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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Forced Eco-friendliness
Amidst various ecological predictions and suggestions, one theme becomes apparent. The future looks unavoidably bleak. That said, 200 years is a massive amount of time, especially when we consider the exponential growth-- both good and bad-- we have and will experience. When looking to the future, DC is in apt microcosm of our nation. With a concentration of our nation's leaders, affluent citizens, and a striking amount of poverty; DC is representative of an array of socioeconomic conditions. While I admit the future of the region looks bleak to me too, I do hold a bit of hope-- if not for optional personal lifestyle changes, at least for forced ones.
The DC I imagine would be substantially overcrowded, as it is a metropolitan area in a time of a projected population boom. I do not, however, imagine a sardine-effect. If it comes down to it, the poor may end up crowded out, but I do not foresee such an advanced city living shoulder to shoulder. I do foresee food shortages, and a huge reduction in clean water in general. I expect a great deal of technological advancements in the next 2 centuries, that-- similar to China-- would likely end in a great deal of pollution and an overuse of resources such as food. I expect housing to look quite different, with a lot less emphasis on massive properties and more of a shift to attached houses and more conservative use of space. I also foresee a shift to energy efficient public transportation and to extremely energy efficient personal vehicles, if any. I make these predictions not out of an idealistic hope in the publics' attitudes, but from unavoidable economic incentive. In 200 years, space, energy, and resources will be so scarce that economic patterns will force everyday goods to become luxury ones.
Further, I believe that in 200 years the political system will have no choice but to mold itself around environmental degradation. I expect environmental bills that seriously punish polluters and force the public into living more efficiently. I expect that, by then, at least our nation's leaders will be wise enough to note the imminence of environmental threats and make the necessary changes. I expect huge shifts to renewable energy resources such as wind and solar powered--well-- everything. This portion of my prediction is intertwined with the DC I hope for, but I do think this DC is within our reach. While I don't hold much hope for optional changes in lifestyles, I think that in 200 years' time the environment will have gotten so bad that the idea will no longer be abstract. I think the effects of environmental degradation will be comparable to how our nation reacts to an economic recession. It will be in their faces, and thus will force people-- especially politicians-- into larger-scale changes.
While not necessarily applicable to DC, as it is relatively affluent, I see us forced into a greener world in a bigger way. I foresee epidemics-- such as swine flu and AIDS-- and natural dis
The DC I imagine would be substantially overcrowded, as it is a metropolitan area in a time of a projected population boom. I do not, however, imagine a sardine-effect. If it comes down to it, the poor may end up crowded out, but I do not foresee such an advanced city living shoulder to shoulder. I do foresee food shortages, and a huge reduction in clean water in general. I expect a great deal of technological advancements in the next 2 centuries, that-- similar to China-- would likely end in a great deal of pollution and an overuse of resources such as food. I expect housing to look quite different, with a lot less emphasis on massive properties and more of a shift to attached houses and more conservative use of space. I also foresee a shift to energy efficient public transportation and to extremely energy efficient personal vehicles, if any. I make these predictions not out of an idealistic hope in the publics' attitudes, but from unavoidable economic incentive. In 200 years, space, energy, and resources will be so scarce that economic patterns will force everyday goods to become luxury ones.
Further, I believe that in 200 years the political system will have no choice but to mold itself around environmental degradation. I expect environmental bills that seriously punish polluters and force the public into living more efficiently. I expect that, by then, at least our nation's leaders will be wise enough to note the imminence of environmental threats and make the necessary changes. I expect huge shifts to renewable energy resources such as wind and solar powered--well-- everything. This portion of my prediction is intertwined with the DC I hope for, but I do think this DC is within our reach. While I don't hold much hope for optional changes in lifestyles, I think that in 200 years' time the environment will have gotten so bad that the idea will no longer be abstract. I think the effects of environmental degradation will be comparable to how our nation reacts to an economic recession. It will be in their faces, and thus will force people-- especially politicians-- into larger-scale changes.
While not necessarily applicable to DC, as it is relatively affluent, I see us forced into a greener world in a bigger way. I foresee epidemics-- such as swine flu and AIDS-- and natural dis
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A Positive Outlook on 2209
To fully appreciate the time span of 200 years I thought back to what it must have been like living in 1809. No widespread use of electricity, slow transportation (horse and buggy), and expensive local foods. To think what we as a species have created in 200 years is absolutely mind blowing, I bet Laura Ingalls Wilder didn’t even have the capacity to imagine such inventions as a hybrid car or the emergence of globalized trade.
Due to the fact that “going green” has become a more popular trend, if you will, I don’t think that we will be continuing on our current path for the next 200 years. In terms of population I don’t think that Washington DC will be home to an exorbitant amount of people based on the evidence we have looked at that population has begun to reach somewhat of a plateau. I think that because of where we are now in terms of becoming more environmentally friendly, the only way forward for us is up and out of the path of our own destruction. While progress has been slow, 200 years is quite a bit of time to see significant changes in the way we choose to live our lives. I think that by 2209 we will have encountered such a shortage in oil supply that we will have already developed and implemented widespread use of alternate energy sources. As we have discussed, it is difficult to change mass society’s habitual lives, but I think that DC along with the rest of the world will have made small incremental changes by 2209 resulting in a very different reality than ours today.
Transportation will probably become a balance between personal electric or solar-powered vehicles and energy efficient public transit. DC and New York are already becoming less hospitable to personal cars in terms of parking, and I think that an eventual phase-out of personal vehicles is imminent. As Ashley brought up, this may lead to less travel and decreased global contact, however I think that it is equally possible to foresee global travel switch over to a yet uninvented form of efficiency (i.e. solar powered planes?)
I choose to look more positively on the next 200 years. I have faith that our society will change its ways on a mass scale for the better, if not because we want to then because we will have no other choice.
Due to the fact that “going green” has become a more popular trend, if you will, I don’t think that we will be continuing on our current path for the next 200 years. In terms of population I don’t think that Washington DC will be home to an exorbitant amount of people based on the evidence we have looked at that population has begun to reach somewhat of a plateau. I think that because of where we are now in terms of becoming more environmentally friendly, the only way forward for us is up and out of the path of our own destruction. While progress has been slow, 200 years is quite a bit of time to see significant changes in the way we choose to live our lives. I think that by 2209 we will have encountered such a shortage in oil supply that we will have already developed and implemented widespread use of alternate energy sources. As we have discussed, it is difficult to change mass society’s habitual lives, but I think that DC along with the rest of the world will have made small incremental changes by 2209 resulting in a very different reality than ours today.
Transportation will probably become a balance between personal electric or solar-powered vehicles and energy efficient public transit. DC and New York are already becoming less hospitable to personal cars in terms of parking, and I think that an eventual phase-out of personal vehicles is imminent. As Ashley brought up, this may lead to less travel and decreased global contact, however I think that it is equally possible to foresee global travel switch over to a yet uninvented form of efficiency (i.e. solar powered planes?)
I choose to look more positively on the next 200 years. I have faith that our society will change its ways on a mass scale for the better, if not because we want to then because we will have no other choice.
What the Future Holds
I'll start by saying that this question appears very difficult to me. I have a hard time imagining what my life will be like 10 years from now, let alone what the world will look like in 200 years. Also, the prediction looks very different depending on how we deal with the issues of today. Though I hope for dramatic changes in our world, I have a hard time picturing this happening. With that little disclaimer, I will begin my predictions.
My dream would be that things would change dramatically today so that the future wouldn't be a dooms day. I do believe that if we continue on this path, the Earth will no longer be able to support future generations. I don't know what would be the effects of this. Would mass disease take over as a way of ridding of the human population? Could we become extinct due to severe weather and disease? I feel the Earth has a way of fighting against the ruin we have created. We already see fears of rising diseases and epidemics like AIDS and huge, out of the ordinary storms like Katrina. Perhaps going down this path would simply lead to more and more of these catastrophes until we are wiped out. I know it's not possible for us to continue down this same road and it seems these are the only reasonable expectations if we do.
If we are to change paths, however, and try for a better chance at survival, there's a lot that needs to change. For one, I think it's unfortunate that the world looks to the U.S. as an example of how to live and the U.S. enjoys the fame and goes with it. I think our examples should be countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are making incredible gains in renewable energies and earth saving technologies and lifestyles. The U.S. is strides behind them. Part of the reason we're so behind is that our culture is much more consumer driven than that of the more socialist countries in Scandanavia. Our culture, which supports a certain view of the economy and materialism, should not be the example for the world. In fact, it should be the example of what not to do. The U.S. should represent to the world the fact that GDP is an ignorant representation of economic health, that consumerism makes for an unhappy, materialistic culture that can only cause harm to our Earth, and the health of the environment is not a political issue, it's a human issue. In my opinion, the U.S. has too far to go for the world to wait for our example. By the time we get around to being that example, changing our culture, our economic structure, our technology, it will be too late. So first, we have to change our angle. Let's look to countries with strong socialist programs and environmentally friendly lifestyles that are flourishing today. Then we can have a goal to work towards, an example to follow starting today.
Following these examples will force us to change our view of the economy; to stop holding our breaths during stock market announcements, arguing the health of the economy based on GDP and growth, and promoting consumerism to heal our economic and social woes. Instead, we will have to promote a green economy, consider growth to be the amount of resources preserved and recycled, look upon living with less as the utmost respectable social value, and promote an appreciation of nature. If we aim for this goal, perhaps 200 years from now we will live in small communities, sharing small amounts of resources, and interacting with nature in the way most animals do; a give and take, not a form of domination.
My dream would be that things would change dramatically today so that the future wouldn't be a dooms day. I do believe that if we continue on this path, the Earth will no longer be able to support future generations. I don't know what would be the effects of this. Would mass disease take over as a way of ridding of the human population? Could we become extinct due to severe weather and disease? I feel the Earth has a way of fighting against the ruin we have created. We already see fears of rising diseases and epidemics like AIDS and huge, out of the ordinary storms like Katrina. Perhaps going down this path would simply lead to more and more of these catastrophes until we are wiped out. I know it's not possible for us to continue down this same road and it seems these are the only reasonable expectations if we do.
If we are to change paths, however, and try for a better chance at survival, there's a lot that needs to change. For one, I think it's unfortunate that the world looks to the U.S. as an example of how to live and the U.S. enjoys the fame and goes with it. I think our examples should be countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are making incredible gains in renewable energies and earth saving technologies and lifestyles. The U.S. is strides behind them. Part of the reason we're so behind is that our culture is much more consumer driven than that of the more socialist countries in Scandanavia. Our culture, which supports a certain view of the economy and materialism, should not be the example for the world. In fact, it should be the example of what not to do. The U.S. should represent to the world the fact that GDP is an ignorant representation of economic health, that consumerism makes for an unhappy, materialistic culture that can only cause harm to our Earth, and the health of the environment is not a political issue, it's a human issue. In my opinion, the U.S. has too far to go for the world to wait for our example. By the time we get around to being that example, changing our culture, our economic structure, our technology, it will be too late. So first, we have to change our angle. Let's look to countries with strong socialist programs and environmentally friendly lifestyles that are flourishing today. Then we can have a goal to work towards, an example to follow starting today.
Following these examples will force us to change our view of the economy; to stop holding our breaths during stock market announcements, arguing the health of the economy based on GDP and growth, and promoting consumerism to heal our economic and social woes. Instead, we will have to promote a green economy, consider growth to be the amount of resources preserved and recycled, look upon living with less as the utmost respectable social value, and promote an appreciation of nature. If we aim for this goal, perhaps 200 years from now we will live in small communities, sharing small amounts of resources, and interacting with nature in the way most animals do; a give and take, not a form of domination.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
2209
It is hard to imagine what DC will look like in 200 years because it is difficult to fathom any other lifestyle besides the one that we all lead right now. Never the less, considering the change that has occurred in the last 200 years, I can guess that 2209 will look very different from 2009, especially if we continue on the same destructive path that we are on right now.
First and foremost, there will definitely be more people living in DC---and every other part of the world. People will have to find new ways to cope with crowded living situations, transportation mechanisms and resource distributions. One resource that I expect to be monitored very closely is oil. In fact, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that oil will be rationed amongst the population. As a result, people will be forced to find more efficient ways to live. They might expand public transportation and find ways to become more self sufficient within their own local living area. If there is not a lot of oil, people will travel less and food will have to come from more local sources (so selection would decrease). Ultimately, though, the failure to plan for environmental degradation and resource depletion will lead to a society that will be constrained by its lack of oil and subsequent inability to travel.
Ideally, society will not reach a point where it has depleted natural resources so severely that basic travel and food selection become intensely limited. It would be better if generations prior to that of 2209 (hint, hint), began to take measures to conserve resources, reduce waste and develop alternative forms of energy. If this happens, 2209 in DC might use a diverse range of energy sources to power itself including renewable fuels, solar and wind energy and moderate amounts of national oil. DC could be a city that consumes less, wastes less and ultimately creates less of an ecological mess on the planet. Travel would be possible and food systems could be regional--but probably shouldn't be global. People would not be constrained by oil rations because oil will have become only a single part of the city's sources of energy.
On a related note, this particular discussion question suggested that we consider water systems for the future of DC. When I thought about this, I realized that I have no idea where DC's water comes from. This struck me as unusual because in Colorado, water rights are such contentious issues that people are pretty aware of where their water comes from. It is something important that I wish I knew more about and this discussion question has prompted me to look into.
First and foremost, there will definitely be more people living in DC---and every other part of the world. People will have to find new ways to cope with crowded living situations, transportation mechanisms and resource distributions. One resource that I expect to be monitored very closely is oil. In fact, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that oil will be rationed amongst the population. As a result, people will be forced to find more efficient ways to live. They might expand public transportation and find ways to become more self sufficient within their own local living area. If there is not a lot of oil, people will travel less and food will have to come from more local sources (so selection would decrease). Ultimately, though, the failure to plan for environmental degradation and resource depletion will lead to a society that will be constrained by its lack of oil and subsequent inability to travel.
Ideally, society will not reach a point where it has depleted natural resources so severely that basic travel and food selection become intensely limited. It would be better if generations prior to that of 2209 (hint, hint), began to take measures to conserve resources, reduce waste and develop alternative forms of energy. If this happens, 2209 in DC might use a diverse range of energy sources to power itself including renewable fuels, solar and wind energy and moderate amounts of national oil. DC could be a city that consumes less, wastes less and ultimately creates less of an ecological mess on the planet. Travel would be possible and food systems could be regional--but probably shouldn't be global. People would not be constrained by oil rations because oil will have become only a single part of the city's sources of energy.
On a related note, this particular discussion question suggested that we consider water systems for the future of DC. When I thought about this, I realized that I have no idea where DC's water comes from. This struck me as unusual because in Colorado, water rights are such contentious issues that people are pretty aware of where their water comes from. It is something important that I wish I knew more about and this discussion question has prompted me to look into.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)