Blog...

Personal pollution is a much less visible problem than corporate pollution, but it is one that is just as worrisome and as harmful. You don’t see monstrous smoke stakes spewing billowing clouds of pollution into the sky, but we all need to take a step back and see the impact that we each have. According to the EPA, in 2005 the US generated 245 million tons of solid waste, which equals to about 1,600 pounds per person in one year! While this figure was calculated to include recycled products(which is a rather small percentage), it is still rather outstanding, especially when you considered that that is only the amount of solid waste. This figure doesn’t even touch the problem of air pollution!
Now add to this the roughly 6 billion other people in the world, polluting just as much, and you can see that we have a serious problem.
In my personal life, I try to minimize my impact. I believe in the importance of recycling and do so as much as possible, but even that it’s very effective in the long run. It’s so hard to be mindful of pollution when we have a million other things to worry about and when it’s so much easier to just throw things in the trash can….or even just on the ground. Products have too much packaging, paper is wasted to readily.
I do take the bus to and from the U everyday, but even so I find myself driving a lot on the weekends and evenings. I’m an advocate of public transportation and biking, but a lot of the time it is just impractical to do these. If I were to drive to school, it would take me all of 8 minutes(I’ve clocked it) to jumped on 35W and navigate the freeways to the U. On the bus, I have to transfer once on Franklin and it ends up taking me about 40 minutes. That’s 32 wasted minutes! Fortunately I don’t even have a car to tempt me.
I think convenience is the most important thing to focus on if we want to reduce our waste. We need to make it convenient to recycle. We need to make it convenient to take the bus. Unless we all partake in this effort, it hardly matters what you or I do personally. Recycling may make you feel good about yourself, but I think the real way to make an impact is to work with the recycling companies and the government to create more widespread change.
Make busses more socially acceptable, make recycling bins as prevelent as garbage cans. Social change is needed and not just a smattering of individual change!

Posted by Will Clausen at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We really don’t understand how the world works. People need to realize that the earth has been able to sustain itself for millions of years because of a balance in the environment. Sure, there are diseases and natural disasters that happen all the time, but they are all part of the balance and all serve some sort of purpose. The problem is that we don’t like these “disasters� because they negatively impact our well being. A perfect example is the fuss that forest fires cause. Naturally, they are an important aspect to forest regeneration, but when you read a headline proclaiming another forest fire, you can be certain that the article will be negative. I recall the fires in the BWCA last summer that caused so much panic. How much property damage will be done? Who will lose their homes? We have, in a way, demonized forest fires because they are an inconvenience to us. Not to downplay the suffering of people who have lost everything due to forest fires, but we have only ourselves to blame. The practice of containing forest fires has become common, but a thousand years ago, these fires would have be able to burn without constraints. Can we really understand the full ramifications of our actions by not letting the fires blaze uncontrolled? If we are to live in this world, we have to accept that the earth has a certain way of functioning that might not always seem logical to us. According, the practice of man started, controlled burns has taken root(no pun intended...). These burns allow portions of the forest to be rejuvenated while at the same time protecting people and property from the fires. We are trying to adapt to the needs of the earth, but it’s hard to say now if these controlled burns can achieve the same results. Carson highlighted another area in which humans are interfering with the natural way of the world. Single crop farming is very detrimental to the environment. Not only does it ruin the soil, but it allows for certain types of insects and other animals to thrive, while more or less eliminating others. In the natural world, there is diversity in plant life so that all different animals can survive. With single crop farming, only the animals that can feed on that particular crop will survive. With the abundance of food, their number will flourish, and as their numbers flourish, they will eat more and more of the crop. Clearly this is bad for the farmer, who will do anything to get rid of these bugs. So, in comes pesticides and we all know the bad things that arise with overuse. We need to be come proactive in how we deal with this problem. It’s much more complex than the issue of forest fires, and it would be impossible to turn away from the single crop farm now, but we have to think of ways that we can become better neighbors with our world.

Posted by Will Clausen at 3:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Naomi Oreskes really has a good point. If we spend so much time arguing about whether this issue of global warming is true or contrived, we don’t have time to think about how to fix it. She shows clearly that although the details are still up for debate, the main point (that global warming does exist and that humans are causing it) has been accepted by almost all credible sources. She gives a list of all the associations and societies and unions of a qualified status that have announced that they believe that humans are to blame for global warming. There’s no denying that this list is impressive, so why must people still cry out against it? The sooner we all come to an agreement, the soon real actions can be taken.
Why do skeptics even care? What can possibly be gained from taking no action? I can find many advantages from trying to live in a more eco-friendly way, even if there is no actual need for it. Maybe we aren’t causing warming, but there is no denying that people living in a city like Los Angeles, which is almost constantly blanketed in smog, could benefit from a reduction in CO2 emissions. Couldn’t ecosystems benefit from a reduction in forestry if we develop new synthetic materials? Couldn’t we help our economy if we developed new fuel sources so we wouldn’t have to depend on oil for the Middle East? This argument is stupid. What difference does it make if global warming exists or if we are causing it? There are plenty of other reasons for changing our lifestyles. The problem is that people won't unless there is a dire need to. Maybe humans don't cause global warming, but if we don't have a threat against our well being, we will continue to exploit the environment.

Here is Los Angeles is smog. http://www.interet-general.info/IMG/US-Los-Angeles-Smog-1-2.jpg

Posted by Will Clausen at 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The problem that most people have with a religious view of the environment is that it can lead to an unrealistic view of the world. Grizzly Man gives us a man, Timothy Treadwell, who by common perception is a lunatic. Not only does he live in the wilderness by himself for a part of each year, but he interacts with bears. Most people cannot relate to this man and yet here he is being portrayed in a major documentary see by a large portion of the public. How will his character affect what the public thinks about a religious view of environmentalism? I would think that the effect would almost certainly be negative. This guy is crazy, he is taking a religious view on environmentalism, thus taking a religious view on environmentalism is crazy. The documentary doesn’t do a good job of portraying Treadwell in my opinion. Most of the film is of him playing with animals and it only touches on what he did outside of the wilderness to help protect and educate people. They had the scene in the classroom and his ex-girlfriend mentioned that they started an organization, but these scenes were few and far between. Herzog may have been trying to create a film that celebrated Treadwell’s life, but I feel that the typical view just sees a crazy man who has crazy beliefs that caused his own death. I can’t decide if I feel that Herzog is actually trying to say something about a religious approach or if he just wanted to do a story on this unique guy. Either way, the effect is what it is and while some may be influenced to come closer to nature by his story, I feel that people would generally be alienated. Also, the fact the Treadwell is eventually killed by one of his bears signals to the audience that you shouldn’t do what this man did. He messed with nature and tried to become closer to it and look what happened to him. The fact that he was killed only strengthens the idea that we are separate from nature and that it should be kept that way. Conversely, it could be said that the fact that he was able to live together with these huge bears for 15 years without been viciously attacked once. Treadwell may certainly have been on to something that most people can perceive, but the film does nothing to inspire(and in fact deters) a more religious approach to environmentalism.
I thought the scenery was outstanding so here are some pictures of Katmai National Park
http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/np.katmai.html

Posted by Will Clausen at 5:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)