Stolen Away on 33rd and 5th

I visited the “Living Green Expo� website and clicked the link to calculate the carbon footprint that I’m leaving on this Earth, and even though I did not actually calculate my carbon footprint, I could see that I definitely do not meet the 10% challenge. I didn’t think there were so many little things we could do to decrease the expenditure of carbon! I can admit that I’ve never really thought about making sure when I buy a washing machine it has an Energy Star label. I have never even heard of that before…but maybe that is just how out of tuned I am to what we’re doing to the environment. I think that is a lot of what is causing such harm to the environment-ignorance and the lack of knowledge that there are other ways that individuals can make small changes in their everyday lives that can reduce negative effects on the environment.
Looking at my personal life, I don’t engage in many activities that have a negative impact on the environment since college life leaves me with little or no options of what kind of washing machine I use for example. I try to always recycle, even though sometimes I am lazy and I won’t go out of my way to find a recycling bin. The U of M makes it pretty easy though having them everywhere! I rarely drive, but when I do, I drive pretty far distances across the twin cities. I definitely would not, however, be willing to give up driving far distances since that is the only way I can see my close friends and family members. It would be quite a workout to bike 30 miles to see my fiancée’s family or old friends from high school! A change that I could easily do that the 10% challenge suggested would be to replace incandescent light bulbs with high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps instead. I believe the latter last a whole heck of a lot longer than the former. As far as other daily changes go, such as buying appliances with Energy Star labels, I should keep these in mind for the future when I buy my own house. I wonder, however, if these specially designed appliances cost relatively more, equal, or less to the leading appliances that consumers purchase. The 10% challenge also suggested refraining from the use of air conditions and clothing dryers. I think a life without air conditions would be miserable, but possible I guess. Also, it would be pretty tough to live without a clothes dryer, especially in Minnesota with our harsh winters! (But then again, there is global warming, so maybe the winters won’t be so bad in the future…) Overall, I think I would be pretty open to making changes that benefit the environment. I might have to make some sacrifices, such as not buying an SUV (which I was really wanting) but I could possibly live with that! I think we all have become so comfortable living a life with so many luxuries that harm the environment. I really want to reduce negative effects on the environment, but sometimes it is really hard to get past how nice these luxuries are and to see how much of an impact we can make on the environment if we all give a little.

Posted by Anna Bode at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I believe this issue of pollution that Carson, Moore, and Boyle all raise is very important to consider. After reading these, especially Carson, my eyes were opened to just how interconnected we are to the Earth. Our relationship with our environment is reciprocal-if we harm the environment, it will not reap any fruits for us. I have always known how dangerous pesticides can be for the environment, but it did not really strike me until now how even at-home insecticides can be dangerous as well. I really think we need to step back and think first about how our actions will affect our environment before we cause any more damage to it. In doing so, we are respecting the environment like we should. I also think that instead of trying to work against nature by using so many destructive and toxic chemicals, we need to learn to “accommodate ourselves to this planet� like Carson, Moore, and Boyle all suggest. Carson makes a good point when she brings up the idea how nature already has its own form of checks and balances. While talking about the most effective techniques of farming while respecting the “principles by which nature works,� Carson claims, “Single-crop farming does not take advantage of the principles by which nature works; it is agriculture as an engineer might conceive it to be. Nature has introduced great variety into the landscape, but man has displayed a passion for simplifying it. Thus he undoes the built-in checks and balances by which nature holds the species within bounds.� From this one should take away that it is pertinent for the good of our environment to respect the “principles by which nature works.� If we work with nature instead of against it, I believe our environment will be a healthier place in which to live. I think the first step then would be to scientifically understand just exactly how nature works and how we can use its natural checks and balances in our favor. This may be difficult but I think it is worth the effort. The future of our environment depends on it.

Posted by Anna Bode at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Global warming is without a doubt one of the most debated issues of environmentalism today. Is it occurring or not? I personally do not strongly believe either way, but after reading Richard S. Lindzen’s article, “Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus,� I am greatly persuaded to believe that our world as we know it is not on the edge of doom due to global warming. I think that Lindzen makes a really good argument for several reasons. First of all, Lindzen is a scientist whose expertise is on climate. This very fact alone gives him a whole lot of credibility when it comes to discussing this topic of global warming that is supposedly affecting our climate. Although I did not really follow the science exactly, the fact that he can scientifically prove that this issue is not of large concern is another major reason why his argument makes more logical sense. Richard S. Lindzen talks about how from his calculations, even if carbon dioxide were to double, this would not have a major effect on our climate. Lindzen claims that, “It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems.� I think this claim should be more readily believed, since it is coming from a scientist, than arguments environmentalists make that they merely claim yet cannot prove. I also found Lindzen’s article persuading not only because of all the factual evidence he was able to bring to the discussion of this issue, but also for another valid reason. Lindzen brings up a good point when he talks about how other scientists who do not deal with climate change should not be held accountable for their viewpoints about global warming. So many scientists who do not even deal with matters of the climate were being used as sources to back up the claim of global warming. I think this is not right since they do not even have knowledge of what they are claiming. Overall, Lindzen’s article was very persuasive on the fact that our world is not at stake because of this environmental issue of global warming.

Posted by Anna Bode at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)