Products/Waste

"The practice of designing products and the processes for making those products in environmentally responsible ways is known as Design for the Environment. Its goals of protecting environmental systems from harm, protecting human health and safety, and the sustainability of natural resources apply over the full product and process life cycle. Its practice focuses on reducing on reducing the use of hazardous substances, minimizing consumption of energy and resources, reducing waste, and expanding thelife cycle of products through recycling and reuse." (Robertson. 2014) Although this quote sits at the beginning of chapter fourteen, DFE is probably one of the most important proposals for reform that I have ever come across. And that is saying something since I attempted to do recycle mania quite a few times. The proposal brings to life products that we use, it personalizes their use so that we think of the object as telling us important truths about ourselves. This means we are more likely to find solutions to pollution spread by waste products. We eat from reusable bowls and cups. We live scantily with what we have with constant care for our items. We buy based on need. We produce naturally rather than rely on artificiality. This action plans requires what Robertson calls for, that is,"Zero Waste requires changes to policies and laws..."(Robertson, 2014). To speak the obvious... But the quote surrounds itself with amazing insights into why products should be geared to creating Zero Waste, namely that they provide incentives for reusing and recycling that go along with institutional economic incentives. Likewise, this appeal to safe urchases, reusable goods, and incentives to recycle reinforce," the waste  known as the 3Rs..." (Robertson, 2014) -- that is, to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Food

"The Food Bill codifies the rules of the entire food economy" (Food inc, 2008) This idea from Food Inc about corn production is an astounding observation that I didn't know. The fact that mass production contributes to monocropping oriented production and Food Factories which also has created a codified set of legal obligations in order to keep up with mass production is not only scary but it has attendant effects in the way we consume our goods and the way workers in laboratories and in factories are treated. It strengthens one of the main claims of the film -- that due to the Green Revolution and the allusion of convenience, what we eat today isn't the same foods we were eating 50 to 70 years ago, which came from farms that seasonally produced crop. This raises questions concerning the health of the corn we eat, especially with the laboratory ingredients in most foods like High Fructose Corn Syrup, the cereals we buy, the burgers we eat, and many of the foods that we continue to enjoy at a mere convenience. In other words, our consumption helps contribute to market oriented food production that provides for only those who can pay in exorbitant fees for unhealthy foods. Robertson discusses a similar topic when she says,"Industrialized agriculture uses a method  of planting called monoculture, designed to boost efficiency, in which fields are planted with single types of crops. (Robertson, 2014)" This factory style production, whether in the fields of in actual food factories where they raise chickens or cows or pigs (etc.), contributes to obesity and a lack of energy as well as increased rates of disease, depression, and many other issues which destroy the equilibrium of mind and body, ethics and economy, and society and nature.

However interesting Food Inc is and the ideas and examples shown to us throughout the film, there is one interesting use of language that is glaring in the words "veil" and "factory" as repeated in the film by Michael Pollen. That is, that he wants to open of the veil, which is an allusion to W. E. B. Du Bois' Souls of Black Folk, which, in turn, was written from a socialist perspective. Likewise, the metaphor of a "Factory" was popularized by labor movements influenced by the great philosopher Karl Marx during the Industrial Revolution -- Anarchists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists, and any other extreme social engineering movements have used this metaphor ever since. These two word uses must give the viewer pause, if only to find bias in the movies tone and rhetoric. This bias, however, is not unwarranted. The documentary continues to defends its argument admirably and seeks to convince people to eat healthier. I must say, I am convinced that Tyson is a factory head attempting to enslave my taste buds. Just kidding. To be honest, I don't think our food system as represented in Food Inc. follows the three E's of sustainability, and that is the sad part since, well, Equity is important for any social or financial contract, economic benefit is extremely important for anyone and any country who wishes to expand markets and decrease inflationary negation of currency value, and the environment is an important center for human well-being, a place that must be protected. To conclude, most of the video's ideas was already well known to me, but the use of language caught my interest and made me think deeper about what I was being told from a philosophical and political standpoint as well as from a concerned viewers standpoint.


http://dgeneralist.blogspot.com/2013/11/4-perfect-reason-to-make-you-have-your.html

Livable Cities

"Sprawl is characterized by low density, lane use, single use zoning, and automobile dependency. Sprawl has many negative effects..." (Robertson, 2014)

Many indeed. Sprawl is characterize by the Eisenhower years and the economic expansion found post-world war two, although we see many incidents of sprawl throughout american and global history: the deforestation of France and Germany during the Middle Ages, the colonial ventures in the Early Modern Period, the expansion of the railroads in the 1800s, the New Deal under FDR, and the suburban construction projects and interstate highway system build by Eisenhower are just a few examples. Why must we grow out when growing up is perfectly fine? Could we claim the the pressures of overpopulation and the traumas of modernity have put a strain on people's need for privacy and in doing so have encouraged a desire to build a house outside the population dense zones of cities, into the suburbs. "Sprawl affects not only planetary health of social and individual health as well." (Roberston, 2014) This is true in more ways than one, but what major problems faced with sprawl is increased obesity. By localizing, towns and people can build municipal areas more likely to be helpful for the individual across the board. This would drastically reduce VMTs that greatly increase the amount of carbon emissions we have, consequently, been emitting. This requires new ways to plan cities. I don't think many citizens would disagree with the statement: "most cities in the USA can use a re-planning and rebuilding project. This means, as Robertson says, cities must plan their cities using the "Five Ds: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, and distance to travel" (Robertson, 2014). My one concern however is the tensions that grow between people in overly dense, regulated environments. Think about the regimes in charge of Rwanda leading up to the Genoce: highly regulated, locally planned, and extremely dense population. Although the massacres did not seem to be related to overpopulation and was driven by ethnic and racial hatred between the Tutsis and Hutus, the environment must've had some effect on the outcome of the gruesome events to happen in 1994. My last concern is that these newly planned cities will encourage a less active lifestyle in international relations, which means the global disasters may be less readily stoppable or we may be less able to act if focusing on regional life. This scares me... especially with the genocides and human rights violations upon genocides we find in the world in the past and present. I fear that an internal focus may blind the USA and other nations to help countries like Rwanda.

https://nogenocide.ru/post/5

Energy

Creating ways to collect sustainability is a growing field in capitalist markets around the world. I think in this chapter Robertson does a good job of giving us a run down about the different kinds of energy and the pros and cons of most. She is right to say,"We live in a high energy society based on fossil fuels" (Robertson, 2014). Examine your own life, all we use is gas and coal to power our homes, our cars, and even many of the devices we think to be sustainable. But how do we change that? How do we incentivize other forms of energy? Again, I think Robertson does a good job of explaining action plans that could be applied to our own lives as well as those of city and town planners. "Effective plans take an integrated approach, considering building as a whole system whose components influence each other" (Robertson, 2014). This type ofplan and some of the other solutions she proposes reminds of a former player of one of my favorite soccer teams, Matheiu Flamini. Over the last couple years, Flamini has taken what he has earned from being a professional soccer player and invested it into a company called GF Biofuels, where he and other advocates of sustainable energy have been testing the capacity of Levulinic Acid to fuel our cars and homes. According to his company, LA can be safely used in food packaging (and is biodegradable) and in our homes cook our foods and clean our kitchen. Hence, Flamini believes the chemical might allow offer a sustainable and holistic chemical that can be used to stop carbon emissions and protect the health of our planet and our own lives. Since revealing that he was one of the CEOs of the company, his investment has risen in value as share projections suggest he could be worth well over a billion after developing a plan to make Levulinic Acid on a commercial scale. I think this ties into Roberston's book when Robertson says,"Making the transition to a post-carbon  world is a mutli-faceted undertaking. (Roberston, 2014). She later gets into the three strategies we can employ to reduce our use of fossil fuels -- this is exactly what Flamini has aimed to do.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/football/741763/mathieu-flaminis-no-fuel/

Pollution

"Neurotoxins attack nerve cells, causing permanent neurological damage. Neurotoxins include heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and many pesticides,..." (Robertson, 2014)

And to think that because of pollutants like oil being spouted off into the sea like the shouts of a man at the top of a canyon, echoing into the skins and cells of fish. And we the consumers eat that flesh with whimsical desires, eating without knowing that perhaps this white sea bass is full of mercury, like the planet, deadly and toxic. And what does mercury do to me eventually? It destroys my brain, counteracting the Omega oils that help that brain develop. That is a scary thought, that toxins we expound onto the world with gleeful carelessness are slowly deteriorating, rotting, melting that which every human cherishes the most, the system that gives our contemplative demeanor, our compassionate responses, our ability to communicate beyond a private language. Our mental impressions, the effect force of the will of the brain, are the monads that Leibniz claims strings us together in the Eternal Grace of God. As an agnostic, I generally take a different route -- I choose to describe this phenomena of collective unity or consciousness in terms of String Theory, where we are the musical impressions of one dimensional strings that continue to create wavelengths that are our existence, our reality. But I digress... The idea that there are so many man-made pollutants scares me. I mean, think about what Robertson calls Endocrine Disruptors, which disrupt our normal hormonal functions, generally acting not unlike estrogen -- a chemical that encourages more feminine development -- "Phthalates are carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, widely used as plastic softeners in toys and food packaging and as a fragrance-enhancersin cosmetics. BPA is another mutagen and endocrine disruptor used in manufacturing poly-carbonate plastics for products including water bottles, food can linings, and tooth sealants;" (Roberston, 2014). One question worth contemplating is whether the long term effects of using these chemicals are encouraging us to loosen restrictions on sexuality? It has been proposed that that Catholic Laws condemning sodomy when Gratian codified his Decretum were the product of the catholic church attempts o create societal order. In which case, anyone caught performing acts other than missionary were made to do penance, and those which were caught perform rectal sexual acts were also punished in the same way. Over time, although the allure of homosexuality did not stop, these laws became socially accepted by Medieval and Early Modern Europe -- despite their conception of sexuality being a lot more open than it is today. With the increased exposure to chemicals acting similar to estrogen make more effeminate men? Making everyone more emotional individuals? Is this why we are seeing changes in law in favor of the LGBT community? This is both a crazy thought but also an appealing thought, a silver lining as it were, despite the chemicals' negative effects. That being said, her chapter on pollution is illuminating. My favorite quote was this one: "Pollution does not have to be inevitable. It is in fact a symptom of poor design, a sign of inefficiency."(Robertson. 2014). Although I cringe at utilitarianism, I can comfortably that that this quote gives someone the hope that things can change and any lasting change, in my opinion, begins with a sign, a ray, a touch of hope.


https://plus.maths.org/content/researching-unknown-string-theory


http://www.123rf.com/photo_46226801_stock-vector-poster-with-lgbt-support-phrase-rainbow-flag-as-a-background-and-black-text-love-is-a-human-right.html

Ecosystems and Habitat

"Ocean fisheries are collapsing, forests and wetlands are disappearing, and deserts are advancing. A process known as the sixth mass extinction is underway, with species going extinct at a rate not seen in 65 million years." (Robertson, 2014)

Why are our habitats disappearing? And I emphasize the "our" because we and the wildlife that is around us are interrelated. This is what a lot of people do not understand. The quote from Robertson's text. however, is just plain fear mongering to forward a certain image of the future. Yes, statistical date is overwhelming leaning toward bad signs, but the "sixth mass extinction"? This is overreaching, especially considering we can only conjecture about the realities of the past and future no matter what evidence we collect. We are inferring that this is so based on the evidence we've collected. We cannot realistically prove this to be true despite deductive validity. It is, as Plato would outline, just a shadow on the cave wall. If we were omniscient. then we could resolutely describe the process that is occurring, but what if, in the next 20 years, regardless of our projections, the natural world recovers some of its past affluence? We must be open to an idealistically future if we are going to change the way we think about the world, and fear-mongering is the least constructive way to create impetus. This begins by asking the question: what is essential to our way of life and what can be overlooked? As Robertson says,"land clearing for crops destroys the largest percentage of terrestrial habitat" (Robertson, 2014). This is a classic case that begs the question: what land do we need for crop production and what and are we using in excess? In terms of market value, just as the SEC has been doing to Securities Law in recent years, perhaps more regulation on land use is an important step for idealistic change, that protects capitalist, personal interests and collectively creates, within reason, safeguards to construct a more healthy worldview. I think Robertson again brings this to light in this chapter despite the fear mongering introduction. For example, she says,"Conserving or restoring ecosystem health involves three broad fields... reservation, restoration, reconciliation" (Robertson, 2014). These are sometimes referred to the three "Rs"... If we take this approach, we aim to repair damages to the environment, which gives us a sense of purpose. We "Reserve" or preserve the natural world untainted by destruction or pollution that already exists. And, lastly, we reconcile our interests with nature; this means applying economic strategies to conserving the natural world and retaining the health of ecosystems, which encouraging further market growth. I think this is the change of mindset that is essentially the right course of action, but I think environmentalists all too often look to the French Revolution,Emancipation, or the Civil Rights Movements as their example of change, abrupt change. But as a historian and someone very interested in the long term effects of change over time in human society, the most lasting and healthy changes have come gradually, have come without revolution. Look, for example, as the Battle of Hastings... The Anglo-Saxon Lords retains much of their land holdings if they swore fealty to King William I. It was only gradual that a "Cross-Channel" Lordship class was created by the Normans. This took a hundred years to really solidify and become a common expression of British society. Likewise, the gradual institutionalization of the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages -- do you think Pope Gregory the Great wield uncontested authority through Europe let alone Italy or just areas around Rome after the decline of the Roman Empire? No. This institutionalization took hundreds of years. This same shift in environmental consciousness took hold in the 1800s and continues to grow in our collective minds. Soon this change will be fully evident in our policy decisions as we continue to describe our effect to ecosystems. This is where proper change lies. This is what some of the more vehement Environmentalist need to remember to not affect as much opposition.



http://slideplayer.com/slide/7668832/

Climate

"One the other hand, continual change is characteristic of climate and of all complex systems. So a climate that is changing is nothing new. In order to understand whether the recent temperature changes are unusual, it is necessary to look at Earth's climate history over a longer time period than 150 years." (Robertson, 2014)

I have been echoing this view for years. Many of my friends who believe in climate change have accused me of being a skeptic. But that is far from the truth considering I should be under the title "External Skeptic" if I were to be called one. This is because I look at changes in the climate broadly and not from the onset of the industrial age: from 1860-present. This time frame only catches a phenomena. But when, as Robertson says, we look at the entire climate history of the earth, we are likely to find answers to the debates that have plagued past climate change theorists. Now it should be a forgone conclusion, from an external skeptical standpoint, that climate change does exist if we analyze the rate at which climates have shifted versus how they used to shift. The exponential increase affirms the conclusion that climate change is real. One example is personal for me. Recently, for Civic Engagement, my group sought to build an app to educate people about the importance of shellfish to maintaining a health ph-level in the earth's oceans. But due to recent increases in ph-levels, many shellfish cannot grow adequately to function how they used to function in the ecosystem, becoming easier prey for predators or dying before they become food, which has also drastically changed many food webs in the earth's oceans. This is a scary topic to address. If the animal most used to maintaining healthy ph-levels is dying out, what does that mean for every other animal, not just its predators, in the ocean? An apocalyptic situation. I think humans need to drastically decrease their emissions and their waste pollution if they want to continue to eat protein-dense animals such as sea fish without tons of mercury.


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yQuTjRh18-8/maxresdefault.jpg

How do we save our planet after the damage we've caused? I personally think that it begins with the individual. If we take the Humean approach to ethics and apply it to the ethics of keeping the planet from becoming a water world, then we all must be, as Robertson mentions,"Climate Neutral." "Climate Neutral is a term used to describe living or doing business in a way that results in an overall net climate impact of zero. Many people use the term Carbon Neutral to refer to the same condition of no net green gas emissions." (Robertson, 2014) This notion really does become a Friedrich Hayek-like/Humean principle of individual autonomy, where the individual will decide what is best for his/her personal needs and in doing so an economy or a universal ethic is created by contract between others. To do anything worth doing, I believe that is the way to approach climate problems. And to set the bar for zero net climate impact will be one step into the home of creating a better world. This starts with a plan.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Friedrich_Hayek_portrait.jpg

Just as Robertson claims,"Planning is an important first step in any activity, laying out a roadmap for the tasks ahead." (Robertson, 2014) Her use of roadmap reminds me of when I study for the LSAT, where Kaplan and many other helpful guides recommend getting used to making a mental roadmap so that when you answer a question you can go back to the main conclusions and premises with ease. I think this advice is very useful for changing climate change because, in my opinion, setting up a methodology and then putting it into a framework is how we as humans process important information and come to be attached to that information. Therefore, it is likely that if we make a plan and set it into action more people are likely to understand the issue, want to change the issue, and help you do so. What comes to mind is developing more companies that offer affordable electric cars (unlike Tesla) and finding ways to harness electricity without the use of Fossil Fuels.