the computers are shut down, heat may be lost. When the computers are on while the library is closed, then this is nothing but a waste of electricity. Class, what is your idea?

If I was shown this video in middle school, I would be convinced that Americans are monster consumers with no regard to the environment. Kids and teenagers believe a majority of the ‘stuff’ they are shown in school, but if the information is false, we have a problem on our hands. Annie Leonard, the woman who started the “Story of Stuff” YouTube videos, exaggerates the information to prove a point. I do agree that we waste a considerable amount of finite resources in our country for being a finite planet without replenishing a majority of them. If Leonard suggested to everyone to act sustainably, she would make the same point without slandering all Americans. I believe that a person is measured by their intelligence and worth in the world, and not by how much they consume. Kids don’t look at their parents and think, “Oh, my mom is a huge consumer.” They think “my mom is a good lawyer or doctor or saleswoman”. The video calls attention to a world-wide problem and is meant to make  a difference in one’s consuming habits, but a statement video with controversial facts is not the way to go about a movement.

During class, we watched the video called the Story of Stuff. It basically tells the detailed truth about what has been going on in the world that has been environmentally unfriendly and the consequences of it. Specifically, human activity is causing deforestation and resulting in natural products to diminish in a rapid rate. The rapid change in technology would make consumption even worse. Due to the nature and shape of the chips that make up the new technology, you can’t take out an old computer chip from a computer to make new devices. Therefore, lots of brand new devices must be made. In addition, the charger for fifth generation iPod/iPhone is completely different than the previous generations; therefore people are not only forced to spend extra money on new chargers, but also that consumption becomes greater. Factories that turn natural resources into everyday items, including technology, would need to release toxic pollutants into the air, resulting in climate change, as well as destroying more natural habitats, resulting in more animals and plants becoming endangered. If this practice continues, the world would eventually end up coming to a standstill. Furthermore, humans would eventually be endangered, similar to what happened in Easter Island, according to Jared Diamond (author of Easter’s End).

Ugghhh, I honestly feel dumber for having read the Hearitage Foundation article.  I also tried to watch the four-part critique videos on YouTube by Lee Doren, but only made it through the first two.  I think those may have even been worse than having to read the HF article.  Dorin had some valid concerns in the first segment, but by the second he was beginning to go off the deep end with his rants and “critiques”.
Don’t get me wrong, I really think The Story of Stuff needs to tone down the politics and tighten up the stats (although, if you actually take the time to do some of the fact checking yourself, you’ll see that she’s really not as far off as her political critics would have you believe).  As the video stands, I would probably not be showing it to elementary school kids either.  I think the current video would work better for high school kids who could then discuss and critique it in class.
My main problem with this whole debate is these super rightwing “critiques” that sound as though they were written by the Koch brothers.  These critiques (the HF article especially) seem more concerned at attacking her character and nitpicking stats than actually producing any true rebuttals to her main arguments.  Not to sound too “anti-American”, but I think these issues are worth shedding light on.

Although some of the details of the video may be biased or even inaccurate, I do believe the core message is a good one. The concept that production and consumption is a linear process is very damaging to our planet. I think many of the problems she mentions arise not from people being evil but from our system being flawed. The system I am talking about and that I believe the video should have mentioned is the market system . The reason forests are cut down, factories create pollution, products are made to break quickly, advertisements tell us to buy more, and trash is burned is because those methods create the most profits. We live in a world run by capitalism and markets. The issue is that this system maximizes profits but not the overall well being of the planet. As the video mentioned, all the costs to produce a radio are not reflected in the price. If the costs to planet were included in the price then they would be much more expensive and therefore less people would buy them.

Despite your opinions on the video, I think it is good because it raises some important questions and forces you to rethink things that many of just assume to be natural.

I feel like the video is biased and attempts to blow the materials economy out of proportion. We are not as bad off as she makes it seem and I think showing this video to school students is not the answer. Making kids fear that buying a set of legos will destroy the environment cannot be the solution to the rising consumption problems. Some of the information she presents is also false. When she raises the point that 50% of our taxes is put towards the military, she is wrong. The government actually puts about 20% towards military. However, I do feel like she raises some important arguments that need to be considered. There are problems with our consumption and the government trying to please corporations but it is not nearly as bad as it seems. We do need to make changes as a country because the rising levels of consumption is not good by any means. We need to figure out solutions that do not involve blowing things out of proportion and feeding misguided information to school students.

The story of stuff was created to inform viewers on our current situation when it comes to the world and its resources. Textbooks used in schools have started to become outdated as knew scientific evidence appears pushing teachers to the decision of presenting this video as a supplement.  While very informative the video comes across as extreme and one-sided and some would even say anti capitalist and anti government. This is because Annie Leonard makes comments such as “If you don’t own or buy a lot of stuff you don’t have value” and “should be represented as a tank because the government spends over 50% on the military.” Not only are the comments offensive to many the second is actually incorrect as data shows it is approximately 20%. For me the video made lots of good points and contained information that needed to be fed into the world but her “simple” way of presenting it distorted her message into one-sided semi-extremist views that only pointed fingers, never proposed any possible solutions, and avoiding any positive improvement shown in the world. This gives the overall video a pessimistic feel like it is trying to scare us into changing instead of motivating us to do what is needed.

After reading the two articles assigned in class concerning “Story of Stuff” and watching the entirety of the video, I am able to appreciate the critiques that some have made regarding Annie Leonard’s approach to producing this video and the comments that she makes, which might be perceived as anti-American or anti-capitalism.  However, my approach to activism has always led me to believe that in order to make as grand of a statement as possible, you need to push for the greatest possible outcome.  That is, if you want to achieve a certain end, you have to lobby for the best possible outcome and then make compromises along the way.  If you don’t aim high, it will be easier for you to be denied even something that you might think would be a fair compromise.

Therefore, I understand Leonard’s approach.  Frankly, sometimes people need to be scared about the potential consequences of their actions before they can really take steps toward changing them.  If there is no visible or implied consequence, they may not be willing to change their lifestyles.  Moreover, consider the millions of persons that watched “Story of Stuff” and then went about their lives.  So, I don’t think that scaring one child into questioning whether he should get a new set of Legos is quite as bad as the Heritage Foundation might think.

People really need to stop contaminating recycling bins. In another words, it is not uncommon for people to throw any piece of non-recyclable garbage into a recycling bin, which several of those garbage pieces are too gross to touch. I sometimes spend my spare time decontaminating the recycling bins by putting my hand into the recycle bin in my dorm building to remove garbage and place them in the garbage can (and wash my hands after). If the recycling bins stay contaminated, then the contaminated recyclables end up going to the garbage.

One way of stopping contamination is for people to pay a bottle deposit for each bottle and get a refund for recycling. I mean, 11 US states already have them but I feel that all 50 states should. This way, people would pay extra money for buying bottled and canned drinks, save up the used bottles and cans, and get paid back to recycle. This practice should be included on college campuses and high schools.

A cool video that really lets you see how quickly earth’s ice is melting away.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/01/31/268356264/a-hunk-of-planet-dissolves-before-our-eyes