I admit that I have not read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. It is on my list of books and lying abandoned on my bookshelf. She has quite a reputation for changing environmental concern in the United States by bringing attention the effect synthetic pesticides have on our environment. Carson has been credited with beginning the ecofeminism movement which joins a woman's natural cycles to the cycles of the earth (Mother Earth to some), and the conjunction of the degradation of women and the degradation of nature in the Western world.
Last year I took Wilderness and the American Mind, an english course, with Dr. Gordon Johnston. We read literature from native creation stories, colonists and explorers, and many recent authors like Wendell Berry, Barry Lopez, Annie Dillard, and Henry David Thoreau. Some of my favorite passages came from Barry Lopez and Wendell Berry's many essays. If you're looking for something to occupy your time this summer, I'd suggest reading any of these authors.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
The Big Dig!
The Big Dig is a billion project in the heart of Boston changing the route of a major highway from elevated highways to a 3.5 mile tunnel. This project also built more tunnels throughout the city and was meant to decrease congestion on inner city streets that are not designed for quick travel. However there have been allegations of negligence in funding and selection of building materials.
Issues? While digging the tunnels excavators came across unexpected geological and archaeological sites like buried buildings and ships. Redirecting traffic while constructing the tunnels caused other traffic issues.
How does this relate to sustainability? By reducing congestion on inner city roads, we (governments) can minimize vehicle emissions and time spent in the car for each individual. By expanding downwards we can decrease the amount of surface area we use to commute. This can decrease surface land cover by asphalt, but it still has potential to disrupt ground water in the area.
This construction product sets a precedent for increasing transportation sustainability. Boston has a great mass transit system. According to Wikipedia, nearly a third of people in Boston use public transit to move about the city. Cities would be more benefited to invest in public transit as well as creating new roadways. Cities are more attractive when they have extensive public transit systems instead of congested roads.
Issues? While digging the tunnels excavators came across unexpected geological and archaeological sites like buried buildings and ships. Redirecting traffic while constructing the tunnels caused other traffic issues.
How does this relate to sustainability? By reducing congestion on inner city roads, we (governments) can minimize vehicle emissions and time spent in the car for each individual. By expanding downwards we can decrease the amount of surface area we use to commute. This can decrease surface land cover by asphalt, but it still has potential to disrupt ground water in the area.
This construction product sets a precedent for increasing transportation sustainability. Boston has a great mass transit system. According to Wikipedia, nearly a third of people in Boston use public transit to move about the city. Cities would be more benefited to invest in public transit as well as creating new roadways. Cities are more attractive when they have extensive public transit systems instead of congested roads.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sustainable Cities
I "googled" sustainable cities and found a Wikipedia article referencing examples of sustainable cities around the world. Surprisingly, there are a handful listed in the United States, yet many of those are planned or in the works.
What is a sustainable city, and what does it entail? Wikipedia deems a sustainable city a city planned with the intention of limiting environmental impact through the lessening of carbon footprint, water and energy usage, and limited use of nonrenewable resources. A sustainable city should include reliable and efficient public transportation, mixed-use zoning to limit commutes, community gardens, shared living spaces, planned and purposeful growth, green spaces within city limits, and education resources for the community to encourage personal, sustainable changes. I think the educational portion is often overlooked in developing a community but of upmost importance; without resources for the citizens on how to live sustainably, the purposeful planning can and will be lost.
There are portions of many American cities that could make a close-to-perfect sustainable city. Take DC's metro system (expansive, efficient, cheap, easily understandable) + New York City's mixed-use zoning clumping residential, industrial, and commercial together + community gardens found in a growing number of cities + communal living of California + planned and purposeful growth found only in select cities (not that it's a difficult concept) + green spaces of Macon or Atlanta--maybe I'm stretching that one a bit, but I love our parks. That'd be one great combination.
Some of the poorest planned cities I've seen are located right here in Georgia. Both Macon and Atlanta have layouts that promote driving short distances. It's rare to find someone who walks to their job unless he/she lives on or very near Mercer's campus. It seems that very few post-collegiate residents are pedestrians instead relying on their vehicles to travel within city limits. This could be due to the set up of the city including safety issues or to our society's relatively recent dependence on motor vehicles. I'm willing to compromise: both are contributors.
Some day I hope to assist in the development of cities, so that we, as world citizens, may protect the earth we have been granted leaving precious resources for future generations.
I'm listening to something beautiful.
What is a sustainable city, and what does it entail? Wikipedia deems a sustainable city a city planned with the intention of limiting environmental impact through the lessening of carbon footprint, water and energy usage, and limited use of nonrenewable resources. A sustainable city should include reliable and efficient public transportation, mixed-use zoning to limit commutes, community gardens, shared living spaces, planned and purposeful growth, green spaces within city limits, and education resources for the community to encourage personal, sustainable changes. I think the educational portion is often overlooked in developing a community but of upmost importance; without resources for the citizens on how to live sustainably, the purposeful planning can and will be lost.
There are portions of many American cities that could make a close-to-perfect sustainable city. Take DC's metro system (expansive, efficient, cheap, easily understandable) + New York City's mixed-use zoning clumping residential, industrial, and commercial together + community gardens found in a growing number of cities + communal living of California + planned and purposeful growth found only in select cities (not that it's a difficult concept) + green spaces of Macon or Atlanta--maybe I'm stretching that one a bit, but I love our parks. That'd be one great combination.
Some of the poorest planned cities I've seen are located right here in Georgia. Both Macon and Atlanta have layouts that promote driving short distances. It's rare to find someone who walks to their job unless he/she lives on or very near Mercer's campus. It seems that very few post-collegiate residents are pedestrians instead relying on their vehicles to travel within city limits. This could be due to the set up of the city including safety issues or to our society's relatively recent dependence on motor vehicles. I'm willing to compromise: both are contributors.
Some day I hope to assist in the development of cities, so that we, as world citizens, may protect the earth we have been granted leaving precious resources for future generations.
I'm listening to something beautiful.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
WILDCARD post
In light of recent events, I have been considering the wisdom of nuclear power. It's been said that nuclear power is not forgiving of either human malice or mistake. The high magnitude earthquake in Japan and resulting tsunami ended in tragedy for the island nation. The three backup protection measures that were programmed to protect the plant from a meltdown all failed one after the other by a seeming fluke, a great and terrible synchronicity.
My father, who is now a computer consultant, used to work with Babcock and Wilcox, the company who designed the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generator. He was on a team who helped to prevent a complete meltdown after the failure of the facility. I haven't been able to talk to him about it in detail, but from what I gather, he also wonders about the wisdom of nuclear power especially considering his close work with the issue. Three Mile Island is the infamous event that ended the nuclear revolution (and prevents a new one from taking place) in the United States. People have developed a "not in my back yard" (NIMBY) stance about most power producing facilities especially nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is expensive in terms of both money and time. Getting water and air permits to build a new plant, convincing lawmakers and citizens that the plant is necessary to pave the way, and building the facilities can all be resource consuming. Nuclear energy, though considered a "clean" energy to some, can have negative effects on the ecology of an area. These plants necessitate massive amounts of water to keep the reactor running safely (this is why we see nuclear plants built on large bodies of water) and release steam into the atmosphere. Something I did not know until recently: water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas by scientists meaning that it traps heat in the earth's atmosphere (beneficial to a point but detrimental in excess). Also, different ecological systems depend on water temperatures to remain in certain ranges, so when a power plant uses water to cool its reactor, water is warmed and later returned to the original body of water. This can harm the wildlife living in the body of water because natural processes are dependent on water temperature.
I wish I could make a decision about nuclear power. It seems like a good option because of our need to switch from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), but maybe it would be better to spend the next few years developing renewable energy technology that could propel us into a sustainable future. The cost, otherwise, is too great.
On a happier note, the Fresh Food Company (Aramark) on our campus is celebrating Earth Month (a grander version of Earth Day) starting April 4th where they will focus on water and energy conservation. SEA and SGA will be partnering with Aramark to advertise Mercer's new recycling program, so look for us April 18th!
My father, who is now a computer consultant, used to work with Babcock and Wilcox, the company who designed the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generator. He was on a team who helped to prevent a complete meltdown after the failure of the facility. I haven't been able to talk to him about it in detail, but from what I gather, he also wonders about the wisdom of nuclear power especially considering his close work with the issue. Three Mile Island is the infamous event that ended the nuclear revolution (and prevents a new one from taking place) in the United States. People have developed a "not in my back yard" (NIMBY) stance about most power producing facilities especially nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is expensive in terms of both money and time. Getting water and air permits to build a new plant, convincing lawmakers and citizens that the plant is necessary to pave the way, and building the facilities can all be resource consuming. Nuclear energy, though considered a "clean" energy to some, can have negative effects on the ecology of an area. These plants necessitate massive amounts of water to keep the reactor running safely (this is why we see nuclear plants built on large bodies of water) and release steam into the atmosphere. Something I did not know until recently: water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas by scientists meaning that it traps heat in the earth's atmosphere (beneficial to a point but detrimental in excess). Also, different ecological systems depend on water temperatures to remain in certain ranges, so when a power plant uses water to cool its reactor, water is warmed and later returned to the original body of water. This can harm the wildlife living in the body of water because natural processes are dependent on water temperature.
I wish I could make a decision about nuclear power. It seems like a good option because of our need to switch from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), but maybe it would be better to spend the next few years developing renewable energy technology that could propel us into a sustainable future. The cost, otherwise, is too great.
On a happier note, the Fresh Food Company (Aramark) on our campus is celebrating Earth Month (a grander version of Earth Day) starting April 4th where they will focus on water and energy conservation. SEA and SGA will be partnering with Aramark to advertise Mercer's new recycling program, so look for us April 18th!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Not all vampires are trendy
Typically, the term vampire refers to mythological beings who subsist on the life essence of other living beings. However this is not the case when referring to vampire power. This term is much less magical and romanticized. Vampire power is the term for leaking electricity when an appliance or electronic device is in standby mode or in the state of disuse. This means that even if you're not using your DVD player, radio, coffee pot (etc...) these appliances are still using energy, burning fossil fuels, and adding to your power bill. Any appliance that has a light or clock will continue to consume extra power. Also leaving your various chargers (phone or laptop) plugged in when not charging your portable devices wastes precious energy too. Making a habit to unplug your cell phone or laptop as soon as it has a complete charge can both save energy and prolong a battery's life. (WOO!)
Wikipedia lists a number of devices that can consume standby power including several that surprised me: door bells, programmable thermostats, fire alarms, security systems, and automatic sprinklers. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to eliminate most of those standby energy users especially those related to safety and security.
Fortunately, there are ways to reduce our energy consumption. Most computerized devices have settings that can be used to reduce the pull of standby energy consumption. Being informed about your purchases can also have an effect on energy consumption: newer power adapters are often more efficient, and battery-powered appliances are less efficient that the corded alternative. Another option is to buy a surge protector to plug many appliances and turn off when those appliances are not needed.
One of the reasons standby energy is becoming more significant in the US is the increased number of appliances people have in their households. Our society is seriously focused on consumerism and the accumulation of more goods.
Wikipedia lists a number of devices that can consume standby power including several that surprised me: door bells, programmable thermostats, fire alarms, security systems, and automatic sprinklers. Unfortunately, it would be difficult to eliminate most of those standby energy users especially those related to safety and security.
Fortunately, there are ways to reduce our energy consumption. Most computerized devices have settings that can be used to reduce the pull of standby energy consumption. Being informed about your purchases can also have an effect on energy consumption: newer power adapters are often more efficient, and battery-powered appliances are less efficient that the corded alternative. Another option is to buy a surge protector to plug many appliances and turn off when those appliances are not needed.
One of the reasons standby energy is becoming more significant in the US is the increased number of appliances people have in their households. Our society is seriously focused on consumerism and the accumulation of more goods.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
My pets (not the furry kind)
Our book discusses the movement of our dependence on renewable resources to a dependence on non-renewable resources. It's a topic I'm really interested in especially in reference to materials used for energy. So I chose two materials that can be used for energy as my "pet" materials, aka materials that I would like to learn more about: coal and thorium. I know more about one than the other since I've been working on an anti-coal campaign for more than a year. There are 13-14 (depending on who you ask) coal-fired power plants in the state of Georgia and 3 proposed coal-fired power plants. There is a proposed plant for Sandersville, which is located about 60 miles east of Macon.
Using coal as an energy source has environmental impacts as well as social impacts. A major way that we obtain coal is through a process called mountain top removal primarily utilized in the Appalachian Mountains. The process can be linked to loss of jobs and the ruination of communities in Appalachia. The coal sludge incident in Tennessee displaced an entire community. For more examples of these social issues, I suggest watching Coal Country, a documentary distributed by the Sierra Club.
What about environmental impacts? Mercury in our water! Carbon emissions! Ash! Sulfur dioxide which is linked to acid rain. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) which is a greenhouse gas.
Coal is local and "abundant," even though our reserves will run out eventually (some predict in a few hundred years). Regardless we have focused our resources on this type of energy when we should have focused on developing renewable energy technologies.
Thorium is a chemical element with atomic number 90. It is estimated to be more abundant than uranium and has been considered in the production of nuclear power. However, thorium cannot be used for nuclear weapons AND there is no threat of meltdown. Isn't that amazing? (I think so) I had no idea that thorium was an option for nuclear energy until I read this article. My objection to nuclear energy lies in the fact that it is not forgiving to human malice or human error, but with thorium as the power source, this would no longer be an issue. I also think that developing nuclear energy (using uranium or plutonium) in America is hypocritical if we dictate how other countries make their energy out of fear for their development of nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy has no carbon emissions and is quite efficient and inexpensive, and it's abundant in the United States. It's an interesting avenue and option, but I'm sure more research needs to be done.
Excellent.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Federal Programming
"I like the environment...and oatmeal." At least that's what I wrote as my "interesting fact" on my student info sheet for ECN 151. I plastered by notebook with Power Vote stickers and carpooled to campus today. I recycle when my roommates allow me, and I generally buy used books. I bike and walk around Macon and unplug my appliances. I turn off lights when I leave a room and turn off the water while I brush my teeth. I TRY to live sustainably, but it's difficult in American society especially as a college student. Sometimes it's easier to buy prepackaged foods instead of fresh, organic produce, and to-go boxes in the cafeteria are quite convenient.
Individual efforts are essential; I'm a true believer of grassroots movements. However, the American federal government doesn't set a good precedence in sustainability. American society encourages over-consumption...and here I am at my blog topic: federal programs and their financial sustainability. I'm supposed to choose a federal program where I would allocate more money and one that I would cut funding to. I'll start with the budget cut: the Department of Defense. According to Wikipedia, my favorite encyclopedia for concise information, 23% of the federal government's budget goes to defense...in other words, $737 billion. This includes both money for DoD and Homeland Security. I realize that many will disagree with me, but I don't believe that the money is spent efficiently. I don't think our true motives to invade Iraq were public knowledge, and though the war is TECHNICALLY over, we are still allocating funds there. Also ... I admit: I'm a pacifist.
I think the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should be budgeted more money. To me this seems like a variation of "homeland security." The FDA has an allocated $2.3 billion of the $3.5 trillion American federal government budget. If you've watched Food, Inc. you've heard about the horrifying food industry. There are many opportunities for mass contamination of our food supply (that most think is safe) in an industrial system. Check out the website: it may surprise you. I think the FDA should be given more money to keep Americans healthy and safe. I love food, but I don't love our convenient/fast-food system.
It would be (nearly) impossible for the American society to be truly sustainable, but all efforts are important. As individuals we should strive to change our lifestyles and influence our friends and family members to make changes as well. Also we should vote and support officials that work towards sustainability and write our representatives to remind them of our desires for sustainability. Small changes do make a difference. Also ... I'm an optimist.
LOOK: The greatest video ever (okay...exaggeration)
LOOK: The greatest video ever (okay...exaggeration)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)