Author: rodrigut

In this article, published in the New York Times, author Coral Davenport discusses the true importance of the decision facing President Obama on the Keystone Pipeline, its potential effects on the environment and even the relative insignificance of the carbon emissions associated with opening the pipeline.

According to Davenport, “Mr. Obama’s eventual decision on the pipeline will have a marginal impact on global warming emissions” given that “the oil that would move through the Keystone pipeline would add 18.7 million metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere annually” compared to the already “5.5 billion tons” that is produced by the United States (Davenport, 6-8).

The carbon emissions produced by the oil moving through the pipeline “would amount to less than 1 percent of the United States greenhouse gas emissions, and an infinitesimal slice of the global total” (Davenport, 8).

In order to make significant changes in the current levels of carbon emissions produced by the United States, Davenport suggests, “Mr. Obama’s administration would have to enact policies that would force the two most polluting sectors of the nation’s economy – cars and coal plants – to slash their emissions” (Davenport, 10).

Interestingly, Davenport suggests that the 1% total that the Keystone Pipeline would contribute to the United States’ current emissions does not represent a large chunk, which mathematically speaking, it doesn’t.  But given that the move to slash emissions for cars is already underway and that cutting coal emissions will be much more difficult, shouldn’t we try to stop ourselves from adding anymore?

In this article published in the New York Times, author Stephanie Strom addresses the various consequences of the three-year drought in California, especially for agriculture, farmers and consumers.  Due to the drought, farmers are “forced to make dire choices that could leave as much as 800,000 acres, or 7 percent of the state’s cropland, fallow” (Strom, 5).  Because farmers will be unable to harvest water-intensive crops, their decisions on what to plant and how much of it to plant “will translate directly into higher prices at the grocery store” (Strom, 7).

Californians won’t be the only ones affected, however, as “between one-third and one-half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables are grown in California” (Strom, 8).  Already, the effects of this drought have been felt by consumers: “Last year…vegetable prices were 3 percent higher and fruits cost 2 percent more” (Strom, 9).

Strom also identifies the difficulties facing farmers and consumers based on a growing population and the inaccessibility of water for crops resulting in uncultivated land.

I found this article online when I was doing research for my semester project and I thought it did a good job of at least touching on each of the three areas – planet, people, profit – associated with the Triple Bottom Line.

Planet – No more plastic bags!

People – Pay $0.10 per recycled paper bag; city plan to hand out 1 million reusable bags in low income areas

Profit – Disincentive to defy bag ban ($500 fine for not complying with the new law)

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.

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.