Journal #1:
During class, we had an interesting discussion about how we felt about putting a price tag on nature. How do you make a commodity out of something like marshes and wetlands? Or if you’re trying to sell land to a developer, how do you compare the worth of having a development versus the services that wetland provides to our environment? I’m sure my answer will be predictable, but I’m in the hopeful stage of learning about the environment where I think everything is salvageable and that wildlife/environment has precedence over everything. I could never choose development over preserving a wildlife environment. I’m too empathetic with the animals that need that environment, and how beautiful that pristine slice of nature contributes to the overall value of an area. I feel there are enough places in our country that have been developed or have been abandoned, that they could provide business opportunities to developers and entrepreneurs. Why not revamp an abandoned strip mall rather than ruin something that still has natural value to it? It reminds me of the Sax document during the 1980s when he thought legislators could solve problems more efficiently. Since the whole Mono Lake, California, and L.A. water supply incident during the 1990s, there has been a lot of interest in how different elements of nature provide different services to communities and the public good. As I mentioned before, how does one value these things? What price do you put on a forest? Surveying ecosystems and pricing out different elements of it could work. A good example of this method working was when New York’s water supply began to show problems. The EPA said new water treatments could cost up to 16 billion dollars….then some genius said “…we’ve been getting water from the Adirondack’s watershed…why not fix the watershed and save money rather than have an extremely expensive plan?” In cases like this, it supports my belief that it’s better to preserve the environment at all costs. The environment is something that communities are dependent upon.
Journal #2:
Today’s class involved discussing the county plan for James City. The aging population is increasing and this has several effects on how the community is run, and also what the community will attract. Aging members play an active role in events like planning/attending public hearings and seem to be more interested in what is going on with their community. I wonder why it seems the older you are, the more you care about these things. Sadly, I know of one friend from home who has attended a public hearing to stand up for an issue she believed in (in this case development/zoning issues). I chastise myself too, since I’ve never really taken interest. This class discussion opened my eyes and made me realize that I am so ignorant when it comes to issues that are just around me…let alone the widespread and broad picture. I feel embarrassed at myself for not even taking the time to understand the problems of my community. I write papers or journals lamenting the degradation of the environment, without really offering any plausible solution other than universal cooperation, and yet I can’t even bother to take the time to learn the nature of the problems I could have the ability to solve. Just taking an interest in the area around you and striving to improve how things are done, including how we treat the environment, is a huge step in the overall fight for preserving our environment. If everyone cared about the little problems in their community or around them, then ultimately the bigger ones that depend on the cooperation/participation of the smaller problems that lead up to big problems, would probably dissolve. Sorry this is pretty poor English but I’m letting my stream of consciousness overtake me, and it’s not very eloquent. Today’s class inspired me to try and make an effort, at least this summer, to learn more about what’s going on in my hometown community regarding the environment AND to read up on its problems. How will I ever know what I have to offer if I don’t even learn what EXACTLY is wrong in the first place?
Journal #3:
Another interesting topic in class was the thought that green standards of living could drive people away from an area….creating a cycle where businesses and people are more likely to adopt less-than-green practices to receive instant gratification regarding money, tourism, success… It is often harder to implement housing systems or large buildings that are completely green because it is so expensive. Government subsidies for green housing tell you that the cost difference is a problem, also. Does it make sense to take taxpayers’ dollars to make incentive programs for greener housing and businesses? That also leads to… interest in taxes. So many roots springing from one stem of a question!! This also leads to thinking behind county administration…if there is a population boom predicted in the next ten years, will you decide to constrict development and prevent it from happening, or will you try and be prepared for what happens? If an influx of people arrives in a town, how does that town compensate? And especially in terms of what impact the population will have on the environment. In my simple way of thinking, I often wish that the government wouldn’t have to be involved in this whole problem (though that’s impossible). What if the companies who sold green products to developers and businesses made them cheaper? Wouldn’t that make them more competitive than the average inefficient method of building? I guess they would lose money…but perhaps the government can help those businesses instead. As for taxes, people will always complain about taxes. celebrities like Willie Nelson will always try and evade one income tax or another and land in jail….but as far as I can tell….taxing is essential for a functional and connected society like the one we try to live in today. I also think that tax incentives for greener methods of living are acceptable and needed. People will only make change if they’re firmly nudged in the right direction. Taxes are one way to make a point. If money is the overall deterrent of people and businesses from choosing cheaper non-environmentally friendly ways of living over green practices, then I feel there must be drastic measures to reduce this obstacle. When weighing the importance of the amount of money in my pocket over the health and beauty of my living space, I’d choose the latter. Then again I would probably be shot by the entire business school for saying that.
Journal #4:
Today I went into the second-floor women’s bathroom and was pleasantly surprised. Plants were lining the window sill. some kind soul had taken the time to train the plant to grow along the ceiling and stalls. A vine twisting around whatever it can grasp, sprouting leaves, and making a slovenly place like the bathroom seem almost pleasant and refreshing. I wish I could find out who that person is so I could thank them for brightening my day. I have to tell you I was quite excited when I thought of this and had to write it in the journal. The weather has also been extremely humid, so I felt like I was in a greenhouse as well. I love the feeling of being surrounded by plants and I think every bathroom stall should have creeping vines. Who could say no to more oxygen in a place like that? This person’s simple act of cultivating a plant has also led me to think that it’s rather easy to make a positive difference in the environment. Simply taking care of one plant is one more step in the right direction. If everyone had that mentality, especially when it came to reducing electronic use or driving around aimlessly/not carpooling, I think the state of our harmony with the environment would improve drastically. It’s as easy as letting a plant grow in a college bathroom.
Journal #5:
I was reading an interesting article online about Neighbor Day. Sadly, people have to create holidays to spend time with the people they live close to. This group of people decided to fix the issue by creating a holiday on the last Sunday in April by having a “block party” of some sort…a nice BBQ, good talks, and lounging in the great outdoors with your neighbors. I guess it’s harder for people to do this since so many housing areas that are considered neighborhoods are just rows upon rows of houses packed to fill a developer’s quota. I am not a huge fan of suburbs, but it’s a fact of life in America. Many references in pop culture have been made regarding life in the suburbs, and mostly they are not happy. Songs are about feelings of boredom…detachedness…monotony. The feeling that you’re just one meaningless speck in a row of mundane lives. I think the suburban concept has ruined America in a way. By not getting to know the community around you, and choosing space efficiency/monetary gain at the expense of unity and environmental preservation. People lose respect for the environment and also lose a sense of individuality, and thus ownership of their actions. I am so happy that my neighborhood was rather personalized and that I knew of my neighbor’s lives/names. Perhaps my parents weren’t the best of friends with them, but there was respect nonetheless, and a certain friendship/kindness. This Neighborhood Holiday article made a positive impact on me though, because I feel that it’s a step in the right direction. By fostering care for your neighborhood, you’ll inevitably treat it with respect and consequently the environment as well. I think that a healthy environment and positive community bonds are essential to a fulfilled life. I worry that people are becoming too detached; not caring what happens to others around them. All that seems to matter is getting a check, having a car, and feeding the family. It’s like we’re a bunch of emotionless robots following a prescribed routine. I know this isn’t the whole truth for everyone, but I feel a good portion of our nation has lost touch with its human side, and ultimately our enjoyment of life and nature. The National Neighbor Day Holiday is a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day for me.
Journal #6:
Environmental determinism was a rather philosophical aspect of our classroom discussion today. Are people determined by their environment or vice versa? Are people destined to be poor if they live in poorly resourced areas? An interesting example of this discussion took hold of my mind all day: the Zooplankton story. According to some theorists, zooplankton is the reason the Spanish Armada was defeated in the 1500s. Sagitta and Elegens sagitta are two types of zooplankton. During the 1800s, Herring (a consumer of sagitta but not elegens sagitta) was the most important food in that geographical area. There is a seventy-year climatic oscillation that causes the North Sea and Atlantic species of sagitta and elegens sagitta to switch back and forth via the English Channel. Therefore, at the time of the Spanish Armada, the sagitta were in the North Sea, whilst the elegens sagitta were in the Atlantic. The English built boats to follow the fish more efficiently by designing their boats in an improved manner. Their fleet was able to defeat the Spanish Armada….all thanks to the zooplankton. One organism develops because of the other. I found this story so interesting and it completely changed my outlook on history classes, as well. I wish there was a mandatory biological/environmental explanation/theory footnote in every history book to add a different dimension to the lesson. So many outcomes we think humans had control over were actually due to environmental inhabitants as unsuspecting as zooplankton. It’s enough to convince even the skeptics that nature is important in our lives and that we should be cautious of how we treat it, lest the effects take a turn for the worse.
Journal #7:
I stumbled across an article today that made me laugh. With despair. Saying, “I don’t want to introduce a conspiracy theory,” (and then proceeding to do so) former George W. Bush secretary Dana Perino ponders if the recent oil spill was deliberate. “…was this deliberate?…was it sabotage?”. Following her preposterous claims is Rush Limbaugh encouraging the idea that environmental wackos were behind the oil rig disaster to head off more oil drilling. These two people sadden me with their preposterous claims. To be considered an environmentalist, or someone who cares about preserving the environment, wouldn’t it be a little contradictory to kill thousands upon thousands of creatures and plant life to prove a point? If you look at the pros and cons of a so-called wacko thinking this whole scheme up, it just doesn’t make sense for them to go through all that effort with so little benefit. How would they get an oil company to agree to do that anyway? The amount of oil lost was devastating and costly, no ulterior motive is worth that to anybody. Also, if the plan was real and somebody found out the perpetrator’s motives, wouldn’t that ultimately make the environmental movement lose credibility? It would be a poor choice and I highly doubt anyone who cares about the environment would risk so much and harm so drastically the very things they’re trying to protect. It simply makes no sense and I can’t believe Dana Perino or Rush Limbaugh would even suggest publicly that someone would rig an oil spill. Also, the negative nickname of “environmentalist wackos” is unhelpful when it comes to trying to get a universal acceptance of green practices. Given the dire predictions for our world if we don’t alter our expenditure of fossil fuels etc etc, it seems unwise to make it all seem like a hoax when you call people trying to help protect our environment “wackos.” I know it seems elementary of me to even make an argument of this…it’s the world of politics to insult your opponents. I still have this idealistic outlook on life where I wish everyone would do what they know is right….and to me, these two characters have grossly crossed the line. For more context on white-collar crime, read this publication (http://www.jtpcrim.org/AUG2018/Robinson.pdf)
Journal #8:
Can robots help promote climate science? If politicians can’t do the job, perhaps robots can help, according to Motherboard’s Brian Merchant. With the recent launch of European Space Agency’s Cryosat-2 spacecraft, a ship designed to gauge the rates of change of sea and land ice in the Antarctic and the Arctic regions, Merchant sees a chance to engage the public with the notion that robots can help with climate science. Of course, the little satellite isn’t going to save the world alone, but the point is that a little public relations savvy could make the “sexy” high-profile tech like the Cryosat pique the interest of the public, whose collective actions have led to global warming. Everyone is obsessed with technology it seems….I think the answer to many of our global warming/environmental problems can be found in science. If environmentally friendly technology and improvements to our lifestyle gained even more momentum than it has now, it could change our lives forever. It would be the perfect way to blend business, science, and a love for nature all in one juicy and productive stew. I know this has already been thought of before, but just reading g the article about the high-tech satellite made me realize that the envelope of technology and its potential for garnering more respect from the public regarding environmentalist movements needs to be pushed. Sorry, that was an awkward sentence. The sector of environmental technology will hopefully see a huge spike in the coming years.
Journal #9:
Today I was happy to read that Bill Nye, one of my favorite childhood science teachers, is taking a heavy stance on global warming. Known best by elementary school kids for his wacky experiments and awesome intro songs, Bill Nye The Science Guy is taking a strong view on global warming by stating it is a product of humans; he recently appeared on The O’Reilly Factor to make a case for his views. I was so happy to read about my childhood idol in science classes (along with Mrs. Frizzle) and read more about what he said on air. Nye states that although there has been a “cooling” since 1998 as many skeptics of global warming like to repeat, it doesn’t obscure the fact that subsequent years to 1998 show a definite warming trend. Skeptics falsely say that a “cooling trend” occurred when in reality the 00s were found to be the hottest decade on record by several scientific institutions, including the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. I’m so happy to see that Nye, a well-known figure and obviously respected by my generation of millennials since he taught us boring science in the most interesting of ways, is standing up for the environment. I’m glad he’s doing this of his own volition. I always knew Bill Nye wouldn’t be manipulated.
Journal #10:
I was rather disheartened by a news report I read online today titled “Harder, Wetter, Faster, Stronger: Bad News in Climate Science.” The International Panel on Climate Control’s Fourth Assessment Report of Climate Science says that everything is getting worse. A group of 26 climatologists (including 14 IPCC members) released The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.” On basically every environmental front of concern, the worst scenarios are laid out or are being realized. The 13-inch average sea level rise predicted by the IPCC previously by 2100 has risen to 33 inches (roughly equal to the one-meter upper limit laid out in the 2007 report). Also, the Arctic sea ice melt is 40 percent greater than was predicted just a couple of years ago. The authors of the report concluded that “if global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius about pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.” How will this ever happen? I don’t see a way out unless some drastic improvements in green technology are mass-produced or some very strict laws on carbon emission are laid out. Some other results of the report indicate that global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized, according to the article, just twenty more years of emissions would give a 25 percent probability that warming exceeds a two-degree increase in temperature. Another finding in the report was that there were no significant changes in the underlying warming trend of our world. Also, they stressed that a delay in action risks irreversible damage. Several extremely vulnerable elements in the climate system like continental ice sheets, Amazonian rainforests, etc could be pushed towards abrupt degradation. This report put a damper on my evening and solidified my beliefs that we as citizens of the WORLD desperately need to come together to solve the problems of our environment.
Journal #11:
Although energy efficiency is a buzzword these days, a recent study by IBM of 6,500 office workers reported that our nation’s business owners have a long way to go in terms of being environmentally friendly. Reducing energy consumption in commercial buildings is essential to reducing our nation’s overall output of carbon emissions (considering ours is one of the highest in the world). Big companies should be especially interested in reducing their energy output since it will reduce their utility bills as well. The topic of the study was energy efficiency in the workplace, assessing ten different areas of interest and compiling them into overall energy efficiency in the Smarter Buildings Index. The ten categories were: elevator wait times, Internet access, badge access, lights turning off automatically in the evening, presence of sensors that adjust lights and temperature when people enter and leave rooms, use of renewable energy sources, low-flow toilets, use of air-friendly products, respondents opinion of how environmentally-friendly building is, and respondents’ desire to participate in building design. A funny part of the survey results involves elevator wait times. Many people who work in huge skyscrapers opted for the elevator instead of the stairs and with it the eternal wait. Turns out during 12 months, the 6,500 employees waited for a total of 92 years for an elevator to arrive. Another issue is elevators getting stuck, which from an energy efficiency perspective adds a surprising amount to the usage and bill. Other survey results include these tidbits: less than one-third of survey respondents reported that the lights in their building automatically shut off at a preset time each evening. Only 14 percent work in a building that uses a renewable energy source and only 27 percent of those surveyed work in a building that senses when a room is occupied and adjusts the lighting and temperature. I thought this was an interesting study and very relevant to the modern issue of energy efficiency and how that will affect our daily habits. Turns out big businesses have a long way to go….and it’s good that studies are revealing their flaws.
Journal #12:
A simple example of how biodiversity is important for the web of life to function properly is the potential extinction of the Santa Cruz kangaroo rat. The kangaroo rat lives in the Santa Cruz Sandhills of California and gets its name from its large hind legs. In its glory days, Santa Cruz kangaroo rats could be found in the mountains south of San Francisco, but their natural habitat has been infiltrated and reduced to a tiny sliver in the Santa Cruz Mountains. One of 23 subspecies of kangaroo rats found in California, the Santa Cruz variety is under a real threat of extinction because of dwindling populations and health problems stemming from low genetic diversity. The loss would be bad for other species that depend upon the little rat for sustenance. It is a keystone species that supports many other species and its loss would affect the entire food web. Every member of the ecosystem is important.
Journal #13:
I stumbled across an interesting article/slideshow about The Top U.S. Green Landmarks. I think you will also enjoy them!
- Findlay Market in Cincinnati, Ohio is one of the country’s oldest farmers markets. Since the mid-19th century, locals have been able to sell meats, produce, and crafts. It’s also one of the most ethnically diverse farmer’s markets.
- The California Academy of Sciences’ Living Roof is actually alive. It hosts a wide variety of plants, wildlife, and butterflies that all happily live in the sky, a manmade sanctuary. It’s also open to the public.
3. The “new” New York City recently made headlines with plans to green. the Empire State Building, but there’s more! The city is also working to turn an abandoned railroad- the High Line, which runs for 1.5 miles above the Upper West Side-into a green sanctuary open to the public. New Yorkers will be able to work more than 20 blocks car-free.
4. Just a hopeful reminder that free space still exists! The Sonoran Desert covers 120,000 square miles in Arizona, California, and Mexico. It’s the hottest of North America’s deserts and thankfully hasn’t been bombarded by development. It s pure nature with flowers, plants, animals (including wild horses!!!), and the famous saguaro cactus.
5. The Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture is a nonprofit working to teach the public about food. Its goal is to heighten public awareness of facts we don’t often think of, such as where our produce is coming from or the importance of local farming and buying.
6. Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) is seeking to become a green beacon in the Windy City. A Chicago architecture firm has plans to reduce the skyscraper’s energy costs by ten percent using wind turbines and solar panels, and some of the building’s owners have considered painting it silver, an energy-saving idea championed by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
7. The Nationals Park became the country’s first LEED-certified major professional sports arena when it opened in March 2008. With high-efficiency field lighting that saves 21 percent on energy costs, water-saving plumbing that cuts water consumption by 30 percent, and construction materials made of at least ten percent recycled content.
8. The Santa Monica Civic Center parking garage is full of hybrid cars and bicycles. It’s the first environmentally efficient garage in the country. It’s on its way to becoming the first LEED-certified parking garage in the United States. It has a solar photovoltaic array on the roof and provides shade for top-level parking and on-site renewable energy. A storm-drain water-treatment system helps reduce tainted runoff from directly entering the hydrosphere and greywater harvesting provides for landscaping and on-site facilities.
9. The 5.4.7 Arts Center is a non-profit organization built-in 2008 by Studio 804, a non-profit organization of graduate architecture students from the University of Kansas, and it is the first building in Kansas to receive a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Platinum rating. The Center’s name comes from the date on which a Category 5 tornado devastated nearly all of Greensburg on May 4, 2007. After the tornado, the community decided to designate art as an essential part of the city’s social and economic redevelopment by choosing to build 5.4.7 Arts Center as its first public building.
10. The Green Exchange in Chicago is something to look out for if you’re into shopping but still want to live a sustainable lifestyle. The Green Exchange tries to avoid waste and consumerism through environmentally friendly planning via an organic roof garden, LED lighting throughout all 35,000 square feet, green escalators, and recycling units on all floors.
Journal #14:
Fourteen buildings are competing to be the biggest loser (of energy waste)! The EPA is drawing inspiration from the Biggest Loser in a new competition that pits 14 buildings against each other to see which can trim its energy usage the most! I like these kinds of competitions! The National Building Competition is explicitly modeled after the weight-loss reality TV show, with the following buildings as a sample of contestants: a 23-story Manhatten office building, a San Diego Marriott hotel, a Colorado elementary school, and a Chapel Hill, North Carolina dormitory. The 200 applicants were required to use a host of energy-efficiency tools from the EPA and Department of Energy. The 14 contestants are having their energy use measured from September 2009 through this August. The building that saves the most will be announced the winner on October 26. A not-so-subtle shot at injecting some drama into the daunting world of energy efficiency in buildings!
