If We Each Did Our Part...

In class we have been discussing how there are little things that everyone can do within their lives to help combat the problem of global warming, but how that is simply not enough. I fully agree with this statement, but what if everyone did this? What would happen if everyone got solar panels on their house, and if everyone recycled, and if everyone used a reusable water bottles, and if everyone changed their light bulbs? The little things add up. If everyone bought more fuel efficient cars and bought locally grown food would that make a difference? I truly believe that if we can get everyone on board to do only the little things we will see a big change. The United States is a nation of 300 million people. If all of these people changed their ways and focused on how their actions have direct and immediate outcomes, we would be combating the problem on global climate disruption. The little actions are obviously not a solution, but they could be a step in the right direction.  What do you guys think? If everyone did the little things would it add up?

Arrogance

While reading for another class in the past few day, I learned that the United States spends more than any other public entity on climate change research, but we are the least receptive to the data give. We also forced the European Union and other nations to add things like cap and trade programs to the Kyoto Protocol, but then we never ratified it. I've been thinking lately that there will come a time when the world's other nations won't put up with our actions anymore. Is it fair that the European Union is trying to its best to reduce their impact and help to slow the trend of  global warming and the United States as a federal government refuses to even address the problem? Many states have individual climate change legislation- but that makes our nation look even worse. That the states have to deal this immediate and serious problem because the federal government will not. I think that there will come a time in the very near future where the rest of the world is not going to allow us to keep on living as we do. We need to change out habits in order to combat climate change and I think at this point the only way that will happen in through international pressure.

Keystone Pipeline

One of the major environmental dilemma we are facing in modern day is the decision to build or to not build the Keystone Pipeline. This has been a huge controversy among the environmentalists who believe that the building of this pipeline, along with various others negative environmental ramifications, will be a step in the wrong direction in relation of green energy. There is a planned protest next Saturday, April 26, in D.C. that is being sponsored by Bill McKibben's group 350.org to urge President Obama to not approve of the plan. I personally believe that the building of the pipeline is a completely unnecessary action. Our main focus should be on clean, renewable energy and not the transportation of "dirty" oil. We have already reached peak oil and trying to obtain every last drop of oil is not a solution. We need to convey the message that green energy is the step we need to invest in. The pipeline is a symbol of the current actions we are taking to please the oil-loving masses, I just don't understand why the focus isn't on renewable energy. It is a known fact that we will run out of oil in the near future, so why is the world still dependent on it? All of our efforts should be on making this planet sustainable for the next generation, and the refusal from the President to build the pipeline is a step in the right direction. If you are interested in the protest, you should check out the link below!

http://350.org/campaigns/stop-keystone-xl/

Scientific Ethics

In my Environmental Politics & Policy class today the topic was brought up of scientific ethics in relation to the giving of grants. I know we talked about this a bit in one class, but I think it is a really important topic. Almost the whole class was in agreement that politics should stay out of science, but what happens when scientist are granted federal funds for their research? Is this better than private industry conducting research? I think that this is a huge problem we are facing in the current day with the huge privatization of research. Science is one pure medium, where things are mostly black and white - your hypothesis was correct or it wasn't. That is why I am so drawn to science, as I like things in black and white as opposed to the gray world we live in, but is the science industry going gray? These are just some thoughts I had, that I am definitely going to research further into. Especially with the ever looming threat of global climate disruption, we need all the research we can going into the fields of energy and modeling - but is this research all up to par? Or is it representing what big industry wants to portray?

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is the engineer I was talking about in class - but I perhaps got a few of my facts wrong. I am posting the 60 Minutes story on him below and I highly suggest you all check it out. It's only ten minutes and you learn a lot. This guy is transforming technology, but as we talked about in class - is this for the better? I think that his car company will transform the way that cars are built, bought, and driven and that his contract with NASA is just a testament of his ability and work ethic. If you still don't believe in his vision.... He's the guy who created PayPal. He wanted to go to Mars as a child and perhaps with his mid - that's a plausible goal. Again - check out this interview!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-industrial-empire/

Winter Temps

This is the map I was talking about in class. I think that this map is a perfect representation of how climate change is affecting our day-to-day lives. While reading for my Environmental Policy & Politics class, I recently discovered that many people don't believe that climate change has already begun and I feel like this map right here helps to prove it. Yes this winter might be part of a natural weather cycle - but compared against previous years we can use this to determine how our climate is going to change in the next decade or so. I put the link of the website where the map is from below. Let me know what you guys think about this!


http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/03/where-would-winter-temperatures-place-your-city-in-the-us/

An Inconvenient Truth

I am so glad that we watched An Inconvenient Truth. In today's society Global Warming or Global Climate Change or Global Climate Disruption is a highly prevalent issue that was human induced. The majority of citizens in our country are contributors to this global altering problem, yet they don't understand the ramifications of their actions. Global climate disruption as seen through our reading and through the movie is supported by all but a few scientist, yet I don't think that the common man knows all the results of this. Today there is a huge greenwashing campaign, and like we have discussed in class, its the popular choice to be green, but do people really understand what it means to be green and what might happen if we don't change our ways? Look at situations like Hurricane Sandy or the droughts that are plaguing the West. I think everyone needs to know the inconvenient truth that we caused these events and more like it are coming. Everyone needs to understand the ramifications of our actions. I am a huge supporter of public education of this this issue that rapidly changes with new data. Even the data in the movie was inconsistent with today's data and I believe all citizens need to be educated on this issue - and so does our President. He recently released a rollout plan for a new government website that is aimed at presenting climate change data in a visually appealing manner. I highly suggest you read the article from the New York Times that describes the site in detail that I've posted below, as well as the site itself which is also posted.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/white-house-to-introduce-climate-data-website.html
climate.data.gov

Responsibility

Class this week got me to really think about responsibility and how it relates to care taking. If stewardship isn't the right word for our relationship with the Earth - I think we need another one. Because of our cognitive ability, we became the care takers of the planet, but I think that that needs to be defined and analyzed. If we look back to the bible the earth was given to Adam and Eve to take care of - is that the same responsibility we have with the Earth today? Or did the responsibility stem from the fact that we use the planet for our own benefit, thus we have to take care of it? Or is it solely because of our cognitive ability? If we need to have a relationship with the planet that is beyond it stemming from humans benefiting from the resources it posses, then I think that we need to define that relationship and give it a label/term. I feel like if stewardship doesn't have all the right connotations, we need to find another word that does. Words are really powerful and perhaps if we could label our relationship, people might have a better chance of understanding why they should care for the planet.

Stewardship

Looking over my notes from class, one statement that I have jotted down is "Adopting the assumption that if all living things were treated as we treat humans, the world would be a better place". That really stuck out to me. I am a firm believer in the beliefs of preservation and the ethical treatment of animals, but I am also a believer in the food chain. I don't think that animals should be treated in the same manner that humans are. Now that doesn't mean that I am not a fan of the Endangered Species Act or that I don't think that we should do all we can to preserve a species's habitat, but I do think that the human species is on the top of the food chain. We are the dominant predators and should thus act in a sustainable manner toward that goal. For thousands of years man lived off the land, hunting - that is only human nature. I think that we should follow suit in a sustainable way. Humans are the dominant species on the Earth and we need to take care of it in such a manner. Stewardship is a concept that we should be focusing on as a species, and if we could parallel that thought with sustainability I think that the species as a whole would be in a much better place. Humans are also animals and we should work within our food chain acting in that manner - respecting animals, but also not losing the fact that we are not better than other animals- just different.

Russow

One major takeaway, for me, from this week's readings was the fact that I really didn't like Russow's claim. I understood her general hypothesis, but for me it wasn't enough to agree with her. It's agreeable that duty can't be assigned to a class and really only to persons - but then I don't think that duty was the correct term to be using in her essay. One of my major complaints about her argument is her failure to include a value system to appropriate which duties are given to each species. If she is going to make that a part of her argument in deciding duty, she should briefly explain why she thinks some animals would get a "weaker or stronger" duty. I think by doing that she would be better able to attract people to her warrants. Another issue I have with her argument is that if you have two individuals of the same species, how can you decide to which one do you owe more duty? Because you really can't do that it would only be logical to have the same duty to each member of that community - which in turn is allowing community duties, undermining her entire argument; as does the value of habitat. How can you give duty to an animal without giving duty to its immediate habitat as well? I can appreciate Russow's argument for what it is, but I just don't think that I will be jumping on the aesthetic value of animals any time in the near present.

Ethics and the Great Muir/ Pinchot Debate

As an environmental studies major, you learn - in almost every class- about the debate between John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Muir was a preservationist who was the founder of the Sierra Club and Pinchot was the first director of the Forest Service. In Ramachandra Guha's piece, both Muir and Pinchot were brought up which caused me to think about them in a more philosophical way than I normally do, as I think about this great men often. I think it is funny to mention that though Muir and Pinchot had a rivalry in how to deal with the lands of the United States, they were actually really good friends until they got into a huge public argument in the lobby in a Seattle hotel about the grazing of sheep on mountains and the destruction,or lack thereof depending on whose view you are taking, and never spoke again. But looking at there views on the environment as preservation (Muir) v. conservation (Pinchot), isn't that in all essence just a ethically debate about an anthropocentric view on the environment versus an non anthropocentric one? Muir wanted to preserve the land, just to preserve the land, just to have it. Pinchot wanted to protect the environment in order to use it for human gain through the means of logging, grazing, ect. Isn't this in all reality just a debate about how we should look at the environment? I never have thought about it in those terms before, and I am really glad I did- it has given me a new outlook on two men I thought I knew almost everything about.

BioPrefernces

One topic that really intrigued me this week was the thought of bio-preferences. Personally, I think that it is a great way to think when regarding consideration. I have been thinking a lot about the thought that preference is more important that consciousness; and I believe that if there could be a strong division between what is alive and what is not, this could be a really strong belief system. It is true that the whole point of life is trying to stay alive, so wouldn't make sense that moral consideration should be given to all that strive to keep on living? I understand the ramifications that come with thought when you get into objects that are not living, but in a sense maybe these non-living things shouldn't get moral consideration, but respect. I really like the thought of bio-preferences, despite the compilations that come with it. I have been giving it a lot of though lately and personally it makes a lot of sense.

Deep Ecology

Through our reading I came across a really interesting idea. It was that "bioregions should replace nation-states as the fundamental geographical unit in terms of which humans think and live." I gave this idea a lot of thought and to me it seems to make sense. This would of course would never be realistic in today's society with set in place nations, but the idea as a whole would be comprehensible. People living in the same bioregion are obviously more likely to have similar traditions, views, and religious beliefs. Look for instance at the United States. The climate of New England is dissimilar from that of the more southern states, as are a lot of the traditions, views, and religious beliefs. Would this make sense for larger countries to be divided into bioregions or for smaller countries to expand and combine to form these bioregion nations? Bioregion nations would also have the same concerns when it comes to the environment as it is the same climate with the same kinds of vegetation throughout. I feel like these bioregions would make it easier to govern, especially when it came to environmental policy.

Bill Mckibben

During our discussion today, I am so glad that Bill McKibben was mentioned. I am a huge fan of his and am a true believer in all that he has to say. I actually heard him speak in Washington, D.C. last February at the Forward on Climate rally and it was one of the most memorable experiences of my young life thus far. It was so inspiring to hear him speak, especially surrounded by over 40,000 like minded individuals; it is something I highly advocate for everyone to do. I think he is such a great model for the issue of climate change; he never set out to become a huge advocate for climate change, he just happened to become the voice of it because in all reality there was no one else.

More people need to see the dangers of climate change and though the percentage of people who believe in climate change has shifted to 70% (http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012) thats not enough.... Everyone needs to understand this serious problem so that we don't end up like the dinosaurs - quickly evolving to adapt to our surroundings or that we don't become the dinosaurs. We are such a smart species with highly varied accomplishments but its high time to look at all the environmental repercussions of our success and take responsibility. This is a global initiative that needs to happen, and in my opinion is not getting enough attention.

Essay 1

In this chapter what I found most interesting were the thought of ecofeminism and the "Gaia hypothesis". The thought that James Lovelock presents is that the Earth behaves as one single organism and the flora and fauna that inhibit the Earth act together in a way that regulates the climate and produces the best conditions for life. I think that this hypothesis is key in understanding why all living things are essential. This can be seen especially through keystone species- but it needs to be emphasized that each species on this planet has a specific job and niche as a result of evolution. But Lovelock is more focused on how the changes will force the Earth into a new equilibrium that may in fact not be able to provide a suitable habitat for humans. This theory is one that I most definitely want to focus on more in depth. The thought that all the flora and fauna on Earth create an equilibrium that is perfect for human habitat and we must focus on that equilibrium in order to save human life is a bit too anthropocentric for my personal taste though. I believe that we should be focusing on saving the symbiosis of the plants and animals on this planet for the sole reason that it is our responsibility as a dominant species, that has in fact been a key part in the destruction of the habitat of these plants and animals.

The other idea that struck me as particularly interesting in this chapter was ecofeminism. The thought that both women and nature are dominated that is "wrong and ought to be eliminated" is something that I had never thought of before. The thought put forth by ecofeminists that "all ethical views... are products of particular world views, contexts, and locations" is a particularly striking. I think that this way of thinking of ethical views is one that needs to be addressed. Are ethical views products of contexts and locations or are they something ingrained in human consciousness. It is also argued that ecofeminist ethics grow out of "defining relationships", especially relationships of humans caring for non-humans and environments. I really want to discuss this a bit more as it is a little confusing, but overall I found this way of thinking of environmental ethics different in the way that is takes a complete different argument than the other ways of thinking presented in this chapter. 

First Post

Hello all!

I once again just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Abbey. I am an environmental studies major with the hopes of  eventually becoming an environmental lawyer focusing on policy making. I have a strong background in the scientific workings of the environment as well as the laws in place in this country in relation to the environment; and through this class I hope to gain more knowledge about the point of views and writings devoted to the ethics of the environment - even though today in class we learned that environmental ethics is a bit of an oxymoron.


I found today's class particularly simulating in relation to biocentrism. I find that way of thought so interesting - how people like the Jains are so considerate of the environment around them in contrast to individuals who have no consideration of the environment that encompasses their whole lives. Much like we talked about on the scale of animal ethics and how we need to take care of our dogs because it was through human action that they became domesticized, I feel like the same is true in regards to the environment. The environment today is a direct result of human action; and it is only once that we accept this responsibility and try to change activities that cause harm will improvements be seen.

I am looking forward to many more stimulating discussions throughout this semester!