What I Learned

This course definitely cemented my interest in protecting the environment. But one of the things that I think will be most beneficial to me for the future, is knowing how to question and be critical of things in order to better understand them. When we talked in class, Professor Nicholson often pushed us, or played the devil's advocate, so that we could question ourselves and our own beliefs in order to understand WHY we believe something, whether that belief was unfounded, or what it even was that we believed.

I learned a lot about a wide range of issues, as well. Environmental issues penetrate every aspect of life, and this class has taught me to look at my actions and how they affect the planet and other people. Now, if I want to buy something, I often ask "Do I really need it? Or am I buying it just because it's easier, or I want it right now? Can I live without this?" These questions have really helped me to see how my daily actions were affecting the environment, especially those actions that I didn't even realize I was doing.

The politics of the environment was something else that I learned quite a bit about. I often avoid anything labeled "politics," so it was interesting to take a class that helped me to better grasp what policies are driving the environmental movement and impact environmental issues. I also learned about effective forms of action, which I think is something that really must be analyzed. Next year, I will be participating in Green Corps, and I will be attempting to "organize" and take other actions to protect the environment, so scrutinizing different methods was something that I found very beneficial in my Green Corps interview and in considering how I will function within Green Corps next year.

Thank you for a great class, Professor!

Lessons Learned

"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."

Abraham Lincoln

When I initially enrolled in International Environmental Politics, I did so without having much of an idea of the size and scope of material that our class would eventually cover. A course in environmentalism, I reasoned, would be an excellent way to broaden my academic experience during my final year at American University. As my concentration lay in international development, I did not expect that such a course would involve such complex, politically charged debates over issues of sovereignty, human rights and economic considerations characteristic of other SIS courses. Over the past fourteen weeks, I have observed how interconnected environmental concerns are to international relations, and how significant the repercussions of policy, beneficial or detrimental, can be. For this reason, there are four important points that merit special mention.

I. Believe in the institution.

Especially after reading Michael Maniates' article, "The Individualization of Responsibility," the futility of over-relying on disconcerted, individual, consumer based efforts to solve the global issue of climate change became clear. This is not to say that one should not recycle, or that riding a bicycle should be discouraged, but rather that the world in which we live is dominated by powerful, large-scale institutions that exert a high degree of political influence and economic leverage over our society. Meaningful change, therefore, must take place at the top as well as at the bottom. This may deviate from the conventional idea of grassroots level activism, but the article "Leverage Points" by Donella Meadows provided a strong case for this manner of thinking, as well as a pragmatic way of how to compel change in such institutions. 

2) The art of diplomacy in polarized debates

As was evidenced by class discussions as well as my brief Thanksgiving endeavor, in discussing environmental politics one must be diplomatic in the extreme. Excluding the segment of society that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge climate change as a real, urgent problem, environmental proponents must present their argument in a rational, even-keeled manner, even if they feel that the opposing perspective has no credibility. Appeals that are scientifically sound but presented in an overtly aggressive manner may have the effect of diminishing the receptivity of undecided individuals to the environmentalists' cause. Soft words win hard hearts. 

3) The importance of culture

As I sit in my two bedroom apartment watching football on my flat screen plasma TV while drinking a Starbucks venti Chai Tea Latte while typing this blog on my MacBook Pro and texting my friends on my Motorola smartphone, the culture of consumption, an observation advanced by Eric Assadourian, weighs heavily on my mind. Will it ever be feasible for my fellow countrymen to embrace changes that might reduce the number of conveniences that we enjoy? Will we be able to disassociate the idea of consumption from the way that we measure success or happiness? These may be difficult questions to ask, but they are more difficult to answer. Yet, in looking beyond our borders, it is clear that wealthy, developed countries need not adopt US levels of consumption to maintain a high quality of life. Other countries demonstrate negative rates of growth, proving that it is possible, at least at the national level, to check the expansion of the human population. 

4) The power of humanity to change

Most importantly, and above all else, this course has demonstrated the powers of humanity, though its own constructs, to make significant, far-reaching changes to human behavior. The work of such innovative individuals as William McDonough, the star architect of environmentally friendly buildings and author of Cradle to Cradle, is illustrative of how advances in technology and changes in thought can lead to ideas and initiatives that fundamentally alter the way in which humans live and interact with each other. Humanity is highly adept at improving the existing systems that we have created, but less so at shifting the paradigm of our operations. Only when we are able to objectively evaluate our society in terms of economic productivity in a way that makes environmental sense as well should we begin to improve efficiency. 

What Did We Learn in the Course Tonight Craig

I can’t believe the semester flew by as fast as it did and somehow we are already in December with finals looming over us. When I first walked into class I was really excited to get the course underway. Unlike some people who have posted, I had a large amount of experience from both classes and internships related to environmental policy and politics. However even with all of this knowledge under my belt, this class allowed me to debate these issues with other students from a wide perspective of backgrounds which is something I have never gotten the chance to really do.

The one issue that really struck me throughout the semester though was how much of a role consumption plays on environmental issues. While I might have though Eric Assodorian was an idiot- and kind of called him that to his face, he did raise good points about the role of consumption in society. Using this idea, raising awareness of just how much we use and eat has been lingering around in my mind for the past couple of weeks and actually inspired a part of my environmental art piece.

I also really liked the variety of readings we got to look over this semester. While some professors have had definite slants in their reading choices, I think that the reading choices were fair and balanced and show a large cornucopia of solutions all to the same problem. While some might push for a 1800’s world and other might push for the Jetsons, being able to read about both these extremes and everything in between.

All Good Things Must Come to an End

The past semester of international environmental politics has been both eye opening and frightening in a number of ways, and it is a course that I will not soon forget. Coming into the first day of class in August, I thought I had a decent grip on all things environmental; essentially, the U.S. wasn’t too hot on global warming, Europe was taking action and 2009’s Copenhagen Conference was a complete dud. Little did I know that there was so much more at play than just this. From international environmental governance to human development issues to ideas on sustainability, I realized that to refer to the “environmental movement” refers to an extremely wide breath of issues, issues that aren’t completely covered in the course of a 15 week university class.

The course definitely gave me a new perspective of the global environmental scene, and unfortunately, is leading me to end the semester on a pessimistic note. I’ve seen the effects of climate change and environmental destruction up close, yet the gridlock and ineffectiveness of the environmental governance system has led me to think that nothing can get done. For ten years now at the UN level, it has been the same; media-hyped conferences in faraway exotic locales finishing with no success or advancement to speak of. And as an American, it is sad to see that even on the domestic side of environmental politics, nothing is more important than getting more jobs (no matter what they are) at the expense of environmental degradation.

If there’s anything I’m taking away from this course however, it is a newfound respect for the world we live in. Now when I take hikes back home, I’ll be sure to admire the native foliage and ecosystems much more than I did before the course. The semester has made me realize just how significant all of our small decisions can be, and that no matter what we do, our actions have consequences for all of those around us, whether they’re just down the road or across the country. Thanks for a great semester.

The End Is Near

I was a little nervous to take this class at first because my knowledge of environmental issues was almost zero. Being at a school like AU, where so many people are environmentally conscious, I thought I would be in over my head in a class full of experts. Over the course of the semester, I've learned an incredible amount. The thing that has resonated most with me is a validation of the seriousness of environmental change. Being someone who had only a cursory knowledge of the issues, I never knew who or what to really believe on the reporting of environmental concerns. Now I have a solid baseline of facts that have established my belief in climate change and the acknowledgement that a serious effort needs to be made to reform how we interact with our environment.

Another important thing I will take away from this class is knowing that to effectively confront climate change, idealism is going to have to yield to pragmatism. It's impossible to fix everything right now, so smaller steps will have to be taken to accomplish this goal. Overall, I feel like I learned a lot about a new topic and realized that while the outlook isn't always pretty, it's still not impossible to create change and improve the planet we live on.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

While Damian Carrington lays out a few good reasons why climate change is hard to stop, he is forgetting quite a few reasons for why the problem is not going away. While like most experts Carrington focuses on measurable factors for how to track climate change (energy use, subsidy costs, economic issues), he clearly misses some of the non measurable factors for why climate change keeps on rolling.

The first one of these non measurable factors would be apathy. With problems such as the financial crisis, political disenchantment, and lowering social services right in the face of citizens, dealing with a problem such as climate change is put on the backburner. While climate change does have the very real possibility of creating environmental refugees, and increasing the odds of extreme weather events, to those in the developed world, these issues are “out of sight and out of mind”. Until Manhattan is completely flooded over or the British Isles are swallowed up by the sea, the resources and efforts of the developed world will be severely limited as they look to their own self interest rather then benefit the world.

The other key problem that Carrington fails to mention is the misinformation of climate change being talked about in the media. With rogue news outlets such as Fox News providing legitimacy to the denier movement, individuals still believe that there is a scientific debate on the issue and that the science is not settled. While this might fit the agenda of a small few- Koch Brothers, Big Oil, and The Heritage Foundation to name a few, the selfish interests of these organizations threatens to put the world out of business.

What I am kind of surprised about that Carrington doesn’t talk about is the regressive economics that make fossil fuels so cheap. While Carrington does say how technologies such as carbon capture and storage are unaffordable, Carrington does not make the argument that a rise in gasoline taxes or shifting subsides from oil companies to promising renewable energy products would make these options more palatable.

Stopping climate change, one media outlet at a time

Damian Carrington offered some very helpful insights as to why it has been so difficult to stop climate change. However, I feel that he missed a few very important points.

I think it is incredibly important to note the role of both the media and the people. The media plays a huge role in disseminating information, and often climate change is overlooked, or the information is skewed. It appears to me that most media sources in general are afraid to take a definitive stance on climate change- they often discuss it but as a concept, rather than a fact.

Contributing to the lack of media attention (or the lack of media attention on fact, rather than simply the politics of the matter) is that the science does not appear to be concise, or truthful. Much of the general population is unaware that most studies on climate change do show, to the very best of their ability, that it is happening. As we discussed in class, it is impossible to say, and be 100% sure of, what will happen in the future. Based on this, many people are able to spin the science in their favor. A few important individuals in the media world help to further discount this- it only takes a few important people to start the ball rolling and, eventually, it will catch on and reach the population.

I would also note that the people, the general population, has a lot to do with the lack of action against climate change. On one hand, they are heavily influenced by the media. If the media is ignoring it, or discounting it, you can bet the same trend will prevail among the population.

However, beyond the media, it is important to note culture. Eric Assadourian's article about "consumer cultures" is a great explanation for this. Our culture has shaped us into individuals who want to buy, use, dispose, and begin the cycle again. And we want it all to be easy. Our culture is heavily pitted against the environment. If we will ever see a positive change in the environment, it will almost certainly have to come along with a cultural paradigm shift, as Assadourian noted. When we each calculated our carbon footprint, I think it was made pretty clear that we can not continue at our current rate (not even close!). Each of us are using so many resources that it would take multiple earths to sustain human life if everyone on the planet lived like us.

For these reasons, among others, I think both the media and the individual are two important factors standing in the way of effective action.

Culture, Convenience, and Apathy

It's the end of the world as we know it

And I feel fine.

-REM

Especially in the context of climate change, one factor to consider above all else is the remarkable complexity of the issue. There are no absolutes. A company that produces plastic water filters may campaign against bottled water. An oil company may invest in renewable energy sources. A pipeline that may lead directly to environmental degradation may create thousands of new jobs. This is an important point to consider, and one that appears to be missing in Damian Carrington's article. Even actors that are generally harmful to the environmental health of the planet may have some positive impacts, which makes the battle to stop climate change one in which the lines between friend and foe become less clearly delineated. 

Carrington alludes briefly to politics and the economy as a source of difficulty in the campaign against climate change, yet he does not mention culture along with these societal components. Having discussed Assadourian's "The Rise and Fall of Consumer Cultures" as well as Donella Meadow's "Leverage Points," there are significant and far reaching aspects of culture that complicate the battle against climate change, including the highly ingrained social mentality of limitless and ever increasing consumption. That this notion has become self-perpetuating is a severe and substantial obstacle in reducing climate change, and its association with the political and economic realm of society should not be discounted. As one who believes in the power of institutions, culture is especially important, as it may serve as the vehicle through which humanity may shift into a new paradigm of sustainability rather than consumption, and of longevity rather than trendsetting. 

Another important and related point of consideration is that of convenience. Under the current system it is too convenient for the average individual to make use of existing technologies that are furthering environmental harm. In the specific case of transit, it is easy and intuitive that an individual will visit a petrol pump/gas station when his or her vehicle is running low on fuel. It is less convenient for that person to switch to an electric vehicle, and even more difficult still for that person to find a way to maintain his or her current lifestyle without the use of a private vehicle at all. 

The last major point that went unnoticed by Carrington is that of apathy. Regrettably, the reality of climate change is simply incomprehensible to many individuals, some due to ideology, and others due to an inability to rationalize the concept and apply it to their daily routines. Whatever the reason for their apathy, it is a characteristic that is perhaps more alarming than any other, as those who are truly apathetic are unlikely to take action to remedy a scenario in which they do not perceive a problem. 

Stopping climate change is a complex and colossal challenge. Along with the three major problems mentioned by Carrington, other factors such as culture, convenience, and apathy each play a role in undermining current efforts to restore the health of the natural world. 

Carrington Article

In his short article, Damian Carrington notes some significant barriers to climate change. All three of these are reasonable, but there are some important details that he leaves out.

First, he points out that the U.S. and China need to provide "outstanding leadership" when it comes to combating climate change. This scenario is extremely unlikely for many reasons. As we have frequently discussed, environmental issues have been politicized literally to death in the U.S. to the extent where very few productive measures can be taken. Just this weekend, the decision on whether the Keystone XL pipeline would be built from Canada through the U.S. was delayed until after the 2012 election. This is quite lucky for President Obama since he now does not have to make a decision that was sure to anger a significant number of people no matter what the decision was. It is also evidence that there are too many dissenting groups in the political arena that make easy policy decisions impossible.

This segues into my next point that another problem is that in the U.S., the environmental movement is too diffuse. There are too many interest and lobbying groups for small, individual causes that make it so that broad environmental change is nearly impossible. It would be more beneficial if there was a unified front for environmental change, but that is not the case.

Fight against Climate Change? Maybe tomorrow

Damian Carrington’s piece on why it’s so hard to stop climate change mentions three key barriers preventing us from taking action; politics and economics, cheap fossil fuels and not enough low-carbon energy. Short and to the point, I do think that he missed a few other barriers that are worth noting.

The first barrier I would add to Carrington’s list the lack of confidence in global warming science in the United States. This is so vitally important because if the world hopes to see any sort of climate agreement, it’s essential for the US to take a lead role, something that will prove impossible if the American public doesn’t have faith in science. For whatever reasons, a frightening large number of Americans think that climate change science is bogus, and therefore feel no need to support efforts to combat climate change.

A second challenge to fighting climate change is the lack of motivation from those who believe in it. Back home, almost everyone I know believes that it’s happening and that humans are the main culprit. But other than that, they don’t change their actions to lessen their environmental impact. A great quote comes from the film Hotel Rwanda, when Don Cheadle’s character, the local hotel manager, begs an American cameraman to send footage of Rwandan atrocities to news outlets abroad so that people will call for intervention. The cameraman responds by saying “I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.” Climate change is the same way. People may notice it and worry about it, but it amounts to nothing more than a few worries in the long run. With climate change affecting many faraway things such as tropical coral reefs and African farmers, Americans are quite removed from the harshest effects of global warming and consequently, it’s difficult for Americans to get motivated to do something to slow climate change.

The final barrier that I would add to Carrington’s article follows the previous paragraph and regards the desire for people to keep their ways of life. The problem is that we need to change our ways of living to make a true impact, yet none of us are willing to do so. We’re seeing climate change partly thanks to the “American way of life”; big cars, big houses with big backyards, long commutes and lots of stuff. If we really want to be serious about climate change then we need to make sacrifices, and not sacrifices like buying a Prius or eco-friendly office supplies. We need people to move into smaller houses, give up their cars, fly less, and consume less of nearly everything else. People simply aren’t ready to take these sorts of steps, and until we realize that our culture itself is contributing to global warming, global warming will continue unabated.

Misinformation Gone Wild

Climate Change, the never ending ping pong battle of he said, she said, over whether anthropological climate change exists or not. The simple rationalization of the argument mentioned above is only further enhanced by the “Friends of Science” and “Grist” websites we looked at for this week’s assignments.

Just by simply looking at the content for both of these sites, it is quite obvious to see that the intent of both sites is to talk to their base. In the case of both “Friends of Science” and “Grist”, all of the content on the website is slanted heavily towards the left or right. While the “Friends of Science” organization paints itself as not being funded by any organization, they do not disclose the funding provided by specific individuals who may have ties to organizations focused on climate change denial.

While both sites are in their right of free speech to publish whatever content they want, I find that both sites provide a disservice to the public by publishing their radical views. A well educated individual should know to always look for various forms of media and information on any topic to try and get a well rounded view on any issue in order to form a valid and well researched opinion. However in the case of climate change-with these sites in particular, no matter how much digging that is done, individuals will always end up back at square one knowledge wise since all the information posted on one site is counteracted by information posted on an opposition view.

Ironically, while the following argument might seem adverse to the goals of each organization, it would actually be better for the organizations to post well balanced information on their site. If they believe the strength of their argument is correct and should win out regardless, what is so wrong with publishing fair and balanced opinions of taking out studies on their own and publishing unbiased results? This past week, a big story that hit the newswire was that Richard Mueller- a noted climate change denier changed his view on the issue after conducting a fair and balanced study using the arguments of his opposition. Best of all, the study was funded by the notorious conservative group The Koch Brothers.

Over the summer I was lucky enough to work with an organization called Climate Central that is focused on providing clear and non biased results about the science behind climate change. While working there, I saw firsthand that people working there were focused on getting out the truth of the issue and making people who otherwise would not care about the issue interested in climate change in their own lives. When articles were being discussed for what to write on, individuals took great pains to both comment on various out there liberal papers and conservative reports. It is my opinion that taking these pains to be apolitical and scientifically accurate is the best way of getting people’s mind made on either side of the aisle.

Internet Convictions

Both of these websites have the possibility to convince viewers of their perspectives at first glance. However, both sites become less convincing with further viewing. On its homepage, the Grist website seems to hold a wealth of information, but as you scroll down the website, you notice that it is the same posts arranged into different categories. Also, the site is maintained by someone whose credentials are, "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer. Same old story... I have been blogging about climate change since 2006 at A Few Things Ill Considered." These are hardly reputable credentials and don't present significant scientific evidence. The Grist website could have been assembled by anyone with a computer and ability to Google search. It seems that the website is geared towards people who already believe in climate change and and need to be able to present their arguments to those who are skeptical or who don't believe. It is helpful in the sense that the author links to many other sources, but again, the author himself has no valid scientific credentials, making him not an authoritative source.

The Friends of Science website has a few user-friendly positives. Meant for the climate skeptic, the site is nice because a wealth of articles that support its viewpoint and many of them are ranked on a star scale from 1-3 for technicality. This means that people will have an easier time getting through the website based on their prior knowledge of climate issues. However, upon closer inspection, the website can be easily discredited. One of the scrolling quotes across the top talks of the "Kyototo" Protocol. The name of the website is ironic as well, since "Friends of Science" would normally be assumed to discuss how global warming is happening and is serious, since that's what the majority of the science tells us. A graph on the first page that is used to try and show lower global temperatures and CO2 levels is misinterpreted by the site. They use a best fit line for CO2 concentration that shows it barely declining between 1999 and 2007 but the rest of the graph clearly shows that the concentration level has increased substantially since 1979.

Overall, neither website is particularly credible, although Friends of Science simply looks more professional. The Grist website perhaps has better information and the data it presents are not as easily discredited as Friends of Science.

The Bad Guys Win

There is more than one way to discuss such controversial issues as climate change. With this set of issues, as with any controversial topic, there is a manner of discussion that is more amiable, more diplomatic, and more likely to lead to an actual discourse on the subject in question. This approach was demonstrated by the website of the Friends of Science. The alternative, a more confrontational, argumentative approach, was exhibited by the Grist website, "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic." While both websites offered a wealth of content, there were noteworthy differences in both purpose and approach that would, in my view, make the former much more effective than the latter. 

The Friends of Science website clearly stated their objective and opinion. Their purpose, stated in the "About Us" section of their website, clearly summarized their objective (to put pressure on the government and focus public discourse on the issue of climate change by educating the public), and furthermore provided their opinion: the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. The Grist website, in contrast, was featured in a more reactionary arrangement, identifying the main talking points of climate skeptics and providing responses to these points. Departing in nature from the FOS website, the Grist website seems mainly to function as ammunition for diehard climate change activists, providing them with quick rebuttals to be deployed against the skeptics in any scenario imaginable. 

In terms of evaluating the content, FOS offered informative articles that were arranged by topic and rated according to the level of technical detail. FOS also contained an extensive section on peer reviewed articles and official responses of FOS to pieces of legislation, other environmental entities, and publications related to the field of climate change. Conversely, the Grist website contains many blog entries among its lengthly list of responses, with a main contributer being a self-described "former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." On the plus side for Grist, many articles do contain numerous references to related articles to bolster their arguments, though in many cases these links bring up other Grist articles (in some cases by the same author). It should be noted that although I consider myself very much a supporter of the perspective advocated in the Grist page, I, from as objective a viewpoint as possible, unhappily concede that FOS has trumped Grist in terms of content.

There is no question as to which website is more effective. FOS succeeds as the more viable contender of the two, simply by virtue of the fact that it presents well supported information that strengthens its point and acknowledges its own perspective relative to the debate without attempting to disguise its biases. The Grist website, by contrast, is aggressive and unlikely to serve any purpose other than to solidify the opinions of individuals who already subscribe to its view regarding climate change. The hard line adopted by the Grist page is more likely to alienate skeptics, as some of the links make use of strong rhetoric that includes an allusion to advocacy for arresting climate change skeptics. The axiom that "soft words win hard hearts" may be most valuable to consider for the Grist page, as such powerful language, while effective perhaps for motivating a supportive base, is usually ineffective in creating a mutually respectful dialogue between two parties of differing ideologies. 

If I read it on the Internet then it must be true!

Looking at these two very different websites, I get the sense that they both only have one true purpose; to discredit the other side of the global warming debate as much as possible. While the two sites are on completely different sides of climate change (its happening versus it’s a lie), they both make their respective arguments with scientific data and helpful bullet points to better influence visitors.

How should we make sense and evaluate the scientific claims?

As a non-scientist, I really have no idea how to make sense of their scientific claims – and that’s why I think the sites work so well. I think most competent people have at least a basic idea in their heads of the scientific reasoning used by both the global warming skeptics and the scientists acknowledging global warming. Both sites’ scientific data makes sense, since they probably would be quickly discredited if they were making up the data, and both sites seem to be run by reasonably intelligent and qualified people. In this sense, the two websites remind me of my freshman year statistics class, because all I remember from the class is that no matter what data you have, you can manipulate it to get any point you want across. Likewise, I got the feeling that the two websites are using very similar data that only differs in the way its presented and interpreted.

When it comes to the evaluation side of things, I think one has to pay attention to the details to see which website is really “telling the truth”. For example, Friends of Science claims that the Earth is cooling, yet at the same time attributes the current rise in global temperatures to solar activity and natural long-term fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Taken alone, each of these arguments is very reasonable, but any competent person has to wonder why Friends of Science is claiming the Earth is cooling while the Earth is warming due to solar activity. It’s looking for these inconsistencies that allows the average person to effectively evaluate each website for its scientific content.

Is one site more convincing than the other?

Absolutely. The simple fact is that the Friends of Science website discredits itself within the first few minutes of browsing thanks to the inconsistency found above. And as a non-scientist, I found that Friends of Science posts graphs and charts that only a scientist would understand – it seems as though the site tries to prove its point to the average person by showing incomprehensible data; “if I can’t understand it than it must be legitimate science!”. How to Talk to Talk to a Climate Skeptic meanwhile presents its data in a very dumbed down, easy to read way – the way a non-scientist like me likes it. Furthermore, How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic also has much more information on its site – which in makes in more credible in my opinion. And finally, the use of out-of-context quotes at the top of the Friends of Science site tells me that the site is desperate for more effective ways to influence visitors. After all, it’s always the losing candidate in an presidential election who brings up the most out-of-context quotes of the other in a futile attempt at victory.

Adventures in Corn-Fasting

What do my Parmesan cheese, honey mustard salad dressing and energy bars all have in common? Besides being dangerously delicious, to my surprise they all contain corn! During my little corn-fasting experiment over 2 and half days, I found myself planning meals and then retracting my ideas at the last minute after discovering corn in many of the things I eat. For me, it was a bit of a shock; not only in just the variety of different ways corn shows up in food, but in the variety of foods as well. It’s as though you can’t go for more than a couple of meals without running into something that has at least a little bit of corn in it, if even that much when following a typical American diet.

While it was initially difficult to eat a meal without taking in some corn, I quickly spotted a trend; it seemed as though the more processed the food was, the more likely it was to contain corn. My Parmesan cheese and honey mustard dressing contained corn products because (in my belief) they are meant to have long shelf lives and they also take a step or two out of the food preparation process. In the case of the honey mustard dressing for example, I took a quick look in my recipe book and found instructions for making a similar dressing; the only ingredients called for were olive oil, honey, mustard, lemon juice and garlic, a far cry from the paragraph list of ingredients found on my store bought variety’s label. In fact it looked so easy to make, I began asking myself why I had bought the pre-made dressing in the first place.

Essentially over the few days of corn-fasting, I came to the conclusion that corn is there to make our lives more convenient. Don’t have the time to grate fresh Parmesan cheese? Buy some pre-grated cheese with a little corn in it! Don’t have the will to make your own fresh salad dressing? Buy some pre-made stuff that comes with a bit of corn! The little experience made me question some of my eating and food purchasing habits. Flipping through my recipe book and making dinner on Saturday night reminded me of just how easy and enjoyable it is to make meals from scratch. And when we make these meals from scratch, I think the lack of corn and corn-derived products make them healthier as well. After all, less corn in food means a less processed product, which I believe is the real sign of whether something edible is healthy or not.

Corn,Corn,Corn....Did I mention Corn?

I have a dirty little confession to make….I failed my task this week.

As we all know, we were tasked with trying to go a day, or two, or possibly three is we tried without corn. Now problem one with this task for me is that I am a straight corn freak. While we all know corn is in basically everything, I am a sucker for those little golden nuggets on their own or with the cob. Now when it came time to eat things without corn, everything in my usual diet was out the window.

On the day that I tried to go cornless-last Wednesday, I actually was doing a good job-by starving. Yes I was hungry for most of the day but when I walked into my fridge, basically everything I had contained artificial sweeteners or high fructose corn syrup. So as I wallowed away in my hunger, things did not help my cause as I saw commercials for various snack foods and diet sodas which of course contain various corn products and corn syrups. When it came time for dinner though, I was still on track to complete the tasks given to us. I went with some friends to TDR, grabbed some cornless ratatouille, free range chicken, and a salad. However as fate would have it, I instantly went for my favorite diet coke and thus before I knew it, I failed.

A key problem with having so much corn in our lives is not only is we face it on a daily basis but the fact we are conditioned to eat and drink these products.

Corn Everywhere

After seeing this challenge to not eat corn for 2 days, I knew I was in for a challenge. Immediately I strategized that would stick with eating 3 meals a day and eliminating snacking. This in itself was difficult, I love to snack. I almost exclusively drank water. I found that I could just make eggs for breakfast and avoid corn, so that wasn't awful. Lunch was more of a problem, as I usually didn't have time to cook before class, so I gave in and made myself a PB and J sandwich. The bread, peanut butter and jelly all had corn syrup in some form, although it was the last ingredient in the peanut butter.

Needless to say, by the time dinnertime rolled around I was starving. Only some eggs and a sandwich to eat all day? Not enough. Luckily, I had some acceptable food for dinner. I was able to make some rice, vegetables, and grill some chicken that made for a nice balanced dinner. These were 2 very hungry days, as I had one really satisfying meal each day and I cheated for my lunch. Eliminating corn products from a diet is really difficult and made it hard to have a balanced diet with sufficient nutrients. I'm sure that if I put more effort into avoiding corn I would be able to focus on eating fresh foods that were unprocessed and corn-free, but as a casual 2-day experiment, this was very difficult.

The New Food Pyramid: Just Corn

To answer the question of what I discovered/learned from this experiment:

I learned that just about everything contains corn. To not eat corn means eating mostly pure, unprocessed foods. When not eating corn, I relied heavily on my stock of vegetables and the few other staples that, by chance, didn't contain corn. However, I did eat some things with corn in them. Most of the time, by accident. I would eat something, and then double check it with the list- finding that most of my foods had corn under some other name.

I've seen the documentary Food, Inc. many times, and they discuss how most foods in the supermarket have corn in some form. So, going into this experiment- I understood that and I knew it would be difficult. Yet I was clearly unprepared for just how difficult it would be.

Many healthy eating experts tout the importance of eating unprocessed (often synonymous with unpackaged) foods. I think that has a lot to do with corn as an ingredient. From what I experienced, processed almost always meant corn would be an added ingredient in some way, shape or form.

I find this incredibly unfortunately because of the environmental impacts that industrial corn growing is having on the corn belt. Top soil is being lost and we're starting to grow all sorts of genetically modified corn strains (this is also completely ignoring the fact that no foods containing GM ingredients have to be labeled as such). In all, the prevalence of corn in every aspect of our daily lives as food consumers is a serious issue. What is this doing to our bodies? What is this doing to our planet? People often ignore the ingredients list, or skip over ingredients like "maltodextrin." I'm sure there is also something to be said about seeing "corn extract" on the list of ingredients- it's basically corn, so it can't be so bad, right? Wrong.

It's also important to note what we could be doing with the land that we're using (and abusing) to grow all this corn. Overall, I believe it is a serious issue, and something that I'm going to be interested in learning more about and being more conscious about in the future.

Why the Hell Does Everything Contain Corn?

It's not that my diet is great to begin with, but I see now that I severely overestimated the diversity of that which I consume. Having recently begun a personal campaign to eliminate high fructose corn syrup from my diet, I assumed that going one day without anything corn-related would not be all that difficult, and that it would require only marginally more discipline than I have exhibited in the past. Clearly, I was wrong. 

Starting with the most important meal of the day, I was dismayed when I took out my frosted Cheerios from the pantry, only to find that my delectable cereal contained Corn Meal, Corn Starch, and Corn Syrup. That, thought I, is a lot of corn. Looking further down the list of ingredients I spied Vanillin, yet another item on the prohibited corn allergen list. So, in the spirit of the 24 corn avoidance challenge, I turned instead to Red Raspberry yogurt. A quick examination of the ingredients revealed that this yogurt also contained Corn Starch, rendering it off limits. So too was the winning combination of bread with creamy brie cheese, as the bread that I had purchased that morning from Giant contained high fructose corn syrup (a follow up visit to the grocery store led to the discovery of bread without HFCS, but the damage had already been done). Hungry and perplexed, I was even unable to find nourishment in the morning hours in Ocean Spray White Cranberry Peach juice, a much loved concoction that contains sodium citrate. Lunch was no better. My intended side of potato chips contained malic acid. Fortunately, at dinner I was saved through the grace of a salmon fillet, though in truth I neglected to check if it was farm raised.  

By the end of the day I was unsuccessful in eliminating anything containing corn from my diet even for one day. Because it is used to create so many ingredients, it appears that avoiding anything corn related is next to impossible. I was amazed by the sheer range of ingredients that were made from corn, and I regrettably would be at a loss to attempt to engineer and abide by a diet that sought to avoid it in any form. 

Suckling From the Industrial Food Complex

Food, regardless of where you live in the world or how much money you have, it is the common thread between a rich banker living on wall street and a guy living in a mud hut in rural Kenya. Yet when we look at our food choices in the developed world, we are afforded the opportunity to eat for more than just survival; but for pleasure as well.

When I make my own food choices, I go through a variety of factors depending on the situation. If I am in a bind between going to class or getting somewhere fast, usually fast food or something frozen would better fit the situation. However, say I was on a nice date night with a friend or so, choosing a finer quality option such as something upscale or more unique like Ethiopian or Japanese would fit the bill. However in a majority of cases, environmental concerns are not the first thing that comes to my mind when I am choosing to eat something. I do not heavily research how sustainable the food that I am eating unless the fact is noted to me like Chipotle’s “Food with Integrity” or a special note on a restaurant’s menu written by the chef. While I do feel good that my meal is benefiting the environment, I would not simply boycott a place because they were unsustainable or were not environmental friendly.

Over the last few days, I have been at home for a family event and have had the opportunity to eat out often on my parent’s dime. In thinking about this assignment as I ate my meals, I would have to think that the item with the biggest environmental impact would most likely be the steak that I ate for dinner last night. While some steak- those that are grass fed and open range, do not have a large impact on the environment, the steak that I had was most likely corn fed. All the processed mush that the corn ate was a direct result of the industrial food complex lowering the price of corn to allow for cheap, quick, and fat beef. Additionally, the size of the steak was massive-enough for two people, so all of the calories and grains that it took to raise the cow from birth to its final size was much more then the ratatouille I had on the side or the pasta I had for lunch today.

So while I do understand the issue of food and being environmentally conscience, at time my stomach overrules my head and thus I simply suckle from the industrial food complex we should all avoid.

The Impact of my Food Choices

When making food choices, I am primarily concerned with health. I try to eat a lot of vegetables and fruits, with minimal dairy and meat (because I find that is what works best for me). This is mainly related to my food choices when I purchase my own food and eat at home, although my train of thought is often different when eating out or when someone else cooks for me (many times, the healthier restaurant options are not the vegetarian options- often times a vegetarian meal in a restaurant consists largely of cheese which I try not to consume. And when I am eating at someone else’s home I eat whatever they prepare for me- since my meal choices are not moral-based and I find that is often the most polite and, well, easier option in social settings).

Next, I do consider some of the environmental impacts. For example, I try to avoid fish, especially those on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Guide. I love shrimp, but they are never a “Best Choice,” so I usually avoid them, along with many other fish options (the ocean ecosystems are of special importance to me so I rarely eat fish because I find that it is better to be safe than sorry).

I also avoid meat and dairy as often as possible. I don’t have any meat in my fridge, and I only use almond milk on my cereal. This is for a few reasons: 1) I don’t like to cook, and I am not any good at it, so I don’t trust myself with cooking meat. Also, I like to be able to grab-and-go, and meat just takes too long for me to prepare. 2) I don’t really like dairy. I don’t like cows milk, or most cheeses, but I do eat goat cheese. I understand that these choices are good for the environment, but that is not the most inherent reason I make these choices.

So, while I know that my food choices do have less negative effects that some, I understand that there are still many negative aspects of my food choices, AND I do have vices.

Since I am a college student, I do not have an endless supply of money. If I did, I would probably purchase most of my food from farmers markets as well as purchase only organic. However, I don’t have an endless supply of money. So my fruits and veggies are not always organic, and they usually make a long trek from other parts of the country (and I’m sure, at times, the world). For example, I purchase a lot of my food at Trader Joe’s. I love my raw almond butter, but the only place in the U.S. that grows almonds in California. So, IF Trader Joe’s gets their almonds from the U.S., they had to go from California, to wherever Trader Joe’s makes their products, to the distribution center in Massachusetts, to the store in Bethesda.

I also have a huge vice. One that I hate to admit, and I try over and over again to quit. But I love soda. When I have the money to spend, I purchase Kombucha instead (it has less chemicals so it is better for me, and glass is pretty easy to recycle. I often re-use the bottles multiple times before I even put them into the recycling bin). I even try to drink natural soda as often as possible, one’s that also contain no chemicals or artificial sweeteners. However, every one in a while, I just want a Diet Coke

I had one on Friday. And that was probably the worst thing I’ve consumed in the last few days. First of all, it is HORRIBLE for me. As health conscious as I usually am, Diet Coke does nothing for me. It contains caramel color, artificial sweeteners, and I like to pretend that I don’t know what else is in there, but it is NOT good. And, while I try to buy cans versus plastic bottles (only because they are a TINY bit better- only 10% of plastic bottles are recycled compared to 50% of cans, and it is a lot easier to recycle cans) it doesn’t negate that fact that the Coca-Cola company still makes their cans with 50% virgin aluminum (which is an environmental disaster trying to mine). They are also often scorned for taking the water that they use in their Diet Coke from areas of severe water shortage, like in India.

Overall, Diet Coke is one of the worst things I do to myself and the environment (in terms of food and beverage choices). So I will keep finding and turning to alternatives, and I am known to show up to parties with a Kombucha in hand, but I know that, for me, nothing makes a backyard BBQ quite as complete as a Coca-Cola.

Convenience > Quality - The Life of a College Student

Food has to be one of my most favorite things in the world. I enjoy learning about it watching Anthony Bourdain, cooking with it in the kitchen and of eating it at the table. At this point in my life, what I consider when making food choices encompasses a variety of variables.

As a college senior with a full course load and internship, convenience (unfortunately) is the most important consideration I take into account when making food choices. With a busy schedule and new obligations coming up all the time, I usually get to spend less time preparing and enjoying food than I would like to. Of course there are ways that I’ve found to get around this dilemma. On Sunday nights, I like to make a large casserole that will last me a few days in the form of leftovers, so that I can eat convenient meals throughout the week that I had the pleasure of making myself.

The second most important thing I take into account is the quality of the food, which for me represents its taste, healthiness and how natural it is. For example, one of my favorite foods is pizza, something one finds in the cheapest back alleys and most expensive Italian restaurants around the world. But when pizza has been made with fresher tomatoes and less processed cheese, it’s healthier, more natural and better tasting. This is why I don’t eat at McDonald’s and why Subway usually doesn’t do it for me – sure they may meet my first criteria of being convenient, but the quality of the food often borders on being atrocious. I’m hoping that once out of college however, I will have more time to dedicate to the kitchen and more money as well to purchase fresher, higher quality ingredients, instead of thinking of convenience first and quality later.

Looking back over the past few days, I would say the food or beverage with the highest environmental impact that I consumed was the foie gras appetizer I ate on Wednesday night. First off, it’s meat, so by default already, the amount of Calories put into its production far outweigh the resulting number of Calories consumed by me. Second, not only was it meat, but it foie gras, a product that requires insane amounts of food Calories to produce it on top of already being a meat product. Finally, due to the nature of making it, very few producers in the U.S. make fois gras, meaning that my sampling was probably shipped over from France. Such a journey requires transportation with fossil fuels, and any 3,000-mile journey over water isn’t exactly modest with its fossil fuel consumption. Thankfully this isn’t something I eat every day or even every month, but nonetheless, its impact on the environment is quite harsh.

Idealist Fiction: 22nd Century America

In his piece “An Island Civilization”, Roderick Nash puts forth his vision of a world in 1,000 years. While such idealistic thought makes for interesting fiction, it is more practical to envision such a grand plan for a more manageable amount of time such as 100 years.

We can all agree that if we extrapolated the way the United States (U.S) lives over the next century, the results would be grim. Too many people, too many emissions, and not enough resources are just a few of the problems that would be faced in such a U.S. In order to ensure the future survival of not just the U.S but for the world at large, it is imperative that the U.S show strong leadership on restructuring their society towards a more sustainable one.

The main issue which needs to be addressed is how to deal with the growing problem of cities. Currently, cities in themselves are unsustainable as they have to draw in energy and food from other parts in order to power and feed both their population. To compensate this issue, cities are going to have to take a hard look at starting to supply their own needs.

In terms of energy, the main gripe that is put in place currently is that there is not enough space to place power stations to power a city. In 100 years this concern will be negligible as every building can be turned into a power station. The addition of solar panels in a variety of forms along with wind turbines on every building will allow for self sustainable energy production on a massive scale-much more than any one power station can provide. Not only will this power be 100% clean, but excess power can be sold back to the grid encouraging more investment in the city’s infrastructure due to this moneymaking opportunity. On a larger scale, local waterways -such as the Hudson River in New York, can be utilized as power sources through the inclusion of wave and tidal turbines.

With regards to food, cities should expand already existing projects at creating urban hydroponics facilities. These facilities would act as a main food supply for those living in cities. Not only would emissions be reduced by having food travel from the fields to the tables at a much lower rate than in the 21^st century, but integrating food supplies into the fabric of the city would be just another way to promote city sustainability. Also, by having individuals in the city get a better look into just how food comes from the fields to the farm, the hope is that the population of the 22^nd century would be more knowledgeable about how their actions fit into the larger world as opposed to individuals in the 21^st century.

While there are countless other issues such as general infrastructure, transportation, and cultural issues, the main focus of cities should be to push for food and energy. Without these two components, citizens in these cities could not survive. While these two issues might be the most politicized in the 21^st century- through the oil and corn lobby, finding ways at looking toward the future rather for selfish current needs is the key to ensure America’s survival.

100 Years Forward

I am profoundly confident in the abilities of humanity to address its problems. I believe that despite our cultural differences and contradictory priorities, it is within our collective ability to engineer a society that will serve both humanity and the millions of other species to which this planet is host. Roderick Nash’s “Island Civilization” is a compelling and insightful article, and in 1,000 years’ time from now I agree that the world (assuming it still exists) will look distinctly different from how it appears currently. In one hundred years time, however, I am less optimistic. In certain cases, conditions must deteriorate before society fully comprehends the necessity to make fundamental alterations to societal and commercial interaction. One hundred years may seem like a long time, but to the natural world in which we live, it is but a brief moment in its prodigious longevity.

To move toward a society in which sustainability is at the core of our moral value system, humanity will first need to identify a reason to change its existing systems that is both strong and convincing enough to appeal to the majority of society. As has been noted, environmentalism has become a matter of political ideology, not one of scientific observation or even common sense. For this reason alone, changing the social mentality across the political spectrum will provide a significant obstacle toward universal acceptance of sustainability, one that will likely require social pressure exerted over at least one generation.

A second fundamental challenge is the actual shift toward sustainability. If we are to make such radical changes, we will have to solve existing social problems before this massive undertaking. No government in the world has the power to address sustainability, along with a myriad of other problems, simultaneously, though progress in any one area is likely to have positive effects on another. Even the abilities of government (or some other change agent with a high degree of prevalence) will have to be strengthened to initiate such changes.

With this in mind, here is my vision:

In one hundred years time, the US energy infrastructure will be composed of a much higher percentage of renewable energy alternatives, such as wind, hydro, and electric power. The reliance on petroleum will have decreased after the implementation of federal policies discouraging their usage from both environmental and security-related considerations. Surprisingly to some, nuclear energy will play an important role in this sustainable future. This will be made possible by a breakthrough in scientific research to safely dispose of spent nuclear fuel, which will efficiently eliminate radioactive materials. Unlike the large nuclear plants of Europe, reactors in the United States will be much smaller in both size and scope.

Similar breakthroughs will occur in US tax policy. To prevent careless consumption of scarce resources such as water, a new policy will be implemented. This policy will designate a set price structure on usage of water, and will consider such factors as geographic location, family size, and the climate of the particular region. Water usage up to the point designated as appropriate (based on the aforementioned factors applied to each individual household), will be treated as a public utility, while every additional unit over the designated threshold will be taxed at a higher rate to discourage over usage.

Public transportation will be much more prevalent and efficient. The number of private vehicles bought in the United States may remain around current levels, but actual usage will fall due to the high reliability of public forms of transit. Public transportation will not be viewed as a commuter system for the poor segments of society, but rather for society in its entirety. The DC metro system’s escalators will function 100% of the time.

In the corporate sector, the adoption of corporate social responsibility will be conventional rather than atypical. Companies will seek profit as a motive along with sustainability within the community. The rise of “B Corporations,” or social enterprises where social value is as important as commercial value, will be such that social businesses outnumber profit-maximizing corporations.

Lastly, in 2111, the Chicago Bears will have won their 92^nd Super Bowl Championship, marking a sports dynasty that began in 2019, when the then thirty-year-old billionaire philanthropist Luke Tecson bought their franchise. 

A Sustainable U.S.

In 100 years, I see a sustainable United States functioning entirely on clean energy. For all of the buildings that we DO have, solar panels will be on top. Wind turbines will provide wind energy, and a multitude of other options will allow us to function completely off the grid. People will feed themselves with food grown within their immediate community. Essentially, while we will have moved forward in ways to provide energy, I see us as reverting back to local, family farm or community agriculture. You won't have to buy oranges from Mexico because, if you live in Florida, they will be grown right in your community.

As Nash mentioned, the population will be infinitely smaller. The economy will be, as well. In fact, just about everything about life will have gotten smaller. You and your extended family will all live in the same area- so there would be no need for most of the population to travel constantly around the globe. The economy will be mostly local, with some exceptions that will allow all of our communities to stay connected. Transportation is the one thing I disagreed with in Nash's writing. Not because I don't think that instantaneous air travel would be the best option, and I am sure that eventually we will get there, or get close. But for now, I think we need an alternative until we get to that point (because telling people that teleporting is our best option is not very convincing). So, until our scientists can figure that out, I do see how air travel between communities is the best option for long-distance travel. But the airplanes will rely on some sort of renewable energy, or fuel that emits no harmful byproducts. Local travel throughout the communities will be mostly on foot, or bicycle, as they will all be small enough for that to be possible and I see no reason to create a more advanced system of local travel (in fear that it will be a gateway back to exactly where we are now).

The communities themselves will be compact, as well, as Nash mentioned. I still see a place for single-family homes, but they will be stacked on top of other single-family homes as to take up less space, and there will be solar panels on top of the homes, as well as rain-water collectors, and any space left over will be for a green roof.

I was also intrigued by Nash's point that technology isn't inherently bad. That we could, in fact, use technology to our advantage. And in many ways, I agree. Especially in small communities, technology would be necessary to help make them run, and to communicate with other communities and spread ideas and data on how to live more efficiently and sustainably.

Essentially, I agreed with most parts of Nash's vision. I think that scaling down (which I found to be his basic point) is the key to sustainability. Yet when I first began reading "Island Civilization," I was reminded of something that was mentioned in our discussion group last week- that man feels as if it needs to conquer nature. This fact makes it difficult to argue that humans should move over and allow nature to have its place as well. Then, as I reached the end of the article, Nash wrote that, with his imagined world, "Humans could take their place along with the other predators"(137). In a world where the wilderness is in our backyard, and humans know how to interact with it instead of solely fearing it, I believe that humans can satisfy these needs while living in a sustainable world.

My Vision of a More Sustainable United States

In my view of the U.S. in 100 years, the country will have gone through some interesting transitions and technologies that are in their infancies today will have become mainstream. First of all, population will have been stagnant for a few decades and by 2111 will have begun to decline. The Baby Boomers will have been the last generation of its kind in terms of numbers and after they died off population began to slow. This accounts for the U.S. population in 2111 to be around 280 million. In terms of population disbursement there will be a movement inland due to areas on the coasts, especially in the low-lying Southeast and Mid-Atlantic, being submerged by rising sea levels. This will have a profound impact since many major cities will be victimized. Thus, the Midwest will see an influx of people who will begin to congregate around freshwater sources such as the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and the Great Lakes.

The advance of sustainable technology will have the most impact on our future. What is defined today as “alternative” energy will become mainstream energy 100 years from now. Solar power will become extremely important and widespread, with solar panels being built in the Southwest and in Death Valley to power vast swaths of the region. This will be feasible because the initial costs of solar panels will no longer be prohibitively expensive and will allow for infrastructure to be developed so that the solar energy can be spread around the area. We will also have embraced wind energy provided by wind farms placed all over the Great Plains and offshore on the Great Lakes. Those will be crucial for providing power to the increased populations of the region. The U.S. will still manufacture high-end goods, especially green technologies. This will make them cheaper domestically and will provide a competitive advantage when exporting them to other nations in need. Solar and wind energy will be important developments in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

In terms of transportation, gas-powered machines will be reaching the point of becoming obsolete. Cars will be electric and will utilize batteries that harness the great amount of solar energy that is being produced. While expensive now, these batteries will also become cheaper as the technology develops, allowing them to be mass-produced and consumed for a reasonable price. Airline travel will still exist but will be severely diminished by the creation of a national high-speed rail system similar to today’s Maglev trains that glide a few inches above the tracks using electromagnetism.

It’s not likely that all of these predictions will come to fruition, but I believe that they are good milestones to strive for in our attempt to adapt to climate change and live in a sustainable future.

To a Sustainable Civilization in 3 Steps or less

In response to Roderick Nash’s article Island Civilization, I will take my own quick look at the United States 100 years from now. While I Nash may come off as a bit idealistic in his piece, I strongly agree with him on the need to find a sustainable solution to human civilization.

In my first step towards a sustainably civilization, I agree with Nash on where people need to live to keep the Earth alive - cities. I am a big proponent of moving people to cities in to make our planet healthier. We can build apartments housing hundreds of families on the same plot of land that one or two families take up in the suburbs. Thanks to the high density of services and employment that cities provide, people don’t need cars, but can rely on bikes, public transit or their own two feet to get around. Moving people to cities would be the first step in my plan to make human civilization a bit more sustainable.

The second step in my vision would be finding the cleanest source of energy possible. No matter what we do, we have to pollute to get energy. Whether it’s mining silicon for solar panels or setting up wind turbines in sensitive areas, we should admit to the fact that even clean energy comes with costs. In my sustainable vision, these clean sources as well as nuclear energy would be the only forms of energy production allowed. And likewise, society itself would become much more efficient in its energy use. When Thomas Edison opened one of the first coal power stations in Manhattan in 1882, it converted 3% of the heat energy into electricity. Today’s natural gas power plants have an efficiency of 60%. Likewise, I think that we are just starting to scratch the surface in terms of improving the efficiency of today’s societies, whether it’s in the realm of transportation, buildings, food production, or anything else vital to us.

My third and final step would be a cultural revolution of sorts. People would learn to live with less. Smaller living spaces, less consumption and less long-distance traveling would all be on the table. Being asked to travel less or downsize one’s home may seem harsh, but I think it’s possible with a kind of philosophical approach. I’ve come to realize that when I don’t have as much of something I appreciate it a lot more. Whether it’s eating a steak every few months instead of every week or visiting my family back home for a limited time, scarcity makes us value objects for what they are really worth. Likewise I think if people traveled less and consumed less, they would better appreciate the times of indulgence, and a life of less wouldn’t be as bad as many proclaim.

I may come off as a bit idealistic in my vision – it’s true, it’ll be a tough road to go down. But coming from a civilization that builds towers into the sky and sends men to the moon, I think we can accomplish anything we set our hearts and minds to.