Research Prospectus and Bibliography

Rachel Carson states in her most famous legacy, “It took hundreds of millions of years to produce the life that now inhabits the earth— eons of time in which that developing and evolving and diversifying life reached a state of adjustment and balance with its surroundings…Given time— not in years but in millennia— life adjusts and a balance has been reached. For time is an essential ingredient; but in the modern world there is no time.” (Silent Spring, pg.6). Rachel Carson wrote this statement in 1962. If this statement rang true almost 50 years ago, imagine the impending severity it implies today. Carson spent her life warning society of the harm it was inflicting on the environment and the consequences that would ensue because of them. Unfortunately, not enough people paid serious attention to her pleas and the result of which is that society is headed into a completely man-made self-destruction.

It seems like the “going green” movement has become quite the fad in recent years. The original movement started up around the time that Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring and appears to have resurfaced in full-swing this past decade. The question is how will the things involved with “going green” truly help reduce our individual carbon-footprints on our society? The textbook Environmental Science: In Context says this in its chapter about the Green Movement:

“In what it implies about changing consumer awareness, some see “green-lightenment” as heartening. And since it creates demand for more environmentally friendly products, many think it’s moving in the right direction…Can a fad save us?… But no one thinks that green consumption alone can get humanity out of its climate predicament. As Alex Steffen, cofounder of world-changing.com, an environmental- commentary web site, writes: “There is no combination of purchasing decisions which will make the current affluent American lifestyle sustainable. You can’t shop your way to sustainability.”
The problem, say experts, is the magnitude of the problem. According to the World Wildlife Foundation’s Living Planet report, as of 2003, the demands of humanity as a whole exceeded Earth’s capacity by 25 percent. Americans, the biggest consumers, consume at a rate that’s twice what the planet can sustain.”
(Environmental Science: In context, pgs. 379-380)

So, if the fads of the green movement (i.e. cleverly marketed re-useable shopping bags) are not really going to help us in the long run, the question remains, what will? Are there certain little things that everyone should be doing in order to reduce their own carbon footprint and in turn attempt to save our planet? Basically, I am on a quest to discover what environment-saving fads really perform the task they claim.
So what exactly is a Carbon Footprint? According to www.carbonfootprint.com, “A carbon footprint is a measure of the impact our activities have on the environment, and in particular climate change. It relates to the amount of greenhouse gases produced in our day-to-day lives through burning fossil fuels for electricity, heating and transportation etc.” This is further broken down into a primary and secondary level. The primary level is a measure of an individuals’ direct emissions or use of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels in for domestic consumption. The secondary carbon footprint pertains to the indirect emissions of C02 from the fossil fuels used to manufacture our products, ect. and their eventual breakdown. After reading this I was curious as to what my personal carbon footprint constituted of. Here’s the breakdown (I used the calculator found on www.nature.org): It calculated that I used about 22 tons of CO2 a year which is less than the average American (27 tons of CO2), however, considerably more than the average global person, which is only 5.5 tons. I was both astounded and utterly disgusted that I personally contributed that much to environmental damages. I generally consider myself pretty savvy on being aware of the environment. I have weather-stripping in place on my windows, I don’t drive very often, I reuse a lot of things other people throw away, and I always try to recycle— I’ve even collected plastic bottles from the ground and brought them home with me on occasion just to make sure they get recycled.

Reduce, Re-use, Recycle. It is probably safe to assume that every elementary-school age child could recite that mantra. How much do Americans actually recycle and how much does this reverse the damage done to our environment? Some facts from the Recycling chapter from Environmental Science: In Context, “By 2008, the United States was recycling 32.5% of its solid municipal waste, including household trash. Fifty-two percent of paper, 31% of plastic carbonated-beverage bottles, 45% of aluminum beverage cans, 63% of steel cans, and 67% of refrigerators, stoves, and other large appliances were being recycled.” This information gives us a basis for approximately how much is recycled each year in the United States, but it does not exactly tell us the benefits that recycling provides for the environment.

The manufacturing process inherently calls for energy use. Even using recycled materials will expend energy during production. In the long run, recycling does save on energy and space in landfills, but perhaps re-using items and reducing consumption of other products are more effective ways of lessening one’s environmental damage impact. Critics of recycling claim that it is inefficient, but when recycling is properly carried out and maintained it does positively benefit the environment. The more society recycles, the more chance we have of refining recycling processes to make them the most efficient possible.

Bibliography:

Carson, Rachel. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Web.

Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth and K. Environmental Science: In Context. Farmington Hills,
MI. Gale, Cengage Learning, 2009. Web.

"Carbon Footprint Calculator - What's My Carbon Footprint?
The Nature Conservancy - Protecting Nature, Preserving Life. Web. 30 Jan. 2010.
.

Greenpeace | Greenpeace USA. Web. 30 Jan. 2010.
.

"United Nations Global Issues." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web.
29 Jan. 2010.
.

"Carbon Footprint - Recycling." Carbon Footprint - Home of Carbon Management. Web.
29 Jan. 2010.
< http://www.carbonfootprint.com/recycling.html>.

"What You Can Do -." Fight Global Warming - Environmental Defense Fund.
Web. 30 Jan.
.

Buckeye Forest Council

I enjoyed listening to David Maywhoor speak about the Buckeye Forest Council and their efforts to help stop local deforestation. I had no idea about the extent to which this problem exists in Ohio's public forests. His statement that this was public property that was being destroyed using public funding really struck home with me. Most people do not realize exactly what their taxes are being used for. I had no idea that money from our paychecks were being used for things like clear cutting and controlled fires to get rid of particular vegetation in our public forests.

When he spoke about how they used to say that a squirrel from Pennsylvania could travel to Indiana without touching the ground by using trees, it made me sad to think about what this are must have used to look like compared with today. I like that the Buckeye forest council is trying to maintain our existing wooded areas even if we will never regain all of the original missing trees and habitats in our local environment. This project seems like a worthy cause and I am interested in helping out after listening to David Mayhoor speak about it.

Research Topic: Carbon Footprint

In my research prospectus I would like to explore the average person's contribution to environmental damage in current day. What is my personal carbon footprint as an American citizen, who drives a car? More importantly, I would like to research what exactly one can do to help the environment, or at least slow the hazardous progression we are contributing to. Do things such as turning off the lights and using less hot water actually work?

I often wonder just how much the steps and mantras that have been pounded into our heads as children (reduce, reuse, recycle) actually impact the environment. If just one person, per household in America followed a simple process to eliminate the extremity of their carbon footprint, what impact would this have on the world as a whole. Basically, can I actually help make this world more sustainable simply on my own? What are the statistics- what really makes energy use more efficient?

I believe that most people know that they should recycle, ect. But somehow, not many people feel a personal responsibility to follow through. It is just so convenient to stop by a vending machine and purchase a bottle of water. Save your money, save the environment, save the earth, save humanity. Why not take a long, hot shower- you have the access to it- everyone else does it- why not take advantage of it? Why bother with a vendetta to reduce your carbon footprint- what impact can one person make if everyone else is still guzzling up tons of carbon each and every year, month, week, day, hour... minute... second? What difference can it make?


Why bother even saving the environment, we often wonder. It is already a mess, but will it not just move on with or without us? We are headed to another mass extinction, but our contributions to this inevitable crisis is only escalating it to a much sooner date. The author, Michael Chrichton, often alludes to these issues in his novels. In Jurassic Park he states, "Let's be clear. The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't got the power to destroy the planet - or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

Are we, as a society, really so naive, or maybe just blind to the fact that destruction of the place we live- destroys the wildlife- destroys the plants- in turn, will destroy us? We made this problem, and have the power to remedy it, even if the will to do so is lacking; so why not fix it? The fortunate ones of us live where we are not directly affected on a day to day level- but people around the world are already suffering and we keep on buying our SUVs and blasting our electronics. The lack of guilt is idiotically astounding. Who cares about the 3rd world, I'm comfortable right here, sitting on my couch, with the heat blasting, watching my HDTV with the lights on. I can afford it, why not take advantage of it. News flash: We will not be able to afford it for long- change is coming to our very doorstep and fast. What type of change this might curtail, only we have the power to make that choice. I choose life over destruction. What about you? I want to discover the validity of my personal carbon footprint and also the validity behind the steps I can follow to reduce it. Exactly how much can one person do in order to start reversing the man-made destruction to our very existence.

Lost Mountain (Post #3)

Wendell Berry distinguishes between the rational and sympathetic mind in order to describe societal tendencies. I feel like the term rational-mind refers to a mind that uses reason and logic to make decisions. It is a mind that is not restricted by any preconceived notions or beliefs about justifications for actions. A rational mind is essentially one that is driven by empirical values and tendencies without being held accountable by things such as responsibility to an authority or value system. It uses facts to pass judgments, not feelings.

The sympathetic mind, on the other hand, does just the opposite. It is not limited to the basis of factual conclusions but rather keeps everything in check by placing importance on things other than that such as a general consideration for all things. A sympathetic mind is always concerned the ethical weight of what is right and what is wrong. It wishes to be inclusive of all aspects of a situation.

Erik Reece tends to use a sympathetic mind when dealing the topics he discusses in Lost Mountain. In the Before the Law chapter, Reece discusses his hesitation to make the ICG representative feel bad about his role in the destruction caused by his company's mining. Reece says, "I almost wanted to apologize to the regulators for putting them through all this...This was the one day when I actually held a degree of power and leverage against a leviathan industry, but I found that I wasn't much enjoying it."(Pg. 219). Reece felt the need to look at all aspects of the situation and because of his sympathetic mind he realized that not everyone in the coal industry are bad, heartless people. Reece also includes a section in the RFK in EKY chapter that quotes a man involved in the coal industry that explains that he is just a local person trying to make the most of his opportunities. Reece most likely includes this statement alongside all of the contrary propaganda to show that he wants to include every aspect of the story and the ramifications that each and every individual will yield if change were to occur.

On Page 230 of Lost Mountain, Reece makes a very powerful statement, "As a consumer driven culture, we have chosen to no longer think of the world as God-given...We too seldom see value in the natural world, whether aesthetic or intrinsic; we only see something we can use, even if that means using it up." This quote struck a chord with me because of its apparent validity. Time and time again the human race has knowingly used up the resources provided by the world for short-term gain. We do not care that future generations will not have the same opportunities as us because it does not directly affect us... today. But what about tomorrow? Reece goes on to discuss pantheism and how the the worship of God in nature may bring society back to a time of affluence by working WITH nature and not against it. I found many of his points to be extremely poignant and vital to our future, not only as an individual, but as a nation, and even as an integral part of human society as a whole. I am glad I read this book.

Flow

I came away from watching this film with a very changed perspective of how I live my life. I never realized before how much I've taken for granted concerning my environmental safety. I am so very blessed to be sitting here in my house with the lights on, with a glass of CLEAN water typing on my laptop. My roommate and I, after watching this film together, have just discussed over the past hour the small things we can personally do to help on this journey of recovery.

As a society, I feel like we have the absolute responsibility to promote awareness of these environmental issues. Maybe we are not directly affected by the dire consequences of current consumption, but others surely are, and it is definite that we will be affected soon. Eerily soon. Awareness is the first step to a permanent solution.

I was powerfully moved by all of the statistics and first hand accounts presented in this documentary. I felt like crying when I heard about all of the terrible bureaucracies centered around, water, a fundamental part of all life on this earth. What have we done, but more importantly, why are we turning a blind eye when it is entirely plausible that a little effort and funding can greatly help alleviate this issue? The gentleman in India that created the UV water sanitation system said that it would only cost $2 U.S. per year to provide clean drinking water to his consumers. $2! I am just as guilty as the next person for claiming that "I have no money, I'm just a poor college student." That is utter bullocks. Even as a student I have the means to help and it is no excuse to claim that you do not have the money to spare. This is a pressing, impending, imminent issue that needs immediate attention. Every little effort helps.

After watching this film, I have resolved to do everything I can to lessen my part in this catastrophe. It is entirely unrealistic to claim that I will become entirely eco-friendly and self sustaining, but I feel like I can at least make a conscious effort to do my part. For example, for years I have been telling myself to stop drinking soda-products because they are bad for my health, and to a certain extent I have certainly lessened my consumption, but after seeing what the Coca-Cola Co., ect. have done to the communities their plants are based in, I now have a strong aversion to wanting to buy their products. It's disgusting really what these mega-corporations are willing to sacrifice for profit. There is no consideration for any long-term adverse affects on the environment and the plants, animals, and people that are dependent upon it.

I hope that I am not just declaring these things as a talking head. I do have the intent to follow through and at least do my part to stop contributing. I vow to take shorter showers, actually use my re-useable grocery bags, stop buying processed foods when possible, to recycle at all times and not just when it is convienient... to pretend it is plausible to completely reverse my lifestyle is a very naive notion. I am aware that to function in this society some of these things are essential to everyday functioning, but if I, a common "poor college student" don't help reduce my consumption, really now, who will?

Lost Mountain (Post #2)

Erik Reece continues to actively engage his readers in this section of his book. He employs several tactics geared at targeting human emotions in order to drive his points home.

I found his continual use of statistics and quotations of various other authors to be rather compelling. I even decided to reread sections allowed to my roommates that I found particularly astounding or poignant. Reece's ability to captivate my attention as I read intrigued me because I am not normally drawn toward this type of issue. It is almost overwhelmingly sad to think about how much the statistics have probably changed (most likely for the worse) in the four years since Lost Mountain has been published.

Reece continues his journey of discovery by making acquaintance with people directly involved and/or affected by the destruction of mountain top removal coal mining. He accounts through their words and experiences which I feel adds credibility to his underlying message.

The topic that most struck home with me was how we, as a society, have created this terrible problem, yet have done little to nothing to help remedy it. It is a helpless feeling that each and every one of us has contributed to this continual problem that is only getting worse.

Lost Mountain (Post #1)

Eric Reece employs several emotional strategies to convey his findings about the destruction caused my mountain-top removal coal mining. His book, Lost Mountain, includes many personal accounts of the inhabitants living in the affected areas (both human and animal alike). Reece recounts the processes used by the coal miners in Appalachia as an outsider looking in on the devastation on the surrounding land and indirectly on both the people and wildlife that are dependent upon it.

Reece gives several examples of individuals who are fighting to bring their homeland back to its majestic state from the past. I feel like this is a rather effective manner to portray his concern for the land. Personal accounts of the destruction caused by mountain-top coal removal make the matter seem more of a priority to others who are further removed from the situation.

On page 55 of Lost Mountain, Reece relays some astonishing statistics about the amount of land a human needs to survive. He states that "For the rest of the world to live as Americans, we would need four more Planet Earths." Reece often uses statistics such as these, along with references to other published works to give credibility to the severity concerning this particular issue.

After reading this section of Lost Mountain, I am glad for my further awareness of this issue. I would not necessarily consider myself an environmentalist, but I believe that general awareness of any issue is the first step toward the recovery process of said issue. I am going to try to be more conscious in the future of my role (however small it may seem in comparison) in the impending trouble caused by coal-mining in my neighboring states. Every little bit will help in the long-run. As Reece mentions, it is important to look forward to the future and not only be concerned with immediate problems. Eventually, our fossil fuels will run out and we have not done enough to replenish the environment from our destruction or move toward alternative fuel sources for when that day comes.

Clean Coal

My first impressions of the two websites (thisisreality.org, and americaspower.org) were quite different even though the themes discussed in them are supposedly compatible.

The target audience of the two websites seemed to be geared toward entirely different viewers. The reality site forces the viewer to keep perusing the site in an unorganized manner by forcing one to keep clicking in a seemingly random pattern for further information. The trendy nature of the site gives the impression that this site is meant mainly for a curious consumer passing time and not necessarily someone looking for clear concise information about coal emissions. This site provides facts as if they were merely trivia to be used in arguments against using coal for electricity production. Thisisreality.org has a very trendy and even, I venture to say, youthful appeal to it's layout. The color scheme of the deep gradient grey and the stark, almost sickly caution-tape, yellow work in a manner that makes the content of the site appear bold. Also, the animation of the dying bird posed with the stark facts works to emotionally appeal toward the viewer. I found myself going "aww" watching the cute little thing "croak" before my eyes in front of a towering fact over the danger of carbon emissions concerning the environment.

America's Power site had a rather different approach in dealing with the conveyance of similar information. My first impression was that this site was geared toward people looking for concise reliable information concerning the issue of clean coal production. The site's navigation is extremely clear and organized a manner that is friendly to visitors. The entire theme of the website's layout promotes a feeling of clean. From the crisp green and blue accents to the sans-serif font used, I gathered the feeling of a professional, yet environmentally friendly site. I found the logo of this site site to be clever; the lump of coal with the power cord extending from it was an interesting concept for the subject matter.

It was not until I began to delve into discovering the sponsors of the two sites that my opinion of them changed somewhat. I did not realize the ACCCE (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity) was composed of various energy companies who may have ulterior motives for wanting to promote a clean coal platform to the general public. Environmental issues have become increasingly trendy in society lately therefore energy companies, who are in general not necessarily environmentally friendly in their productions, feel the need to promote a clean image to their consumers, the public at large. On the other hand, thisisreality.org is sponsored by environmental groups such as the National Wildlife Federation who also may not be completely reliable in their motives. I do not mean that they do not mean well, but rather that they are concerned with environmental issues in the extreme that may not support economic functioning at large. Coal is necessarily, at least for now, in order for electricity to function in our society. We have become so dependent on this technology that devastating consequences would ensue if we were to go without. Initially, I found ACCCE site to be more informative, but now I am not sure which one holds more credentials based on their respective sponsors.