How to Talk to a "Friend of Science"?

While the "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" websites are both arguably lacking, their discrepancies are quite useful. Actually, I found that the two websites were largely representative of the real climate change debate that we come across in our everyday lives. Generally, there are a great deal of global warming believers; people who may or may not know all the details, but have heard enough to know that the backing science exists. Conversely, there are the people--though I am repeatedly shocked to find that these people truly exist-- that cling to opposing claims, however few and far between, to "secure" the notion that climate change is largely exaggerated. In an increasingly environmentally aware and conscious society, however, this claim grows more difficult and more ludicrous. Thus, to operate within the context of society, the non-climate-change believers often have to mask their view under a variety of pretenses. While the context of society works in both directions-- fostering strong environmental convictions on either side of the spectrum in people that don't necessarily know their facts-- it is apparent in both real life and in the world wide web. Certainly, the respective websites followed suit with the overarching debate at hand.

The purpose of each website, then, is mostly clear but muddled to a certain degree. The purpose of the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website is to offer rebuttals to common claims of skeptics. The general idea, then, is to provide the facts of climate change in a way that could fuel a debate supporting its existence. Another purpose is to seemingly add to the wealth of knowledge of already existent climate change believers. It multitasks, offering ideas from both sides in a sense, as it must address the concerns in order to provide rebuttals. The purpose of the "Friends of Science" website, conveniently less discernible, is an apt example of the masking of opinions that most who oppose the existence of climate change resort to. The website purports to be on the "side of science," rather than the harsher claim of not being on the side of global warming. Though this is exactly the purpose of the website, it offers its overtly biased "facts" under the pretense of adhering to science; furthering scientific research on the issue. In reality, it sites rather old data and finds basis only on counterarguments, failing to address any arguments in favor.

This is where the "Climate Skeptic" website far exceeds the capabilities and legitimacy of the "Friends of Science" website. Indeed, the Climate Skeptic explores and breaks down opposing opinions-- many of which are the very claims made by Friends of Science. Contrarily, "Friends of Science" offers its facts, claims to support further scientific research (as if the plethora of already existing research is not adequate) and stops at that. This, of course, lends credence to the Climate Skeptic website and forces us to seriously question the Friends of Science website.

It is important to note that "Friends of Science" is a non-profit organization, and are actively seeking donations on their site. This, of course, could be a huge factor in the lacking validity of Friends of Science sources. Further, the fact that their overall concern is seeking donations could ultimately limit them to certain convictions. For example, while they might have a more moderate stance in reality, they may feel forced to take on a particularly strong stance in order to maximize their supporters. Further, it is difficult to fairly read these websites without a bias. After reading my peers' responses, I realized I had given the "Climate Skeptic" website a lot more credit than it deserved. While, as they pointed out, it was seriously lacking in many regards, I overlooked much of this. Because the site affirmed many of my opinions and disproved many of the Friends of Science claims I had just read in quite a bit of disgust, its legitimacy was almost immediate in my eyes. These reactions, I am sure, are largely present in the public. This fact is very important to note when considering that impacting abilities of websites.

how do I know what's real?

These types of websites influenced me to register for this course in the very first place. Although neither “Friends of Science” nor “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” contain legitimate source lists, for the average viewer who is simply out there to browse for “the truth,” these sites provide enough information to take back to the cafeteria. It is exceedingly difficult to weed out fact from fiction on a topic that you know nearly nothing concrete about. This class has helped me to understand that it is not merely the “truth” that is important, but also an understanding of the different arguments that exist in order to create a framework for understanding the debate that is taking place, and to ultimately take an informed position.

The fact that “Friends of Science” posts a link to various treaties and UN memos should not cover up the glaring detail that the facts posted in contrast to their proclaimed myths have no references to speak of. While it would be convenient to regurgitate such neatly laid out arguments in the workplace, it is unwise to assume that simply because they are convincing that they are accurate. The same goes for “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”. When I looked over this site, I immediately drew a parallel to the way I feel when FOX news is on and I turn the channel to John Stewart. I am more willing to blindly accept and pass on the arguments I have grown accustomed to agreeing with. Although “Friends of Science” aesthetically looked more like a legitimate source than the other site’s blog-like appearance, I found myself more convinced by the latter because it felt more comprehensive with its exhausting list of arguments.

With all this being said, I think that it is excruciatingly important for anyone looking for the facts to find reliable sources on the subject (this goes for everything), and to acknowledge his or her reasons for accepting an argument. When it comes to scientific details, the average Joe is not going to be able to critically evaluate a claim, therefore I would argue that finding a list of references even before reading the claim would be beneficial.

Confusing Positions

After looking at the websites for Friends of Science and How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic, I can understand why people are either confused or convinced that the opposite side of the climate change debate is lying. Both of these websites address different sides of the same issue with equally overwhelming statements and less than satisfying references to strong academic resources.

First, I went to the Friends of Science Website and was more than a little appalled. After reading the assigned section of Friedman's book this week, it was really unsettling to see this website make unsubstantiated claims that "Hot, Flat and Crowded," intelligently shows are false. I was really frustrated that the website said that there is no evidence to show that global warming is man made when there obviously is a piling amount of proof. I went to the website's source page and saw something interesting: there is not a single source that they cited that was published later than 2007 and most of the sources came from before 2004. Even though people have been looking at climate change for a while, the newest developments in research seem to be the ones that are clearing up the questions and doubts that previously existed. Even if I was an unbiased viewer of this website, the lack of more recent evidence to support its claims would cause me to question the validity of this information.

I went to the second website hoping to see a well documented, organized account of global warming and the studies which prove that it is man made. I was pretty disappointed. I was overwhelmed by the number of links in front of me and had no idea even where to get a start. One part of this website's home page had a list of statements that a climate change skeptic might make - statements that were exactly like those that I had seen on the Friends of Science page. The problem was that when I clicked on the links, the "refutes" to skeptical claims were presented in the same way that the statements on the first website were listed. There were charts, graphs and links, but they were all vaguely cited and a person who was more inclined to believe the first webpage could easily assume that this second one was lying or exaggerating facts.

In the end, even though my prior reading has convinced me that global warming is very real, very serious and very man made, I did not find either website terribly convincing. In the end, if their purposes are to persuade opposing groups to change their minds about their position on climate change, they did not succeed. Mostly, the websites cater to people who already agree with them and serve to inflame the rhetoric between the two groups.

The Validity of Climate Change

I am really impressed with these websites. I've participated in a few conversations myself where referencing this information would've come in handy quite a bit. I think they're very useful in that they each pose similar myths/facts (just from the opposing perspective) so you can get straight to the problem or misconception and find out what information is out there to support either side. They're extremely straightforward and definitely give some insight into how polarizing (pun not intended) the climate change debate is.

The question of how to make sense of it all gets at a large societal issue, in my view. Being convinced of beliefs without questioning the facts is a pretty widespread phenomenon in this country and causes many problems. Unfortunately, climate change has been politicized to become an issue that is victim to this type of ignorance. To make sense of these things, I think the most important thing we have to learn is to check sources. For example, the Friends of Science website made many claims, but didn't provide links or sources to find out more, read reports, or analyze graphs, while the other website provided many links and included sources for facts that were given. Providing valid sources (such as NASA) should be a sign of good information. A lack of sources should signal to us that we should be skeptical of the information. We have to take the time to find out who is giving us this information and where they are getting their information and sources are the best way to do so. Also, I think there is something to be said for the expansiveness of the website that reports climate change is a problem. It tackles every myth that's out there with expansive information, while the Friends of Science tackles only certain myths with limited information. I think this can also signal who is informed and who has the knowledge to back them up.

Based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious at this point which "side" I support. I do believe there is much more valid evidence supporting the idea that climate change is caused by human activity and is a serious problem that needs addressing. I believe this because the information arguing this comes from reputable sources and many different elements of science and research, all culminating in the conclusion that climate change is a problem and is caused by humans. I am much less convinced by the Friends of Science article because there are few sources (and the ones that are included I've never heard of) and I don't believe them to be reputable, and their information is limited and seems mostly based on generalities as opposed to specific scientific evidence.

Saving Nature, NATURally.

The words thrilling, magical, and enchanting immediately connote positive thoughts. Some may find it ironic, then, that the first memory that came to mind when reading this prompt was a potentially near-death experience I experienced in my childhood. Despite the rather long-term relationship with nature that a plethora of family excursions and a father that had a mild obsession with insects provided me with, my mind kept wandering back to this one memory. Upon deeper contemplation, though, this seemingly unsuitable memory began to make sense. Sure, given freedom of word choice, the words I would have selected to accompany a retelling of this experience would have been more along the lines of terrifying, risky, and utterly disenchanting. In context of the thrilling/magical/enchanting word framework, though, it became apparent why my subconscious was so adamant on reliving this memory. It was, indeed, thrilling magical AND enchanting. Before anyone reading this starts casting me as a self-loather, I guess I should share the actual experience.
I was about 8 years old, on a family trip to New Hampshire. I can’t exactly recall what time of year it was, but it was a beautiful day in the hybrid fall-spring sense, where the weather is only made better by the knowledge that it should not be nearly as nice as it is given the time of year. I went with my father and sister to a river in the area. The overall area was a magnificent showing of nature. There were woods and lots of open space, all set to the unique tune of a gargling body of water. In fact, the river was characterized by certain sections of rapidly flowing water, and was shallow enough to have rocks protruding out of the water as far as the eye could see. Taking advantage of the beautiful weather, we climbed on the rocks, hopping from one to another so as to avoid the vibrant but too-cold water below us. I distinctly remember my older sister repeatedly warning me to stay away from the edge of the rocks, where the water had turned the semi-submersed portions of the rocks into slippery rims. Of course this only heightened the temptation to go closer and closer to the edges. Intending to only marginally defy my sister’s authority, I put my foot close enough to the edge of the rock to seem daring, but what I thought was far enough away to avoid actually slipping in. I was wrong.
While my memory of almost every other aspect of the day is fuzzy, I remember this part is if it had happened a mere hour ago. I can still vividly recall slipping into the river and immediately being sucked through the rapids. I remember the discomfort of the rush of water up my nostrils, managing to lift my head out from under the water only just in time to see the rock my head was about to crash into if I didn’t duck back down. Barely able to breathe, I gave up on the losing battle of trying to counter the force of a rapid river. My father immediately jumped in after me, and I can still recall cringing in the aftermath at his bloody back that had been scraped against a rock during his descent. I later found out that the river rapids I so graciously got to take a ride in led right to a waterfall. I now realize the event seems so magnificent, rather than traumatic as it perhaps should, due to just how human this "non-human" world was. I think the experience coincided with my realization of the power of nature. There I was, defying nature by testing how formidable an opponent I was against it. In a true engagement (perhaps too much of an engagement) with nature, I was made painfully aware of the answer. Not only was I not a opponent of any sorts, I was a tiny spec in its grand scheme, lucky enough to be enjoying its resources. The experience was thrilling in a way that is largely reliant on the fact that I made it out with no real consequences. It was magical and enchanting in the realizations it provided me with, and the profundity in how effortlessly it had overpowered me-- both physically and mentally.
My perhaps overly stream of consciousness recollection of my experience is actually relevant to the question of whether or not saving nature is something we should concern ourselves with. The only answer I can fathom is actually a question: how could it not be? To me, this question is as intrinsic as asking whether or not saving ourselves is something we should concern ourselves with. Essentially, that is what we accomplish in saving nature. We are unquestionably reliant--maybe even contingent--upon nature. As I noted earlier, nature is this huge force in which we are fortunate enough to be players in. This question is highly representative of exactly why we should concern ourselves with nature. It is so much a part of us, our past, our make up that we can unanimously recall a variety of instances in which our interaction with our natural environment has been profound. Clearly, nature is an integral part of our lives. Often, we lose sight of this because of cities and ever-increasing technology. However, we must not be fooled-- we rely on nature in a multitude of ways; ways we often cannot even detect. For ourselves, for future generations, even for animals that are even more reliant on nature but have no say in it, we must make saving nature not just a concern, but a priority.

Being with Nature

Though you are all well aware of this by now, I am from Colorado and I believe that being from an area where nature is cherished and a part of daily life makes a pretty big impact on how we see the world. I, for one, feel that my heart lies in the mountains of my home state and being away can only last so long before I go crazy with a lack of nature. I never feel more alive than when I am surrounded by natural beauty. I am not a religious person, but whenever someone asks me about my spirituality, this is the story I tell. The only time I have ever felt spiritual- a kind of overwhelming sense of peacefullness, oneness, beauty, and power- was when I hiked to the top of a "14er" (one of a cluster of tall mountains in Colorado) and finally turned around to see the mountain range behind me and hear the silence of the wind and the clouds. It was such an overwhelming feeling of a sort I had never felt before. I can still picture exactly how it looked and exactly how it felt- it was just that powerful. I get glimpses into that feeling everytime I am somewhere beautiful, so I am always seeking out this kind of beauty. I know I am an extreme example- I never feel fully content in a city and I know I belong in the mountains and I plan to get there. Feeling disconnected from nature, for me, is feeling disconnected from myself and all that is life. Because of how important nature is to me, it frightens me that we even ask the question as to whether or not nature should be saved. It shocked me when I began to travel outside of Colorado and realized that some people lived in cities all their lives and never felt moved to really experience nature, but I know this exists. Yet this disconnect has a bigger effect than just to shock me. This disconnect, I believe, is part of why we face this overwhelming environmental crisis. Nature should be saved and preserved- it must be for humans to continue to survive, let alone to be able to experience the kinds of spiritual benefits I believe nature provides. Ecosystems provide for humans too, not just the species that are going extinct. We need nature to survive and I believe we need nature to remind us what is important in life, something I think we've forgotten to ask ourselves. Sometimes only an overwhelmingly beautiful moment on the top of a mountain where all our petty human concerns are literally miles away can remind us just how important nature is and how much we have distanced ourselves from it.

SAVE NATURE!

From when I was about six until I hit thirteen and began rejecting my parents’ enthusiasm towards family trips, my parents, younger sister, and I would drive eight hours up into the Adirondack mountain range in upstate New York. Every summer we drove up and to go backwoods camping at Forked Lake- packing our gear into a canoe and paddling out to find a small clearing along the edge of the lake for our two weeks of tranquility. I grew up without television, and as a result had an incredibly vivid imagination; the non-human world to me was a fantasy-land. I remember one summer in particular I read The Mists of Avalon nestled in the roots of a giant fallen tree that jutted out over a waterfall. The story had come to life for me, and it was truly magical.
On one of the same trips, I remember walking to an outhouse by the side of a trail with my sister and my mother. We rarely, if ever, saw any other humans at Forked Lake, so we were alone with the stillness and the occasional squirrel or chipmunk. It was my turn and as I sat in the outhouse I heard my mother gasp. I creaked the door open and not 4 feet away were 3 brown bear cubs. They stared at us, unmoving, and that’s when we saw mama bear amble out of some nearby foliage. It was a silent, locked eye contact, standoff between two mothers and their young. I remember being frightened because the night before we had a visit from papa bear, who growled menacingly at my dad and his flashlight as he devoured our marshmallows. After a few minutes of tension the bears wandered off and we breathed sighs of relief. I have many more enchanting and thrilling memories from Forked Lake, whose serene landscape taught me to appreciate the majesty of undisturbed nature.

Saving nature is absolutely something we should concern ourselves with. Not only for our own enjoyment and spiritual gain, but because as cohabitants of this planet we have a responsibility and ethical obligation to preserve the habitats of our fellow “Earth-dwellers”. For human beings I would argue that it is incredibly important to have undisturbed nature to escape to and surround ourselves with. Being alone in nature is a deeply spiritual and therapeutic experience that everyone should have the luxury of access to.
It is important to save nature in order to preserve ecosystems as we know them to be today. If we fail to take measures to conserve nature, biodiversity will essentially be wiped out and we will be left with man-manipulated species and environments, which defeats the concept of nature at its very core.

Protecting the Unpredictable Wild

To me, nature and the “non-human” world represents a part of the earth that is unpredictable and untamable. While I certainly appreciate this part of the wild and think that it is both important and worth protecting, I have never been the type of person who seeks it out. On camping trips, I am the person who checks and double checks to make sure that there is not anything that might even smell like food laying out that could attract bears. The most thrilling experience I’ve ever had in nature, easily, was the time that I climbed Longs Peak. I was 15 and had never climbed any mountain before when my slightly more adventurous cross country teammates announced a team trip to climb a “14er.” I had no idea what I was in for with Longs Peak (which is probably a good thing because I most likely would have backed out had I known). The all day hike/ climb was both exhausting and exciting. The view at the top of the mountain was stunning and certainly made the trip worthwhile (although I was not a fan of having to race back down in order to beat the thunderstorms and lightning).
In terms of the second part of the discussion question which asks why it is important to preserve nature, there are several reasons which vary from ideological purposes to general earth-preservation. One argument is that the aesthetic and spiritual value of wilderness should be reason enough to seek to protect nature. I certainly agree with this perspective and believe it even more now that I live in a city. Growing up in Colorado, nature was everywhere. I really did not think twice about the fact that if I wanted to climb a mountain (which by the way, I have not been brave enough to do since my last experience), go camping or even just spend an afternoon at the lake, I could easily pack up and do just that. Living here, however, the park area that surrounds the monuments is really the closest thing to nature that I can access which quite honestly, does not count as wilderness. Another reason to preserve natural land is for general human health. Construction and environmental destruction lead to excessive amounts of air and water pollution which the earth can not absorb. Also, some make the argument that we have a responsibility to the planet and the creatures which inhabit it to protect natural resources and wildlife. This is definitely not an exhaustive list of the reasons to protect the environment however they are the ones which strike me, personally, as the most persuasive.

Eco-Sacrifice?

Eco-tourism is a great idea, in theory. In practice, however, it is hard to argue that anything that endorses and/or demands flying can better the environment. While our interconnected world is unarguably benevolent on the larger scale, it also puts an undeniable strain on our environment. If there are ways to travel that do more good than harm, I am not privy to them. Anything close I can think to would be the exception, not the rule.

In light of both rich country visitors who give little thought to the environments of the places they travel and the British public per the article, a seeming feeling of negligence is inherent. I attribute this not to human apathy, but to a genuine lack of awareness. Even for the environmentally conscious, it is difficult to hold on to good eco-friendly habits when trying to explore a new place; to soak up as much of one's surroundings in as little time as possible. Vacation generally triggers a breaking free from mundane tasks of daily life. Unfortunately, environmental considerations are not exempt.

Depending on the plausibility of fairly immediate technological advancements, the environmental harms associated with flying should tweak the price of a trip to some extent. Albeit on a much smaller scale, the issue is reminiscent of the one raised in Bill McKibben's "Maybe One". Despite undeniable proof of the environmental degradation that a large population causes, it is absurd to expect the human race to change one of their most base and innate functions. Similarly, despite knowledge of the environmental cost of flying, people cannot be expected to forego flying, seeing loved ones, enriching their own lives, for the sake of the environment. This is aptly exemplified in the article. Understandably, people would rather part ways with their daily habits than their ability to fly as means of impacting the environment less. It is one thing to place the environment before minor daily conveniences and personal sacrifices, but another to deny existing relationships that are contingent on being able to fly.

I think the best approach, then, is finding a way to discourage--but not keep people from--flying. In my opinion, people are most likely to respond to economic incentives. At present, there are simply limited alternatives to flying. Affordable, low carbon alternatives do not exist. The article mentioned a government plan for a new high-speed rail network for short-haul flights. I think this would be largely effective. While it is unfair to ask people to revert back to not flying whatsoever, it is fair to ask them to avoid it when they can. Some places in the world are simply inaccessible without flying, however, many short-haul trips--Florida, for example-- are habitually flown due to lack of convenient options. I believe economic incentives to utilize technologies that are still fast and convenient over flying could counter this. Ed Miliband makes a stringent point in the article, commenting: "I don't want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly." Indeed, economic incentives should not take it to levels that would make it impossible to fly. A minor hike in prices, though, would a) make people at least give more consideration to each flight and b) allow more money for technological advancements to find efficient alternatives.

Eco-Tourism

As Lauren pointed out, travel in general is a contentious subject in our globalized world. We have developed such a complex way of life, a web that encompasses the entire globe, that a discussion about restricting access to distant locations seems a ludicrous step backward. International trade relies on air transportation to distribute food and goods in a web of cooperation and mutual dependence, which we have become increasingly accustomed and reliant upon. Eco-tourism relies on flying for people to not only enjoy the many wonders of the planet we live on, but to experience different cultures which in turn improves our understandings of other societies and improves global communication and peace initiatives.
While aviation has expanded such that we are able to establish such vast channels of communication and collaboration, the environmental harms associated with flying must be taken into account. For example the article in The Guardian passed along a warning that if the environmental harm caused by air transportation is not regulated, that emissions from global aviation could account for 15-20% of all CO2 produced in 2050. I personally cannot entirely wrap my head around this dilemma because I go back and forth arguing with myself. On the one hand, I think that certain aspects of globalization are incredibly important to the well being of the global population. I can’t imagine what the world would be like if we were to “downgrade” our traveling capacity by increasing the price of air travel. I think that a major danger would lie in the simultaneous existence of nuclear weaponry and a decrease in person-to-person contact across cultures. The dilemma lies here; is the significant decrease in negative environmental impact worth the collapse of the incredible global network we have established? I would have to agree again with Lauren and first suggest a focus on improved aviation technology. I think that international travel is much too important to extinguish due to inflated costs, and that emissions from other sources that have a better shot at substitutes should be tackled first.

Eco-Tourism

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the blog question for this week, "are there ways to travel that do more good than harm?" To be honest, after watching the video in class and thinking about the way that tourism functions in the world, I am having a very difficult time imagining how to travel in an eco-friendly way and still have vacationing benefits.

First of all, there is the issue of transportation. People vacation to take a break away from every day life and spend a week relaxing. This ussually means flying to a far-off location and in turn, using a lot of fuel. I read "The Image" by Daniel Boorstein earlier this semester and one of the things that he discussed is that modern traveling does not serve the same purpose as it did in earlier centuries because the journey to the destination is so simple and mindless. While I had some problems with Boorstein's analysis of the value of modern traveling, it is something to think about. What if we didn't fly to a destination but instead had to take a long slow journey by some other form of transportation. Would the end result even be worth the journey? Maybe that would benefit the environment but it really is disheartening to think that the best way to travel in a "green" way is to not travel at all.

Could other elements of the vacation offset the damage of flying? As far as adding the cost of environmental impact to the price of a trip goes, I can certainly understand how the extra money would deter travel and pay for environmental improvements. At the same time, I have a lot of questions. How would we go about assigning a price to environmental degradation? What if only the U.S. imposed this fine - would it be effective? Could this sort of policy really change people's feelings about travel or maybe just encourage them to spend more on the plane ticket and less on other parts of the vacation?

I tried to think of other ways to offset the environmental costs of flying to a tourist location. Eating local food, maybe? Then again, the video in class showed that local produce does not find its way into hotels. Perhaps the hotels could commit themselves to being eco-friendly in their practices. These sorts of scenarios, however, really do require an entirely new paradigm for not only travel but global economics, trade, corporate competition and social structures.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this week's discussion question has stumped me. Even though I am hopeful that there is a way to travel in an environmentally sound manner, I can not even fathom the paradigm in which something like that could be accomplished.

Eco-Tourism

I'm going to separate this response into two different responses; one part in response to the film and another part in response to the article because they present pretty different issues in my mind.

First, the film. 'Nicely done!' is my first response. I'm pretty impressed with those film making abilities. As far as their argument goes, I have to be boring on this one and say I definitely agree with them. Just like we should consider our economic impact in our everyday lives, we should consider it when we travel. However, like the students in the film, I also would stress the importance of doing research. This is a necessity in any environmentally friendly actions we take in our lives. It is true that there is a movement towards greener lifestyles and as a result, businesses looking to profit from this movement without having to incurr the costs of reshaping their industry are always going to take advantage of labels. Doing our research is important in everything these days from food to travel to beauty products. Knowing what ingredients to look for in foods is more important than a label that says "organic" and understanding what eco-tourism really is and making sure your travels comply is all part of the same equation. Unfortunately, in this market, it is up to the consumer to be responsible. People will travel, this is a fact, so making travels less harmful to the environment is important. But the consumer has to know their stuff and pay attention to avoid being sucked into a label.

As far as the article goes, there are a few angles I'd like to address. First of all, I believe economic insentives are a great way (and maybe one of the few viable ways) of changing behavior and promoting eco-friendly lifestyles, so taxing or increasing the cost of flights is definitely a good incentive. I can also see, however, that flying is a touchy and difficult subject. As was noted in the article, there is no eco-friendly alternative to flying...and no alternative to flying as a mode of transport in general. There is no faster way to get from one place to the other and with this globalizing world, we have become dependent upon flying. The problem with flying specifically is one of history...we have structured our lives around the ability to fly for so many years, it will be much harder to limit flying than to limit other environmentally harmful activities. Knowing that we had the technologies to fly and it could be relatively cheap, families moved far from one another, jobs began moving people back and forth, and vacation became only a fraction of the reasons for travel. For example, I'm from Colorado, but in deciding where to go to school, the question of the environmental impact of flying home was never a big issue. It's quite common to go to school out of state and flying home during breaks is a yearly activitiy for many students. Though I would like to fly less, this would involve transfering schools or not going home to see family and those are both big sacrifice to make. Like those polled in the article, I would much rather eat locally, save on energy, and ride my bike then transfer or never go home for visits. My sister works in Botswana...how do we solve that one? Families, jobs, and education are globalized and breaking down this lifestyle is an incredible challenge. Therefore, I would argue that, although I am usually all for economic incentives to reduce environmental harm, when it comes to flying, I believe it would be better to focus our energies on lowering the environmental impact of flying through new technologies for fuel and whatnot. With this globalized world, people will have to continue flying, so it is important to focus efforts on making flying more eco-friendly. I think this has a better chance of reducing the environmental impact of flying than economic incentives, at least until we find a way to de-globalize our lives.

Another Sperm Whale

This question struck an interesting chord with me. As basic as it is, the correlation between food and the environment seems almost contradictory. Our eating habits--one would think-- are one of our most natural functions. Paired with our seemingly learned habits--i.e. excessive consumerism-- food becomes a huge factor in the strain on finite but necessary resources that we must grapple with as a society. As Americans (read: sperm whales, a la Bill McKibben) it is important for us to do some introspection when it comes to our "ingrained" eating habits.

The connection between food and the environment was so foreign to me that I regard my learning it in this course a revelation of sorts. Despite this knowledge, I realized how minute a consideration the environment is in my food choices. In all honesty, the main decision-makers when it comes to eating are what's the most economical, delicious, and easiest. Essentially, it mostly comes down to economics. As a college student with limited funds, my priority is to eat as cost-effectively as possible. Further, as a college student, time is precious and food often falls low on the list of priorities. This makes me want to eat as easily and quickly as possible. The delicious factor becomes more of a consideration when at a restaurant. That, however, is also related to my finances. My mind frame is that if I'm paying for a meal, it's going to be something delicious and worthwhile. Admittedly, these considerations are selfish. Ideally, I would consider at least nutrition and hopefully the environment as well. I don't think that college eating habits are indicative of "real world" eating habits. That said, I eat fairly well for the environment. I'd say that 90% of my meals are vegetarian. Purely due to taste preferences, I rarely crave animal products and when I do, it's poultry or fish (although I now realize the fish part may be much more hazardous than I may have thought.) As far as beverages though, I mostly drink water from the tap. When on campus, I do find myself buying bottled water for convenience. I am an avid coffee drinker, but have adapted to bringing my travel mug EVERYWHERE to compensate.

Of the food items I consume on a day to day basis, frozen meals are probably the most environmentally harmful. While they provide convenience for my on-the-go lifestyle, I realize how much excess product is used to individually package meals. For the one, relatively small meal you're consuming, you are disposing of its contents in their entirety. That means every time I eat one (which is more often than I'd like to admit) I am adding plastic, cardboard, and who knows what else to our filling sinks.

There seems to be some sort of "extremist" connotation that comes along with making environmentally-conscious food choices. Vegans tend to suggest a certain type of person, when in reality diet choices should have little to do with one's personality. As a wrongdoer myself, I believe we need serious introspection and appropriate changes in our eating habits. Because we are fulfilling what we consider a basic function (that we have taken to unbasic heights) we often blindly consume our food, casting aside any consideration of the environment. However, for this very reason-- the sheer frequency with which we feed ourselves-- it is imperative that we reflect on our eating and how it contributes to the environment. We must get rid of the stigma that comes with environmentally conscious eating.

My Papaya

Like Ashley, when I am initially deciding what to eat I think about what I am in the mood for. What a luxury it is to be able to decide what to eat and when we want to eat it. After I rule out certain tastes, I think about balancing the meal. I make sure that I have covered all of my bases- protein, carbs, veggies, and fruit if I haven’t yet had any that day. If I am making the meal at home, I know where some of my ingredients are coming from. I buy my vegetables at the farmer’s market on 18th street on the weekends, and I buy the discarded cheese (no it has not gone bad!) from restaurants that have leftover stock during a menu-change. I must sheepishly admit that my motives for buying my vegetables and cheese where I do are primarily for taste and price; the environmental upside to these decisions is more of a convenient coincidence. I recently switched over to the vegetarian side of the isle, and have cut meat out of my diet with the exception of occasional fish. I began to have a difficult time digesting heavy meats and felt slightly nauseous after every hamburger, and the fact that meat is processed to an extreme and over-packaged and shipped to my grocery store only reinforced my desire to go veggie.

Of everything I have eaten today, the papaya I splurged on has probably had the greatest environmental impact. Though at first this seemed counter-intuitive to me, seeing as it is a fruit fresh from the earth and not a processed slab of sirloin steak, I researched the origins of my delicious fruit. Papayas are grown and cultivated in tropic regions, however my specific papaya was born and raised in either Florida or Hawaii (according to the species). While the environment was spared the shipment from a Caribbean island, my papaya still had to be packaged, preserved, and shipped to my grocery store all the way from the far reaches of the States. After researching all of the foods I ate today I realized that not only is it difficult to eat foods that are environmentally friendly, but it is also no easy task to find out where each item on your plate came from and what it went through to get onto your fork.

The Food Issue

Good food has been a fairly recent development in my life. Not good food in the form of taste and health (my mom is an excellent cook and a health freak all in one), but in the form of environmentally friendly foods. Most of my food life has been dependent upon someone else- my mother bought the food in our house and I ate it without thinking twice and then, for a few years, American University decided what I ate. Because of my beliefs and my growing interest in environmental issues, since I have become responsible for my own food, I have made it my goal to eat good food, which to me means environmentally friendly food. I work at a farmer's market and I get a discount on food, which makes it so very easy to buy a majority of my food locally and organically. For the rest of my food needs, I shop at Yes Organic!, partially because of the convenience factor; Yes is my closest grocery store. I've learned to read ingredients rather than jumping at the first sign of "organic" or "all natural" lables, which these days could mean simply good advertizing. I don't eat much meat, partially because it's expensive and I still struggle with cooking it, and partially because I like to keep myself out of that system.

All of that being said...I love to eat out at restaurants. I don't do it all that often, what with being a college student and all, but when I get the chance, I jump on it. When I eat out, all the farmer's market and Yes lessons go out the window. This is partly because I have little choice to transfer those values into the restaurant market; there are few restaurants that serve "good food" and those that do are usually over-priced for my budget. But it gets even better; guess what is my favorite thing to eat at a restaurant? A burger. A big, juicy, methane producing, land ruining burger. So when I say all food values fly out the window when I'm at a restaurant, I mean it. I guess in some way I've just cynically accepted that restaurants don't cater to environmentally friendly lifestyles, so there's nothing I can do about it but eat a good old juicy burger. When eating out, options are limited because of price and because of a lack of available "good food" restaurants.

It is also upsetting to me that I probably spend more money on food than the average person. I have chosen to make food an important investment in my life; something on which I am willing to spend a larger portion of my income. However, I worry that there will come a time that this will not be possible. That my budget will limit my ability to eat "good food." I think about this a lot while living my current lifestyle. It's sometimes easier as a student because I have a limited number of things for which I have to pay on a regular basis. I have more freedom to make these choices, but I'm not sure it will always be this easy.

As far as my food impact in the last day or two, the biggest impact helps to validate what I've already said; restaurant food. This evening I had drinks and appetizers with a friend. I have no idea where that brie cheese with fruit and spinach and artichoke dip came from, but I'm guessing it wasn't anywhere near here. Who knows what kind of damage was incurred to put those plates before me. Pesticides ruining soil and human health, deforestation perhaps, and lots of greenhouse gasses to get here. I guess I'll never know for sure.

Thoughts about food

Considering everything that I know about the impact the food system has on the environment, I wish I could say that the first thing that I consider when I eat is the ecological effect of my choices. In general, though, hunger wins out as the more pressing problem that needs to be taken care of at meal time. Before I select a meal, either in a restaurant or at home, the first think that goes through my head is , "What do I like or feel like eating?" This is very reflective of the fact that in today's market, we have access to every sort of food product that we could possibly want at any time of the year. The second thing I think about is the nutritional value of my meal - although most likely not in the traditional sense of nutrition. I grew up as a very active kid running from school to track to ballet. As a result, my diet had to take a very unusual form in order to keep me moving. Even today, now that I only exercise moderately, I have not broken the habit of asking myself how I can get the most calories, most protein and highest levels of iron out of a meal. This means that most of my meals consist of meat, grains and fruits, and then I really make an effort to squeeze in those green leafy vegetables which I hate so much but apparently have a lot of iron in them. I really do think about where my food comes from and if I don't like the answer, try to make changes. I try to avoid fast food and I get my produce from farmers markets when I can, but it is difficult to eat locally even most of the time, let alone all of the time. Over all, I can say that environmental issues do cross my mind pretty frequently when I think about food. I think about how far the food may have traveled to get to me and how much oil was used in production. The problem is that I don't really change these thoughts into actions.

Thinking about what I ate this week, I recognize that there is definitely not a huge amount of variety in my meals. Breakfast is something that I can eat on the go: bagel, toast or maybe cereal if I got up early enough to spare ten minutes before I leave. I pack my lunches and always have a sandwich, some sort of fruit and then snacks throughout the day. Dinner has been the one meal that I have really had to adjust to in college because it involves real cooking---something I'm not super skilled at. I have started to make casseroles at the beginning of the week, freeze them in portions and then put them in the microwave so that I do not have to cook every night and worry about leftovers spoiling quickly. I suppose the one thing I can say about this is that it eliminates a lot of waste. Food used to go bad before I had a chance to eat it. At the same time, my dinner tonight probably had the largest impact on the environment. This particular casserole had pasta, melted cheese, canned peas and ground beef mixed together and baked. Honestly, I don't know where the pasta, cheese and canned peas were before they hit the grocery store shelf but I can imagine it took a lot of industrial effort to get there. I do know that the beef came from Omaha and I can at least be glad to know that it was shipped from inside the U.S. instead of overseas.