Keep Diversity Alive

Its just one of those days, where I sit down to write and just continuously draw blanks. So i was flipping through the syllabus and saw a couple questions from a week or two ago, the reading questions running down the side of the page. These questions are pretty simply asked but evoked more thought than just about anything else today, so I am going to answer one to the best of my ability.

The question is, "Explain whether you think genetic engineering enhances or diminishes biodiversity?"

I say that genetic engineering diminishes biodiversity, this is because its like putting survival of the fittest on fast forward. As far as i can tell, genetic engineering is taking all the qualities (for example) of the plant species that you want and enhancing them and sometimes also removing the characteristics that are not desired. Ultimately, you skip the natural reproduction stage, creating an organism that is designed the way we see fit and taking it out of mother natures hands.
Finally you end up with a species that blooms early, flowers later and survives colder weather, than you take that one seed and reproduce it a million times and plant an entire field of the same plant, genetic copies of each other, same as the one in the row to the right and to the left. These plants are so similar to one another even rite down to the genetic make up, this is the opposite of biodiversity.
There is nothing diverse about this at all, these plants would not even continue to grow this way if humans were not around to continue to plant them, at this point they are ridiculously unnatural. Biodiversity is there to fill in the gaps, when one species climate changes only the one that can stand the heat, or most times the opposite, will stick around and continue to survive on this planet, this is why we need the differences, if everything were the same we would all have the same weaknesses as well. I say keep the diversity alive and well.

David Suzuki asks us what you can do He discusses voting for people, who are ecologically literate,telling us that we can “speak up” or speak out on the topic. We need become agents of change using the tools of the day like videos on the internet, writing in our own blogs, or creating a web site. We can take action and become volunteers in green organizations or volunteering as agents of change, writing letters to the powers that be. It’s all about getting the word out!!! Companies that do not follow the new sustainability models we are creating need our attention the best kind of attention we can give them is to Boycott Them. I believe that a boycott is a way to cast a powerful message not only to a company, but the rest a world that we as consumers will not stand for these unethical policies any longer. So often people’s attitude is “let’s not make waves”, but I say when we make waves, more people take notice and without waves, others will not notice the changes on the surface of the water of our culture... The more we speak out against environmental injustice, and the more we bring attention to companies that aren’t considering sustainability and the earth first, then to hell with them! The best way to get rid of that kind of ignorance is not buying their goods. It seems to make good sense, to purchase goods and services from companies who model cradle to cradle and cradle to grave environmental philosophies. These are companies who have taken the time and made the investment, they are real stake holders in an emerging sustainable model.

Suzuki also makes mention of choosing a green career. He mentions that it’s clear that the scope and scale of environmental challenge is so large that whatever skills that you possess, there’s certainly environmental work available. And on that topic I was listening to a radio interview a few days ago on vpr.
Here is the link to the interview: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121380416&ft=1&f=1006

It seems these two guys Eben Bayer with classmate Gavin McIntyre invented Greensulate insulation and Ecocradle packaging — both made from mushrooms. Bayer came up with the idea as a student at Rensselaer Polytechnic in New York and developed it. Now the two have a company called Ecovative Design. Fascinating discovery they made working together to come up with sustainable models for use in today’s marketplace. It's an amazing story. The insulation is completely green and compostable and it’s also fireproof. Read the interview its pretty cool.

Suzuki’ list of “Ten Policies” is a great Laundry list or “to-Do” list of ideas that can really make a difference. Let’s say we could use this list aas a model for change so when we are having conversations with friends and family, buying goods and services in the marketplace or attending civic or cultural functions we could put our list to work. We could take the time to do a little research into each of the ten categories and implement our findings in the way we think about the earth and use these as “imperatives in how we communicate with others.
So taking my own advice I decided to look into Suzuki’s point #9 on ecological literacy, (which by the way was my platform last week concerning changes in the educational system of our country as way to implement real sustainability) He mentions the Educational document from Australia titled “Educating for a Sustainable Future:A National Environmental Education Statement for Australian Schools”. And because we have almost instant access to information these days it took me approximately .27 seconds to locate on my favorite browser.
Well this PDF is just a jewel, a real visionary like approach to changing Australia’s’ educational system to make all the stakeholders more ecologically literate. As Suzuki mentions that reading and writing are simply not enough any more. If one is to be literate in our new paradigm, one need be aware about where our drinking water comes from, where there garbage goes, and how climate change really works.The Australian document puts responsibility for these emerging issues of global importance where they belong, at the feet of administrators, teachers, parents and students. The goals of the report are “Environmental education for sustainability involves approaches to teaching and learning that integrate goals for conservation, social justice, cultural diversity, appropriate development and democracy into a vision and a mission of personal and social change. This involves developing the kinds of civic values and skills that empower all citizens to be leaders in the transition to a sustainable future” imagine an educational system whose goal is to develop different values and skill sets that make sustainability a priority. It sounds like a wonderful idea to me. Literacy is one of the greatest gifts we can bestow upon our culture. Once awakened to the urgency of these issues, it will be much easier to create more systemic leverage in much less time

Here is the Website for the Paper: http://www.environment.gov.au/education/publications/sustainable-future.html

DK

Diminishing Biodiversity

Large industrial "argribusiness" farms that can be 100's of acre's in size mostly consist of a mono-culture, one crop, and its usually corn. Each plant is genetically the same as the next, all of the plants are clones of each other through genetical engineering making these plants GMO's (genetically modified organism) . The corn is genetically modified for one purpose, production. After harvest the seeds of these plants are disregarding and new seeds are bought to replace the old ones. This is a complete paradigm shift from the generations before us when farmers collected seeds and used selective breeding to fulfill many needs; to increase the robustness, (resistance to weather and pests) increase output of crops, as well as producing desirable traits such as its nutritional benefits as well as aesthetics, taste and appeal. These two different paradigm I see as the difference of starting a garden where you want to grow a crop such as carrots and your choice it to buy seeds from Monsanto or a seed bank. With Monsanto you would also need to buy pesticides which have been integrated into the process so that they become essential. You may have a few different option of the types of carrots that you could purchase with Monsanto but at a seed bank there could be hundreds even thousands of different varieties of carrots;different colors, taste, and resistances. Having recently harvested some carrots from a small farm with four or five varieties I much more enjoyed the carrot that I picked from the ground no more than a mile and a half away from my house, sweet and crunchy loaded with nutrients, pesticide free, GMO free instead of a grocery store carrot that has traveled halfway across the country or even the globe boring and dull doused with pesticides its whole life cycle and possible being a GMO. Since agribusnisses such as Monsanto are profiting so well, by exploiting resources, polluting genetics and polluting the planet with pesticides, it has allowed them to cut corners from old traditional ways and is quickly allocating their growth making small sustainable farming less profitable by being undercut from the consumption of agribusiness crops vs local and small sustainable crops because of its availability and its usually significant lower price. As Monsanto and other agribusiness continue to grow they are becoming closer and closer to controlling what we eat. Allowing this would eventually make it impossible for small competing farmers to survive as well as the diversity of genetics saved through the seeds that the farmers have collected, traded, and inherited passed down many generations.

Will our world end?

So I am supposed to write about my views on Capitalism. Until recently I was totally oblivious to what that mean't. Growing up in a household that could care less about the government, has made me quite ignorant to politics. I will do my best to compare Capitalism and what i think about Natural Capitalism, well my thoughts on it all I guess. I think that the thought of our society being back to the way it was at the beginning in 50 years, is probably being very optimistic. Just because we are becoming more aware of how things are working or not working for our environment doesn't mean that more people will try to do anything about it. People are thinking that "someone else" will do the work and then we will be fine. They don't realize that EVERYONE needs to do their part to help. Myself included! I am most definately going to try to do my part and be less wasteful and more conservative with what I am purchasing. How long will I use what I am buying and where will it go when I am done? These are things I would not have even thought about without taking this class! As for Natural Capitalism, its a great concept and we have done a lot of things to get "back" to where we began before all the industries came about. I hope that we can get some of nature restored but am pretty sure that we as a whole will keep producing and the population will continue to go up and up and the cycle will keep going on to destroy what little we have left. We are all hoping this does not happen, so we can all try to do our part and help.
I really liked the section about replacing the carpet with carpet squares, not removing the whole carpet, that way people are not wasting the whole piece of carpet, wasting money by moving all the office out, halting production, getting sick from the fumes afterward and the carpet rotting in some landfill for thousands of years. Making a carpet squares and just replacing those when they are worn out, still provides a job for someone and cuts down on carpet that can not be recycled!
I guess without Capitalism in the first place, we wouldnt be where we are now with jobs and making money and people having the power they have, however, if it never happened, we would have probably figured out some other way to distroy our earth, so now we are just gonna have to find a way to fix this problem!

No more chemicals

I love this time of the year, it’s a time for family to get together, and talk about the old days. When things were simpler, and how many things that were being made or developed were made with pride. It was a time of quality not quantity. Cars lasted longer, gas was cheaper, and food was affordable, healthy and it wouldn’t kill you. With all the research and advancements man kind has made don’t you think are food would be more delicious and nutritious? but its not, because people have forgotten about a time of quality and entered a time of mass Production food doesn’t taste or look as good or even last as long but you can get twice as much for the same price. We have genetically made plants to grow when they are not supposed too. Ever had a summer tomatoes compared to a winter tomatoes? the ones grown naturally in the summer are super plump and tasty winter tom’s may look the same but have very little taste. We have also developed plants to be poisonous to pests but have consequence for cattle that may eat the plant. Today unless you are growing organic you’re growing chemicals, which goes in to the soil and water and cause irreversible damage. Can’t drink the water, Can’t eat the fish, and Can’t farm the land.

More Like "Crap and Trade"

Democracy Now! ran a great story last week about a couple of EPA lawyers who have decided to speak out against the the inadequacies of the Markey-Waxman bill. In their interview, they incorporated a lot of the systems thinking type concepts that we've been talking about and, I felt, did a great job of explaining -- systemically -- why the potential law might do more harm than good. DN! apparently picked up on this story because the EPA tried (with limited success) to censor the couple. The video that landed them in hot water is still up on youtube, though, and is arguably more interesting than the interview transcript:

Industrial Agriculture; What a Waste.

Here we are all of us residing in the U.S. Living on land that was inhabited by a people who knew good stewardship of the land. I am of course speaking of the Indians. They knew how to take care of the land so it could take care of them. Here we are depleting the very source of our existence, mother earth. We are an advanced civilization who needs to take a few steps back in order to go forward. What I mean is industrial production of our food is depleting the soils and using 10 calories of fuel to make 1 calorie of food. This is obviously unsustainable and extremly wasteful.
For the first time in a long time small farms are on a come back in this nation, thanks to a little organic garden on the Whitehouse lawn. The Obama administration gets it. Or at least he has admited that the agribusiness is based on fossil fuels.
We need to put the land first and most everything else in order of prority behind land usage. We are an economy based on agriculture. If our agriculture practices are unsustainable then we are unsustainable. We need new farming practices. For example people need to start growing their own food small home gardens or "victory gardens" as they were called back in WWII. The citizens of this great nation need to get some dirt under their fingernails. Stop expecting everyone else to do everything for us. As far a giants agricorps I hope these new prenennial hybreds Wes Jackson is coming up with can help restore the bread basket of America. I am hopeful that with education and new innovations we can keep the health of our land an indeed the world for future generations to come.

I must admit, I can't say I have really enjoyed the systems reading assignments so far this semesmter. That is until this week. After reading this weeks assignment in depth, I have a greater appreciation of the insight Meadows has brought to understanding "leverage points-places to intervene in a system". My two recent visits to Spencer's farm, and my observations therein have provided me the opportunity to see thes ideas of levergage points at "work in the field" (the pun is intended)

As of this Sunday night, I belive that agriculture does fit into Meadows' ideas of a leverage point for sustainability. Let's consider Meadow's idea from the first line in chapter 6. "So how do we change the structure of systems to produce more of what we want and less of which is undesireable?"

Lets say this model is undesirable:Corporate farming practices all over the globe including, monocroping wopping amounts of acreage, petroleum based pesticides, genetically modified species of plants and vegetables, mineral depleting planting practices, damage to plants and other animals from cross pollination from GMO's and runoff of pesticides into the air and surrounding water systems.

Let us for a moment assume that our "minimum goal" with respect to agriculture is to provide substantial vegetable crop yields per acre, maintain the importance of biodiversity, define and maintain an "organic Quality"standard, minimize the amount of degredation to the soil and the surrounding environmental rescources, create smaller locally based farms, and lets throw in turning a profit as well. This goal is a serious leverage point compared to the previous example.

Here are a couple of thoughts with respect to leveraging the corporatel farm systems that I became aware of while visiting Spencer's farm and the rest of the Intervale system.

By creating smaller more conscientious farming models, a possible leverage point could be subsidies and tax incentives to enhance more of this type of growth. Spencer's model of small succession plantings is a buffer which "allows for more flexibile response to demand needs."the intervale system is a coop of small sytems that allow for rather simple and less expensive stock and flow changes compared to the idustial model. The smaller 1/2 pint model and succession plantings substantially decrease any concern of delays with the worse case scenerio resulting in product put in the cooler as a way to regulate other system changes. The Intervale's smaller farming model is an excellent way to manage the balancing feedback loop. The leverage comes from smaller crop sizes coupled with the ability to react quickly the "directness and size of corrective flows."Spencer's tight monitoring of weekly yield to sales ratios, helped him with greater control of the flow elements. The 1/2 pint 7 year business plan demonstrated the strength of the reinforcing feedback loop. The more they were able to meet their projected goals the more willing they were to increase the goal for the next season. The information system flow was one of the most apparent leverage tools I observed. Spencer and his wife keep excellent weekly records and were able to quickly adjust to trends. By sharing information with others at the Intervale and taking their observations and conclusions on the road, it has a deffinite affect on the larger systems, and ultimately benefits others. Another important area of possible leverage would be reframing the "rules". Incentives for farmers to move to this type of model. Perhaps a sytem where cooperative land use, increased yields using natural methods, improving soil and environmental conditions of the land, would be incentive options. Even a tax break or waiver for donating a percentage of yield to the community. Another obvious leverage point is the self organization piece. As in Ausubel's example of the Native americans being stewards and having some positive influence in the self organization of California' garden of eden, the smaller cooperative model allows farmers to be a symbiotic player from inside the system, even an advocate for this evolutionary process, enhancing not controlling the systems process.

I observed the 1/2 Pint Farm as an example of redifinigng goals. The cooperative structure of the Intervale system with many different farming models being tried and tested at the same time, including a pretty substantial enhanced composting project, is in turn modelling that a new paradigm is possible with a reasonable and concerted effort. The farm seems to flourish with its 250 species of biodiversity, on 1 & 1/2 acres and models several leverage points with respect to the current corporate farming model.

Americans are buying into the idea that we have the power to make real fundemental changes perhaps the single voice for paradigm shift will be representative of many voices from all over the world speaking as one harmonious voice. When that voice speaks loud enough and the sound is one that is attractive to more and more people, then we may very well have come to that "tipping point" that has been referred to so many times in the recent past. Perhaps then yoga needs to be our mantra or prerequisite to change. Because before we can dance with these new concepts we are going to have to limber up muscles of possibility. Flexibiltiy will allow us to stay on task as we continue to push up against our own resistance to change.

Impresive Practices

The culture we call our own is much like many that have come before ours, living on this planet, using its resources, exploring its lands and settling its "wilderness". It is considered normal practice to move into a new area, exploit its natural riches, dispose of waste; human and other, and even pollute its waters. Now, not every culture does this, although we are certainly guilty, the native Americans that inhabited California in the late eighteenth century coincided very well with mother nature.
In part two of Natures Operating Instructions there is a nice passage explaining some of the aspects to the native American culture and what steps they took to preserving their homeland. The settlers that were exploring California in the 1780's were surprised and unaware of the Indians involvement with the homeland and assumed they had lived in California for thousands of years without altering the land.
But in fact the the natives practiced very specific laws regarding the resources of their land and using them. Managing the land began with a deeply detailed knowledge of place, or climate, season, soil, etc. For example, When the elderberry appears it means the shell fish are now poisonous and can no longer be collected and eaten. But when the berry ripens in the fall, its the signal to start collecting the fish again.
When the wren starts to sing, the salmon will be around in a few more days. All sorts of little natural occurrences are indicators of other occurrences. The indians learned these and followed the way of the earth. The natives also would have large rabit hunts, for food and fur of course but also because the rabit was in direct compotition with people for other crops and had to be controlled.
One of the most interesting practices of the natives was to burn the land. Settlers came and did not understand this, thinking the Indians were crazy and even creating laws against it. But the fires cleared out the undergrowth allowing the larger trees to prevail. The settlers remarked on how a walk in the woods was like a park, this was due to the burning of the undesired plants.
I found all this very interesting because how far we live from nature. We all love a good walk in the woods here and there but as a society we bend nature to live around us. We do what we want whether its good for mother nature or not. And because of all this bending, nature is starting the break.
We are pushing our resources to the extreme and do not moderate our consumption. The native Americans for example had a quarry which was their source of chert. This hard rock was used for tools and weapons and it was also pretty rare. Each man was aloud to go in their once a year, take one swing with a hammer and keep what fell off. This was such an unbelievably good idea, preserving the valuable stone for generations to come. I think if the modern world we lived in was able to base life of the preservation of nature we would all be way better off. But unfortunately we are using up oil like water and polluting our oceans faster than we can clean them. I'm not sure if we will ever be able to live life the way the California Natives did and surely seem to face a certain terrible fate.

Human Keystone

The study of keystone species is something that I have learned about only recently. The extent to which keystone species effect or control their environment was something that I hadn’t fully considered until now. Looking at the interconnected web that they hold together, the extent to which ecosystems have mutualized seems very clear. The essays by Malcolm Margolin, and Dennis Martinez in part II of Natures Operating Instructions were really quite eye opening. Fallowing with the current paradigm I had always considered humans as an external disturbance to the workings of a natural ecosystem, rather then another biotic species interconnected and included with in that ecosystem. I think that this understanding is imperative for us to fully grasp the effects, both positive and negative, that we can create in our environment.

Waste equaling food or is it food is wasteful?

In cradle to cradle McDonough mentions that for example when trees bloom and then drop cherries, it is then absorbed back into the soil, making it better soil for the environment around the tree and for the tree to produce better cherries the next time around. By being absorbed back into the soil, it becomes reusable, for food rather than waste. If we could get a really great composting system in place for say, 8 out of 10 households, we would cut down waste going to our landfills and we could nourish the soil or gardens in those households. I myself have a really big composting pile, for leaves and food leftovers. We have only minimal waste when going to the dump every 2 weeks or so compared to when we weren't composting. Coffee grounds and egg shells are very nutrient based for certain flowers and can really help the gardens grow bigger and heartier. We had to test out certain styles of fencing and bariers for the compost pile, the animals love food scraps! So definately do some research before trying to build one!

Material recycling, well that is pretty complicated. We as a whole have made certain things that we can recycle but other things are clearly marked as "unmarkables". We need to phase out the products that are never going to be known as recycleable and start replacing those items with chemicals and materials that can be recycled. I just wish there was someone out there that cared enough to start doing that instead of taking up space in rented lots or storage spaces for these "unmarkables". I guess it would require someone pretty high up that constructed these materials (pvc) to change them. Why change something that is already done and they are getting the money for it? right? I helped my friends up at Mt. Norris last year build a fence for the waterfront, PVC was the cheapest and sturdiest material to make this fence. If I would have known then what I know now, I probably would have suggested something else for that fence, probably wood of some sort! I was part of that problem im sorry to say!

As for what I think of Suzuki's zero-waste challange, I think its a good idea, it actually got me thinking about what I buy at the grocery store, what I "NEED" or don't need to have for hair products! I think that if you took all the crap that I have in my bathroom closet and put it in a pile, I could pollute my whole town for a day with the airosole hairsprays! I don't always use this stuff but if i need it, I have it, but did i need it? Probably not. I am definately going to be more consious of what I am purchasing for "girls stuff" in the future! Guess that is one chapter I did understand!

Waste=Food

Although the information from Suzuki's reading is helpful and interesting, I find it too unoriginal and bland. It seems more like a to-do list rather than idea's that could help us become more efficient in the future. Instead of expanding on the ideas I thought were helpful in Suzuki's reading, I would rather go into the idea of waste being used as "food" brought up in McDonough and Braungart's reading. Sure, recycling and using less resources is a must in our journey towards a more sustainable planet, but in our time and day, it's not enough. Recycling can only save so many resources, and eliminate so many harsh chemicals being emitted into our atmosphere. Even if everyone in the world recycled everything they used I don't believe it would solve our problem. The idea of up-cycling is a different story. By creating products that consider up-cycling as the most important aspect of the product, we can truly move towards a better world. Imagine a world where every product is re-used into the makings of either the same product over, or other products (or both), this would be truly amazing. McDonough mentions that products must either be able to be re-used in the industrial cycle, or used to benefit the biological cycle, although he also mentions that with some products today, it is impossible for either one or the other. But is this true? Aren't we able to come up with ideas that are maybe considered, "far out" or "impossible"? What if space travel became so regular and inexpensive that we could dispose waste out there that are unable to be dispose on Earth. Could there be elements or chemicals floating out in space or on other planets that could aid in the break down of products that would otherwise be "impossible" to break down? I do not know, but I do think it's important that we keep exploring different, and possibly bizarre, ideas.

Waste=Food

stop to smell the flowers

Mcdonough's ideas of eco-effectiveness correlate nicely to Meadows thoughts on system surprise. A major reason why systems can surprise us is because of the linear thought patter we have all developed. We see the cause and effect, "event-level" of a system rather than understanding the behavior of a system. This gives us the ability to answer questions and solve problems but leaves almost no room for the way the world really works, on a non-linear system with constantly changing inputs, outputs, and feedback loops. "The relationship between cause and effect can only be drawn with curves or wiggles, not with a straight line."

Eco-effectiveness is breaking the linear model of the world. It challenges the reduce, reuse, recycle mantra of the eco-efficient era and moves towards the idea of being 100% good, rather than just being less bad. An efficient mind may drawn the conclusion if doing a little less bad is good, than doing a lot less bad will be even better. A great assumption for a linear world, but ultimately we have the same results, it just took us much longer to get there. Not to bad mouth the idea of eco-efficiency, it can buy us time to develop new ideas and it is the responsible path to take at the moment but what if we looked at the world with a slightly different twist.

McDonough relates his new ideas and buildings to the system of a cherry tree. He is looking to create an environment, a book, or anthing else that not only does not promote deforestation or polluting the waters but helps become a part of the natural system and would improve upon it's environment. He discusses creating a book that does not posses toxic inks or paper, and that when finished can be taken and not only recycled but cleanly upcycled. It would be made out of a product that would not lose it's value. He also talks about a building that promotes healthy wildlife along with workers. That uses the natural world to help cool, light, and warm that building. A building that would help keep workers in tune with the change of seasons and times of day. The landscape would have wetlands that help filter storm water and waste water giving the local river a helping hand.

These ideas were a result of looking at the world the way nature works in it. The cherry tree did not produce waste, it may be abundant in blossoms but they behave as food, fertilizer, home, and are aesthetically pleasing. The tree cleans our air and water, it creates no harmful effects on the world around it.

This is our time to be inspired. We have the ability to create and do good. (be 100% good in fact, what an interesting challenge) It's time for us as a whole to escape our one track minds and think a little out of the box. The answers to a sustainable future do not lie on the paved road ahead, they are somewhere on the side of the road that we haven't taken the time to stop by, smell the flowers, and say hi.

Paul Stamets - The Magic of Mushrooms

The study of biotechnologies is very new and interesting to me. I feel like this could be the new wave to ride on our way to rebuilding a successful and sustainable planet earth. Out of all the current biotechnological studies, I found Paul Stamets', "Magic Mushrooms: Planetary Healing with Deep Biology" excerpt to be one of the most interesting. Stemets describes how the use of fungi can be used to treat and heal polluted soil and ecosystems and also help control insect population. The amount of species of fungi is astonishing and their are still several to be discovered. As of now their are species that have medicinal, edible and now biotechnological qualities, who knows what the future brings with this amazing life-form. Stamets gives one example of the power of the mushroom that really blew my mind. A group of bioremediation companies (including Stamets company, Fungi Perfecti) was called to a diesel fuel spill near Bellingham, Washington. Each company was assigned to a mound of soil that had been destroyed by the spill. While the other companies went about using a standard bacterial and enzymatic procedure, Stamets knew a particular mushroom species that had abilities to break down such a toxic substance, the oyster mushroom. So his inoculated the soil pile with the mycelium of the mushroom. After six weeks the companies came back to the site and all except the pile covered in newly formed oyster mushrooms were still contaminated and unable to support life. The pile with the oysters mushrooms had broken down the toxic spill by releasing acids and enzymes, and tests of toxicity in the soil came back negative. Following this, the mushrooms attracted flies, which laid eggs on them. Maggots came in, which drew in birds and other small mammals to this soil pile, all because of this "magic" mushroom! It is necessary that this practice of study becomes more well-known and popular, it is the future of keeping the planet sustainable and clean.

The readings this week have given me the personal challenge to reword or redirect my thoughts. Thinking is Systems reminded me that "flow takes time to flow", things change at their pace but it's not always the outcome or the outflow that needs to be looked at, as obvious as it may seem, the inflow or origins are just as important and just as easily changed.
i tend to be very linear in my thinking and it's always important to me to be reminded to break things down and look at them in a system and not just points that need to be worked towards and conquered. Going with the theme of looking at things from a different angle, in the chapter about biomimicry in Natures Operating Instructions, the author challenges us and himself to ask questions like "how does nature stay clean", rather than how can we "tweak our conventional solutions" when it comes to everyday things such as cleaning a surface. Both authors offer different ways to start viewing our world.
It's encouraging and inspiring to read about people trying to develop safer, effective, and more sustainable ways to live the life we live. When a Hummingbird pollinating it's fuel source (the flower providing it with nectar) or the quick clean design petals of a lotus flower are the driving forces behind new ideas for gas stations or building facade paints it's exciting to think what else is out there for us to listen to and look for.

fish or bacteria?

Randall von Wedel has changed over from studying medicine to studying the environment. He was very discouraged by the deterioration of our environment. So Randall decided to research natural bacteria (bioremediation), effective solvents that are derived from vegetable oils (biosolvents), and a clean burning fuel made from nontoxic renewable vegatable oils and recycled cooking oils (biodiesel). He states that we all have connections to the earth and all do our part in poluting it. This I totally agree with, whether we mean to or not. "Industrial biotreatmant plants are basically bioremediation systems using living bacteria to process polluted water in ponds and tanks." We just needed to do tests to see which were biodegradable and which ones can break down these complicated materials. He started in a lab and tried to acclimate the bacteria to the point that it will use the toxic material as a source of food, as energy and as a source of carbon dioxide and water. He later creates a bacterial aquarium, with 5 gallon tanks and then larger drums. His end result was, he could clean up oil spills by installing this process. So this would be used for gas stations, shopping malls, truck terminals. They would interupt the flow of water where the oil, gas or diesel concentrates, then process the water in an above ground reactor. It would need to be treated over a period of about twelve to fifteen hours until the water comes out clean. The concept of all bioremediation is the same: you're letting bacteria eat something that has energy. They use the energy to grow and we get back clean water.

John Todd

We are fortunate to have John Todd as a resident in Vermont. I live in South Burlington and I did not know that my waste was being treated by Mr. Todds living machines. I had heard of the tilapia farms at the magic hat brewery and I thought it was a great idea. I had also heard of the project at the power plant on the intervale it was supposed to take the heat that was escaping through the stacks and pump the steam into underground pipes to warm greenhouses and supply fresh produce to the area. Unfortunately it died in some bureacratic mess.

Biomimicry seems to be the way to go in waste water treatment. You can take waste treat it, make it clean, and make money. It is a win win situation. It can be applied in countless ways in countless regions around the world. History will think fondly of Mr. Todd. Why the system is called living machines because it is a process which accelerates the natural process of water purification. He mimics natures three step process of a pond, stream and marshes.

Mr. Todd was the first winner of the Buckminster Fuller award in 2008 for his revolutionary views on how to clean up rural West Virginia. The Appalachia Mts have been leveled to get to the coal veins. This area in W. Virgingia is one the biggest ecological disasters in the world and it is not in some third world nation. The next time you hear the words clean coal think of these unfortunate peaple. The federal clean air and water act does not apply to these people. Our need for energy outweighs their need for clean air and water. There are trillions of gallons of toxic coal slurry and very little of the local habitat left to even begin to treat this sesspool. So Mr. Todd has put a plan together to treat the slurry with eco machines and begin to reforest the region for biomass fuel and add windmills. Ironically to make the area energy self sufficient. The project is called Comprehensive Design for a Carbon Neutral World: The Challenge of Appalachia.

He also co-founded Living Technologies Inc. a design, engineering and construction firm in Burlington. He has authored several books. He has a non profit Ocean Arks International. He founded the New Alchemy Institute.

He considers himself a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Scientist.

During the Industrial Revolution and not until too long ago people have had the mentality that the resources that we are depleting are in abundance not needing to worry about the limits they may have. That nature is always replenishing itself through its natural systems and that we are of no impact. We now know that this is surely not the case. We are depleting resources at a rate much faster than nature can replenish them and are quickly reaching are limit to growth. In “The Myth of Progress” the author Tom Wessel’s approaches this problem through scientific explanation of the three “laws of sustainability,” The law of limits to growth, the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of self-organization in complex systems. Wessel’s give a prime example of limits to growth during World War II with the introduction of twenty-nine reindeer to the island of St Matthew north of the Aleutians. These twenty-nine reindeer where introduced to this island as means to supply meat for the nineteen men stationed there. When the war was over, the men stations on St Matthews Island soon departed for their homes leaving the reindeer uncontrolled with no predators. The reindeer flourished for the first few decades with population growths growing massively. Soon the reindeer’s population exceeded its carrying capacity and thus depleted all of the necessary resources that where once abundantly available. Consequently the reindeer no longer had the resources to survive and sustain life. I believe that we are quickly reaching our limit to growth as well. Our resources are growing smaller as our waste is growing larger. There needs to be serious change in the way we expend energy, use resources, and created products to reverse this effect. Wessel details some of the ways to support many of these new ideas that can be executed on an individual bases or as a whole community to lessen one’s ecological footprint. I believe that we are currently moving in a direction that will fail miserably because it isn’t based on sustainability. Instead of dealing with these problems re-actively we should be dealing with these problems pro-actively before they have a greater effect to the health and wellness of our planet. It is usually much easier to prevent a problem rather than trying to fix a problem that has manifested through being ignored for so long.

Wessels defines the idea of a ruling paradigm, and the necessity of a change for the continuation of a livable planet and flourishing population. All of the books we are reading refer to the various hindrances to, and possible solutions for, the return of an ecologically conscious world life style. In the Myth of Progress; Wessels puts forth the widely regarded idea of the importance of decreasing consumer consumption. In the first chapters of their Green Guide Suzuki and Boyd further this idea, and present easily implemented actions an individual can undertake to move toward a “greener” existence. Then in Cradle to Cradle; McDonough and Braungart propose a different kind of solution. They propose that the emphasis on consumer change shift to that of an emphasis on the industry to change.
In Nick Garcia's third blog he brings up the fascinating remarks of Paolo Soleri. On the page before the opening of the introduction to Thinking in Systems; Meadows quotes Robert Pirsig, from his Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainencem. Both of theses thoughts refer to the difficulties of a paradigm shift. Removing individual parts of a problem does not necessarily quantify to a solution. Meadows illustrates it is all about the system, not so much its parts, but their interactions as a whole. Our current unsustainable ruling paradigm is just that: a complex system of functioning, interconnected elements. For our paradigm to shift it is imperative for us to (as fully as possible) understand the complete system we are working to improve and evolve. The linear approach to problem solving, though far from being unhelpful, seems to be the dominant one in the mass “green” culture. From the information I've gleaned so far from in particular, Wessels and Meadows, it looks as though the solution for finding a functioning and sustainable future can found. The end solution is likely not to be about fixing the specific elements that arise as we run across them. More important is looking at the complete system, defining the feedback loops, and identifying the root problems. As this process is undertaken, it will likely be the work and ideas of individuals like Wessels, Suzuki and McDonough that will enable us, as a species, to cope in the meantime.

"Surely Some Revelation Is at Hand"

I'm taking a Macroeconomics class this semester as well, which is sort of challenging to absorb alongside all these critiques of the system that it focuses on. The material being so fresh, I frequently find myself contrasting what I'm learning about the way the market is supposed to work with what we're discussing in this class about how it actually has worked and how it might be made to work differently. This week, that clash was particularly sharp when Meadows introduced her flow diagrams: they recalled a figure from my economics text (which I found in a slightly altered version on Lewis & Clark College's website) that portrayed the flow of money through a market economy as it was exchanged for goods and services, labor and production.

It seems so elegant as presented. The more people spend, the more firms produce, and the more people get paid in turn for their labor or investment! The faster those arrows whip around, the better off everyone would seem to be -- as McDonough writes, "GDP takes only one measure of progress into account: activity." (36) Yet as we're learning, the center somehow cannot hold. What is it about this accounting that creates the impression of sustainable reciprocation and masks the loss of "human and ecological health, cultural and natural richness, and even enjoyment and delight"? (43) Maybe applying systemic thinking to the problem will reveal its weakness.

According to Meadows, a system consists of elements, interconnections, and purpose. For the diagram above, we can see that the elements are the capital stocks of firms and households as well as the markets to exchange them; the interactions are of course those exchanges of wealth, goods and services. The function, ostensibly, is to enable people access to goods and services they could not otherwise provide for themselves; as Wessels discussed in the Myth of Progress however, this has become equated in neoclassical economics with constant growth. Since there are no inflows or outflows documented here, we might wonder how the economy is supposed to increase in size by building only on the materials it is already comprised of. Perhaps it swells like a balloon, stretching itself thin and empty to increase in circumference -- of course, balloons can only be inflated to a certain point before they pop.

Perhaps it was fatuous to ignore the "land and capital" ascribed as possessions to household units, but it was in service of a point. The diagram above assumes the availability of a stock of natural resources in the system but doesn't address their provenance. Similarly, it eliminates the concept of waste (albeit in a much different sense than do McDonough and Braungart). If we were to represent these in- and outflows in the diagram, we could better conceive of our economic system as part of -- rather than separate from -- the biosphere and its resources.

I say "part of... its resources" because it allows for the possibility suggested in Cradle to Cradle that human endeavor could actually contribute to environmental quality. I haven't done away with waste in my diagram, however, because I intend it to reflect things as they are currently. Meadows writes that "as long as the sum of all inflows exceeds the sum of all outflows, the level of the stock will rise," which means that for the economy to perform its function as described by Wessels -- that is, for it to grow ever larger -- the consumption of natural resources needs to be faster than the generation of waste. (22) That is, the taps need to be flowing faster than the drain. We tend to consider the inflow more than the outflow, which means that to keep those economic arrows spinning around we adopt policies and practices that cause us to consume more and have little concern for the waste we generate as long as it's less than the harvested natural capital.

Braungart and McDonough, in their cradle-to-cradle model, would focus more equally on the waste side of the equation to keep the economic bathtub full. Better design, they suggest, can make manufactured products not just less useless at the end of their lives, but actually integral parts of some other industrial or biological process. Making more thorough use of the material and energy we extract from our natural environment can lead us to waste less (theoretically to waste nothing) while maintaining stocks of wealth and quality of life previously sustained through the brute force method of massive inflow. With that in mind, let's reconsider the stated purpose of the economic system above: to enable access to goods and services.

What is it that hinders such access? Is it a dearth of technology, labor, production or extraction capacity? Or is it that, despite our eagerness and ability to consume we are running into natural limits like the amount of carbon that can be processed by the environment or the worldwide arable acreage? Is there something wrong with our bathtub, or have we just opened the taps as wide as they'll go? Maybe we should use some sort of grey water treatment to reclaim some of the gallons swirling down the drain. Cradle to cradle design incorporates some of the most important insights of systems thinking toward some of the most important goals outlined in The Myth of Process.

Utopia and/or Revolution

When McDonough and Braungart write that they “see a world of abundance, not limits,” they seem go challenge Wessels and those like him who believe that the ethos of consumption needs to be changed. I don't think that they literally mean not to recognize limits to growth, however: the difference is in large part a semantic one, reflected in the constructive framing of environmental/industrial tension that Dave Kaczynski so astutely pointed out in his post.

While I recognize the ideological utility of such positioning, the authors' position seems to have an empty world-style economic perspective because of its focus on human-created capital. They provide numerous exciting examples of reprocessing, repurposing, and recycling manufactured goods while maintaining access to some form of those goods (in contrast to Wessels's anti-entropic intention to simply do away with many consumer goods). As I spent more time thinking about it, though, I realized that McDonough and Braungart are really avant-garde full worlders looking to “increase the productivity of the scarcest (limiting) factor” (natural capital), “as well as to try to increase its supply.” (Costanza, Robert. Ecological Economics, 83)

So it seems to me like the Cradle to Cradle authors are looking to find a way to maintain a dynamic equilibrium in the world's economy after all. By mimicking the natural world's efficiency at storing and utilizing energy the concept of waste could be eliminated and society's economic life could become more self-sustaining and anti-entropic. This is the bridge between these books: although McDonough and Braungart envision a world in which our modern material expectations continue to be met, their road to that future is the same as Wessels's to long-term sustainablity: a “more diverse, integrated, and efficient” economic system. (89)

Incidentally, Paolo Soleri presaged this conversation as early as 1971: “The only hope, which is then in addition the chance to gain for one's self some "divinity," lies in replacing man, this phenomenon of supercomplex nature, within the terms defined by reality, accepting the first postulate thereof ... that of complexity and miniaturization.” (Utopia e o Revoluzione, Perspective v 13 / 14 p 281-285, 1971) Earlier in the paper he rejects the idea of utopia because it involves an attempt to live outside the limits of natural laws, and the idea of revolution because it suggests a movement to a human condition previously unexperienced in history. This consideration is relevant in a comparison of these two books as well, I think: McDonough and Braungart's "city like a forest, cool and quiet" and "ecological footprint to delight in" (14, 16) might sound utopian just as Wessels's "Need for Cultural Change" -- and associated rhetoric, e.g. "Never in the history of democratic societies..." (107) -- might sound like a call for revolution. One very important consideration for those interested in implementing their ideas will be how to persuade society not just of their virtues but of their achievability. To do that it is important to present (as Cradle to Cradle especially tries to do) such new models as natural adaptations to natural law that are compatible with human nature as well.

I think that as Americans we don’t react to problems that don’t
directly affect us, rather we choose to only confront problems that finally spill into our daily lives. We don’t act until it’s too late. For example, think back to a few years ago when our airport security was weak. It took a national disaster to change policy and better the level of airport security. The same is true with environmental issues. We don’t feel the need to fix them, but if a major disaster were to occur, our minds would change. I think that Wessel’s view is correct in the way that at the rate we are moving, the future for the environment is grim. There are future implications that we need to address now, before it is too late. There has been some major progression toward lowering our economic footprint, such as the “go green” initiative and major recycling efforts put forth by our government. But this is just a start. Vermont is very well educated in sustainability, but we need to better educate other areas that do not have this green mindset.

Conscious Energy

First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This statement from a scientific view I completely agree with but from a philosophical view I have to argue. From a personal stand point we all have a day to day routine where we expel a certain amount of energy and time on the things we find important in our lives; such as relationships, health, personal well being and the well being of others around us. Being educated and educating others

to make conscious and positive decisions in regards to how they impact the environment can create a collective energy changing our wasteful mindset changing the energy we expel each day to move towards a sustainable future.

Some of the simplest things such as having a garden in our backyard makes a huge difference by lessening our ecological footprint by reducing carbon emissions, unnatural pesticides and fertilizer pollution. In terms of the second law of thermodynamics stating that although energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can be transformed from one form to another I believe that this means that all energy is cycling. Converting energy from one form to another is not always 100 percent efficient sometimes losing energy called "entropy" but not actually lost only transferred to unusable energy. Having a garden is a perfect system when looked at linearly. Expend energy to grow the food that in turn provides the energy back, a perfect cycle, 100 percent efficient.

Not a bad idea

Having never written a blog before i find myself sitting her wondering how to begin. With so much information gained from Wessels and even the first few pages of Cradle to Cradle, what stands out to me the most? What new and old information can i reflect on in a interesting way? What can i say to make an impact on all the other intelligent people i am surrounded by? I find i am struggling this very same way when trying to decide how i can positively impact this beautiful yet endangered world around me. What stands out to me the most as something i can do personally to help earth? What new ways of living can i look into as well as what tried and true methods are already helping our planet? Moreover, with many highly qualified ecologists, biologist and scientists of all kinds, what can i do that hasn't already been done?
After reading Wessels i find he has a very strong point of view and goes into great detail to explain the science behind many different aspects of our environment. From the Acacia tree and its ants, the spider and wasp combo, to the Hemlock and Rocky ridge. But these are all analogies to relate certain aspects of our actions to the world around us. As an intelligent consumer this is all very interesting and helps me to understand the delicate balance around us, but i feel, with all Wessels had to say, Bill and Michael have cought my attention more in their 13 pages then Wessels ever did.
Bill and Michael, authors of Cradle to Cradle, seem to see the world for what it really is. They understand the vale over our eyes, the endless consumption machine that we are as a world, wait scratch that, as a race. With all the distractions around me, i am unable to make the rite decision, most of the time, regarding the environment and its health. Me being like many millions of other Americans, I am set up for failure.
In their rooftop conversation Bill and Michael hit the nail on the head. In essence, Do not change what the consuming masses have learned to do or buy already. Simply change what it is they are buying and the problem will fix its self. That is a good business plan, using the structured yet dirty economy we have already and infiltrate it with clean, reusable products. Instead of changing the consumer we are changing the product to fit the needs around it, just as we have done so many times before. This would certainly answer my questions from before in one foul swoop.

"Only madmen....."

Honesty should never be confused with pessimism. Wessels book presented an, at times ,hard truth about our current situation. At the speed we are moving there are, and will be incredible environmental implications we will not be able to avoid by sticking our heads in the sand. He goes as far as to compare our increasing economic growth to a biospheric cancer. At this place and time i find it hard to disagree. We are moving and producing with little regard as to how we will maintain ourselves on this planet, and we have shown little interested in slowing down. Never once did i get the feeling Wessels felt defeated, nor was he presenting the information with a "gloom and doom" attitude, if anything i related much more to Wessels work than i did the beginning of McDonough's book. I'm certainly not a pessimist, but perhaps a realist. (you may ask yourself what's the difference, i'm still trying to figure it out) but McDonough seemed to overlook things in his efforts. He points out that a recycled carpet required just as much energy and waste as would a new carpet, and then praises himself for using a synthetic "paper" that was recycled and could be again. I suppose the difference between the two was that the carpet would eventually make it to the landfill but the book would continue in the cycle. But would it? And would it just use more energy in the process? I'm certainly not bashing is efforts, and appreciate his creative approach , i just feel he's getting a little lost in his idealism. (a huge conclusion to draw from reading 16 pages i know, i'm remaining open) I am however intrigued and inspired by the idea of doing "less bad" an idea that can go to great lengths. Exponential growth and what our future holds as a result of it is certainly a topic with much room for reflection, besides "Only madmen and economist believe in perpetual exponential growth."

Sustainability vs. Social Norms

It is no secret that we need to work on reducing the waste that humans create in the world. Everyone for years has been told to 'reduce, reuse and recycle', but all too often we just go about our normal lives and don't go out of our way to better the planet. It's the old mentality of "if it's not convenient, then it's just not worth doing". This is a poisonous mindset but it bring to mind thoughts of actualization; will we ever, as humans (mainly as Americans), ever come together and put a stop to frivolous waste? Well, as years go on, it seems that things are getting easier by way of convenience. It seems as though every grocery store has recycled paper products available and many have organic or local produce departments. the government is even giving tax breaks as an incentive to make your home less energy dependent. last year, my parents installed three large solar panels on the roof of there house. between the panels themselves, the wiring and the tank that stored the excess energy, the whole project cost around ten thousand dollars. this is a lot to undertake at once, but they knew that once tax season rolled around they would get about six thousand of that back between the Massachusetts and federal government. In David Suzuki's Green Guide, the author talks about reducing your ecological footprint, so that everyone can live on the planet without stepping on too many toes (foot humor). My parents found a very active way to reduce their footprint, but it's just as easy for all of us regardless of our financial situation by contributing in more subtle ways.

Moving Toward Sustainability by way of the “New Industrial Revolution”

After completing Tom Wessels’ book, I am left feeling less than inspired to “move towards” the sustainability issue. Despite his ideas and comments in the last 3 chapters concerning the reality of the free market, our obvious need for cultural change, as well as his personal feelings and ideas about interconnectedness via “Black Elk Speaks”, I am still not moved into action. Tom Wessels' writing comes from a problematic focal point and I don’t feel sufficiently inspired by the body of Wessels' contributions to take on what appears at times to be an insurmountable task. I feel the need for real focus on solutions, and a revolutionary approach to immediate change and how we frame the sustainability discussion are not his paramount goals.

After completing the introduction in McDonough’s and Braungaurt’s book “Cradle to Cradle”, I am feeling refreshed and inspired by their ideas on how to implement real fundamental change. The sustainability question that is continually bubbling up in my life goes something like; how do we as a people design, resource, manufacture, and recycle the products that are intended to enhance our lives? They begin their introduction with two and one half pages of examples of everyday problems that demand real solutions. they go on to demonstrate a viable example of how to print books on the subject of sustainability in a way as not to kill trees and further damage the environment. Then they proceed right into over nine pages of their own personal experiences, strength they have gained on the subject, and some real old fashioned hope for the future. They use evolved terminology, a new synthesis of the same old problematic rhetoric. Terms like “evolve away from”, and “seek more effective solutions”. They introduce us to the current "struggles"of the current “framework at odds”. Industry vs. the environmentalists, “We need to do more with less”, “Minimize your footprint and feel bad and guilty if you don’t". Although these concepts may at some point have a positive end result, the “guilt trips” have yet to be a cause for measurably effective change. What about the concepts of abundance and re-framing the subject in that way?

The background experience of these two authors is very important. McDonough has been abroad and saw first hand how the scarcity of resources encouraged people to create simpler, local, yet effective designs and solutions. When he returned to the states he witnessed how fruitless it is “tacking new technologies onto the same old model”. Braungaurt grew up in Germany with a background in environmental chemistry, politics, and Greenpeace. His ideas about “protesting more knowledgeably” led him to “reframe the debate” within his own vision for sustainability. Moving from “enforcement to encouragement” and from “recycle” to “upcycle”
Shortly after their first meeting McDonough’s and Braungaurt created the Hannover Principles in 1991 a set of design guidelines that would “eliminate the concept of waste” or as they say in the introduction “not reduce, or avoid waste as environmentalists were propounding, but eliminate the very concept by design.”

The wings of our emerging sustainability paradigm are still wet and fragile. We need researchers and scientists,as well as activists, corporations, and people everywhere to embrace this new model of thinking and living. I am looking forward to exploring in detail, the thoughts, personal experience, and practices that McDonough and Braungaurt will explore in th rest of "Cradle to Cradle". It is my hope that their ideas will affect change in all of us. I for one feel we are on the cusp of the most amazing and critically transformative time in the history of the environmental movement and mankind itself. and these are the new paradigm thinkers that will lead the way.



”

We can not have it both ways...

I loved Wessels book The Myth of Progress. The idea that one day fuel prices will so high that big box stores will not have the monopoly they now enjoy. When it is cheaper to buy locally than have our food shipped from 1500-5000 miles away. They will eventually close and and the land the are are on now becomes a farm again.
Being a poor college student I struggle with the decisions I have to make in order to survive. I mean I would like to eat locally all of those fresh, tasty and expensive items taunt me. Often I do find myself walking into a store as large as a football field. I feel guilty but there is little I can do I need the cheaper food. Also I have gone to Walmart to buy toilet paper and stuff for school it is at least 1/2 the price. Yes I do shop there knowing that it costs American jobs and it destroys the local diversity of shops and yes I feel guilty. I am after all a consumer not a citizen anymore. A victim if you will of the quagmire of cheaper goods made outside of our country. With corporations having the rights to sue sovereign nations even if these same corporations are putting peoples live at risk. Corporations are getting way to big they are simplifying a diverse free market economy and making it much more unstable. These corps live outside of any known system of law. I think we need to form a green corp. to fight the bad corps. on a level playing field. We could name it the People Corporation its sole duty is to ensure safety for its members and maybe try to bring mutualism back into the equation.

Any Day Now... Please

Upon reading The Myth of Progress, I found that there were passages that made me hopeful, and there were parts that made me very depressed about the future of the planet. The concept that various species are often exceeding their capacity, with regular population drops, even in just my lifetime, is unsettling. It makes it seem as though it's just a matter of time before the human population exceeds its carrying capacity. I found that I felt hopeful when I read about nature balancing itself. I guess because I always felt that our negative impact on our environment would lead to a barren wasteland of a planet. Wessel seems to have a different idea about our impact of the planet, which seems to look at it more as "the planet will balance itself regardless of whether of not humans are around." I guess we just have to hope that we're part of this. More appropriately, I guess we have to see what we can do to become part of it. Unfortunately, it seems that, at this rate, we're headed for extinction. Though, given the complexities of human behavior, who knows, we might make some big changes in the right direction sometime soon. As with most revolutions, everything happens at the drop of a hat. For instance, social revolutions tend to happen when they're most needed, just when injustices become intolerable, just when the shit hits the fan. We can only hope that we'll be able to make these moves in the right direction soon. Ideally before said feces is spattered all over. But alas, there's no way to know when it will happen. Prediction only happens in theory. I suppose when we all are walking around smelling like metaphorical dung we will know it's now or never.

The Myth of Progress... Myth or reality?

In the remaining few chapters of the Myth of Progress, Wessels first describes the role of co -evolution and how it goes hand in hand with mutualism within an ecosystem. He illustrates how in nature, mutualism allows species to coexist and provide for one another while gaining benefits for doing so. If one thinks about our existence in a more broad view, everything is on a smaller scale in comparison to something else. For example, we consider the Earth a rather large place, in comparison to us, but in comparison to other planets, and...to the universe, Earth is minuscule and is just another system working within larger systems. My point being is that if smaller scales of mutualism can function in a positive manner, such as the example of the bull's-horn acacia tree and the acacia ant, then it can also work on a larger scale, such as humans and the environment. Wessels then describes the several drawbacks of our continuously growing industry. Big-box stores and large corporations like Wal-Mart are devaluing humanity. In the simple ages of human existence, everyone relied on one another to make ends meet and to survive, now that way of life is extinct and it's every man/woman for themselves. We need to look back to our roots, in order to move forward into becoming more sustainable.

The McDonough and Braungart reading, I found very enlightening. Unlike in David Suzuki's "Green Guide", this text seems to have gone much deeper into the understanding of each of the fact's they provide (just like Wessels said, understanding something is much more effective than just knowing the facts.) I have already found myself questioning the products I buy, and where I buy them from. I find myself asking, "What is going to happen to this product after I'm done with it?" "Is their a more eco-friendly alternative to this product?" Yes, there is. I'm very eager to find out what else this motivated two-man team has to offer in the next several sections.

The Battle of Bunker Hill

Under Wessels' complex-systems framework, sustainability is analogous to dynamic equilibrium. In his vision of progress, our cultural economic system “matures” and divorces itself from the unnatural concepts of unlimited growth and unlimited substitutability. At this point, ideally, society becomes like the old growth forest he returns to in each chapter: the amount of energy we absorb is exactly the same as the energy we release. Wessels presents a concise yet thoroughly considered explanation not only of the fact that such an arrangement is at odds with our current paradigm, but of how that came to be so. His broadly systemic approach to the urgent problems of unchecked economic expansion and concomitant environmental degradation was both refreshing and reassuring to me for the perspective it provided.
Suzuki and Boyd, on the other hand, had a nervous energy to their writing that left me unconvinced of the efficacy of their approach to the same problems. In fairness, they are proposing much more concrete measures to combat environmental degradation than Wessels; given that, I think that while their conceptualization of the problem's ultimate causes are in line with that author's, their approach to implementation of solutions is a bridge too far. Certainly, being more thoughtful about how we house and feed ourselves and how and when we travel will be integral to mitigating our cumulative environmental impact – my concern is that such considerations focus on specific parts of the extant economic system, rather than fundamental change.
This seems to me to be the greatest challenge faced in averting environmental degradation to the point of bifurcation. Wessels writes that “large-scale change in complex systems never comes from the top down; it always bubbles up from the bottom,” and to that end the Green Guide is a useful book to have been published. Unfortunately, I think the potential exists for people to soothe themselves with the suggestions made in that book and others like it. Even of the people who buy the book (which is ranked only around 20,000 on Amazon), how many will really adopt a majority of its suggestions? I know, despite my near-crippling terror about the dangers of worsening environmental quality, that I haven't necessarily the fortitude to make the most dramatic and impactful changes.
I want to be clear (Spencer) that I am not suggesting that we can't change, or that the problem is “too big.” I am trying to make a fine point about the usefulness of the practical, changes-we-can-all-make-in-our-daily-lives approach to the current predicament, of which concern about the aggregate impact of incremental changes is only the first half. The corollary is that, after replacing their incandescent light bulbs and purchasing local kale – even after forgoing a jet-fueled vacation to Hawaii – people might well feel that they've “done their part.” This is dangerous, in part because they will have. As long as our complexly intertwined model of global capitalism persists as the dominant paradigm, consumerism (and I'm talking specifically about the U.S.) will reign supreme, and the net effect of all these measures will be to forestall the symptoms of a well-established disease. While even Wessels writes that our aim should be to slow movement down the continuum of degradation, such movement will enable us to avoid making really hard decisions about societal values (see Tom Friedman in the New York Times: "Real Men Tax Gas"). I don't mean to disparage any of these authors, or anyone making palpable changes to their lifestyle in an effort to help. I just think about last summer, when gas prices went over $4 per gallon and people stopped driving so much: prices dropped, and everyone hit the road in celebration. As much as many of us do want to to work for real change, I think we are also very good at deferring it by moderating the current, unsustainable model.
Unfortunately, while the intra-economic changes proposed by Boyd and Suzuki are incremental, the environmental detriment caused by the current economic model is compounding. The end result of the well-intentioned changes proposed to mitigate the environmental impact of industrialized societies might well be to delay the biggest changes past the point of their usefulness. I think of William Prescot and his courageous but doomed militia on a hilltop in Boston nearly 250 years ago: he told them, "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes," and the rest is history.

Organic Farming Will Save the Third World

An article from Science Daily reports that organic farming, at least within the third world can increase the amount of produce harvested. Without having to buy extra fertilizers or expand their plots, they can organically provide themselves and the rest of their communities with food. Organic farming is especially important in these areas because if synthetic fertilizers were used, the run off would create dead zones in their water systems because of a lack of oxygen. Conventional farming can also lead to soil erosion, increased pest resistance, and loss of biodiversity. In a community that may already be struggling to survive, a conventional farm could be the straw that broke the camels back and leave the land unusable. A community living in the third world does not have the luxury to order food and have it shipped directly to them. Between the lack of infrastructure and the rural areas, this would cost a lot of money they do not have. An organic farm would insure natural regeneration of soil, no pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, and a natural cycle of nutrients.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134523.htm

Ants and Us

The book gives a really interesting example of the thousands of different species of ants around the world and how they adapt to be fitting to their environment, so they are not only beneficial to their species, but also to their surroundings. Humans, in some ways, are similar to ants in that we have developed different cultures and practices in countries all over the world in different ecosystems. However, with humans, (and for the sake of this example lets think of different cultures of people as different species of human),  like the book says, because of our use/transfer of goods and energy, some species thrive, while others decline. This is because some species have managed to develop faster than others, due to power and money; and of course power and money often lead to the accumulation of more assets, furthering still the development of those species. Thanks to the idea of "developed" and "undeveloped" countries and the ramifications that go along with those, we have gone global. Globalization has made us all co-dependent on each other, and is I believe, a big part of the reason that things like changing our behavior to fit climate change, etc., is  so difficult. We have built this web that gets more and more delicate, and more and more intricate with every advance of industry. The big problem with this is that when something goes wrong, it upsets the ENTIRE system and causes big problems for everything and everyone. This is why it is so important to support local businesses and food sources. We need to stop depending on all of the different species of people all over the world for our survival. We need to strive to be more like ants!

locally we can save the world

I felt that this weeks reading and last week readings had a lot in common. The main points in the readings was that buying locally foods and supplies will help out environment, ecological footprint and save us money. some key reasons to buy locally are Fewer or no chemicals to preserve the food, lower shipping costs using less fuels, Less packaging/ package waste, and it also Promotes/supports your community. buying local products does a lot of things for the environment even though it can cost a little more in the long run it is saving our economy money, but it is also a lot more beneficial on the planet with less machines, work, and gas to get you the same supplies you can get right in your backyard in your community. it depends how you look at things if you want to get things shipped in it might be cheaper and give you more quantity, but if you buy locally you know what you are getting and it is of better quality, it is your choice on which you would rather prefer but if you want to do more for yourself, community, and economically, than you should buy locally. This readings had made me better and more aware on how much just buying locally produce and building materials are really so much beneficial to you as a person knowing what you are getting an eating healthier foods with out hormones and pesticides all over and in it, but it is also a lot more beneficial for everyone cutting down on package materials, traveling materials, and not to mention the fuel needed to transport all of these supplies causing pollution and travel fees when I have access to purchase these things right in front of me. The readings have opened my eyes on how buy local products can make a big difference and how I'm going to be better at supporting and buying local products.

Energy from Algae

I recently read an article from EcoWorldly that announces italys plan to use Algae (brought into the canals by ships traveling from Japan and Sargassi Sea) by turning it into fuel to turn turbines to supply 50% of the energy needed in venice. They plan to have a powerplant up and running by 2011. This would be a zero emmisions production of energy and personally I think this is an awesome idea. The Algae planned to be used (Sargassum muticum and Undaria pinnatifida???) are a nuisance to the people of venice, clogging and blocking canals. This is what we need to see more of, taking one thing that we dont need and turning into something we do need. I do not know how they plan on making this work and transforming this algae to fuel but this is, to me, a really genius idea. The article I found was short and I really would like to learn more about this. if anyone wants the article here is the site- http://ecoworldly.com/2009/03/27/algae-a-new-fuel-for-the-venice-seaport/ If you find anymore information on this, please, let me know.

Organic Cotton

I've decided to do my post on an article that I found about organic cotton. I choose this article for one reason; the new "big thing" is eating organic, even though a lot of people dont understand what organic means and why we would benefit from an organic lifestyle. But, you dont hear much about organic clothing. The first and I think, most important benefit of organic cotton is the greatly reduced danger of ingesting/breathing in the toxins for those who still pick cotton by hand in the cotton fields. Though cotton is mainly picked by machines these days, many developing countries do not have the luxury of cotton picking machines doing their work for them and therefore are exposed, daily, to the harmful chemicals being used by non-organic farmers. Another benefit of organic clothing would be, of course, we are not "wearing" harmful pesticides on our skin. I myself do not know enough about the dangers of specific pesticides to explain exactly what it could do to affect your health, but who does? The fact that you know something could be potentially harmful to you or your families health should be enough to make you want to start changing the little things that could, in the long run, make a positive difference in your health.
I have been trying to introduce more and more organic foods into my diet (which isnt always easy). But, I think it would be easy to just start getting clothes made with organic cottons, keep the stuff we already have, just dont buy anymore clothing made with non-organic cotton. I also read that companies like Nike, The Gap and L.L. Bean are starting to use organic cotton in their clothing, meaning the more we buy, the more organic cotton they use and this would influence other companies to use organic cotton. This would be an easy switch, they even say organic cotton is softer :) so why not? This is just one more little step we could take to do our part.

food for thought

I think that the Green Guide is a very helpful, informative book that has a variety of useful tips. I like the fact that it is a recent publication (2008) because I feel that the websites that are mentioned in the book are current and up to date. The book lists many ideas, relating to sustainability, which I really never gave much thought to before. Some of the things addressed in the readings regarding food made me think about some of the food choices that I make. I think that the most difficult challenge for me is going to be to reduce the amount of meat, eggs, and dairy that I consume. I guess I can start with the “meatless Mondays” idea and take it from there. Suzuki states “Changing your diet could make a bigger difference in reducing your ecological footprint than changing your vehicle.”

I think a lot of times people forget about how their personal food choices affect the whole ecosystem. I know that being conscious of the impact of my food choices on the environment is one of the most effective ways to manage my ecological footprint. Last year I joined a community garden for the first time and I felt a great deal of personal satisfaction from planting, growing, and harvesting my own produce. Not only did I save a lot of money but I also reduced my ecological footprint. I learned a lot from the whole process and I plan to continue to have a garden every summer.

Michael Reynolds, Earthships

Ilya Pentenrieder
Blog Entry

I decided to do this assignment on Michael Reynolds, he is an amazing “green” architect from New Mexico. He designs houses and buildings called Earthships, these are buildings made out of all recycled materials. The walls are made from materials that store heat, such as stone, dirt-filled tires and adobe blocks; and a natural ventilation system. These factors work together with the natural temperature of the ground, and with the sun and the seasons, to heat and cool the house without ever requiring air conditioning or heating.

Right after graduating from architect school he left what he called a wasteful building. In 1971 he started collecting all tossed out beer cans and made a beer can home. He made a total of sixty of these homes, and perfected them so that they were sustainable homes.

His latest invention was the Earthship, which is made to sustain a family of four. Earthships are designed so that the house has many layers and stays at a constant 72 degrees Fahrenheit. This makes it an environment where you can grow your own fruits and vegetables. All the appliances in the Earthship are powered by a solar power system. Therefore Michael Reynolds estimates that the electric bill for a four bedroom, six thousand square foot home with high-speed Internet would be $100 per year.

Reynolds has a strong opinion on architects in the present day. He believes that they are all caught up in their lives, and uppity about their designs when all they are doing is screwing up the world. Reynolds can appreciate modern architecture on an art level, but what good is that if there is a flood coming? "I could try and make them look like conventional houses, but why take a Porsche and make it look like a covered wagon?" Reynolds deploys another nautical analogy: "It feels like I'm crossing the Atlantic on a boat and people have been washed overboard. I'm throwing them a life preserver, and they're rejecting it because it's supposed to be white and I've got a green one."
- Michael Reynolds, CNN News-January 25,2008.

Earthships have proved their viability in the American desert and the Sussex countryside, but if they are to be a credible alternative to conventional housing, Reynolds will have to make them work in cities. In order for this to be made possible Reynolds would have to be given a piece of city land to tear down and use all the recyclable materials to build a community of new Earthships that are sustainable for city life and weather.

I think that Michael Reynolds has proven to many American people and people all around the world that living a sustainable lifestyle is possible, and quite simpler then people thought. The Earthship is one of the best inventions yet in my eyes, and I hope that someday we can all look at this genius idea and take advantage of living wonderful sustainable lifestyle.

again

For years I've seen people carrying around their little pocket bottles of hand sanitizer or Purell antibacterial soap. I always used to joke with them that if they keep killing off all the microbes around them that they're immune system wouldn't be able to handle an attack as well as it might if it had to fight off a microbe once in a while. I always dismissed it as nothing more than a joke, but these people seem to get sick just as often as I do and seemingly battle the sickness for longer.

This week's reading in cradle to cradle touched on an interesting point. They mention that all the anti-bacterial, anti-microbial, and even anti-biotics eventually wind up going down the drain and mixing in with the sewage. They state that this becomes a problem when these products kill off all the bacteria that is used to break down the sewage, they basically hinder the process. Whats more interesting is that the only bacteria that survive are the ones that are resistant to these products. We have essentially created the perfect breeding ground for the antibiotic resistant "super bugs" that everyone worries will kill us all. We created these super bugs all because we wanted to kill off the bugs we could have beaten anyway. What irony!

anti bacterials making us sick?

Harnessing Our Waste

Many conversations that I have had about current world issues lately have come back around to the idea of globalization. The system of globalization is the result of wide-spread hunger for instant gratification with disregard for possible long-term consequences. Even the way we have set up our small towns has employed the immediate gratification mentality, and now, as we are learning more about the effects we are having on the environment and seeing ways we can change, it's hard not to look back and wonder why no one put these changes into effect in the first place. 

One big improvement we could make is the harnessing of waste energy. My parents are involved in a project with the city of Burlington that is working to take the energy that is wasted at the electricity producing McNeil power plant, and use it to heat homes and businesses in the area. The plant uses sustainably, locally harvested wood to fuel its productivity, which is great, but there is also a lot of heat that doesn't get used. Currently, the heat that doesn't get used in the process of producing electricity, gets cooled with water and then released into the atmosphere. Wouldn't it be great if, instead of just increasing our carbon footprint, we actually had a use for this waste? In theory, there is enough wasted now to heat most of the buildings in the Old North End for nearly nothing (of course there is the cost of installing new pipes all throughout the ground in that section of town). This is, both socially and environmentally, the right thing to do. The number of people in the part of town (which is one of the poorest parts of Burlington), that would be affected by this would have the relief of not having a gas bill, AND we would not be burning up precious resources twice when we have the option of burning them up only once. It is a win-win, which is why I can't imagine why every power plant wasn't initially built with this idea in place, or at least why they aren't NOW incorporating it everywhere. Much of Scandinavia uses this as a resource and it is becoming more common in China as well. I think it is time for the U.S. to jump on board, it would be a very worthwhile investment.

Doing a little can go a long way

In this week's reading of the green guide it was telling us and giving all sorts of hints and ideas on how to make our ecological footprint better. The first thing of topic was talking about homes being a practical size house for our needs rather than having a giant house when there is only two people living in it, some easy tips that where given to help save us money and out environment is to shut of the lights when we leave the room, but to also change out lights to cfls or halogen lights which might cost a little more but in the long run, but last longer and use less energy which will make you money to spend a little extra money. all throughout the chapter it breaks your house down into different sections on how you insulating your house better and fixing the drafty area's in your home is'nt a hard thing to fix and will cut your fuel bill down a good chunk, or also being aware of the phantom power that your appliances even if they are shut off still draw and suck power, or when you leave your house fro work you can turn down your thermastat beacuse why does it have to stay warm when no one is there. The chapter does a great job providing you with ideas and tips how to cut costs and use less of things that in reality gives us more, it also makes you more aware on how simple practical changes do make a defference. This chapter is good at explaing different things because i think many people are nieve and dont really realize all the simple little things that you can do, does make a difference even if it is changing your lightbulb.

Sweet Pond

After our discussion of design in class today, I decided to look up eco-homes in Vermont and see what designs people had used that fit out landscape and environment. In southeastern Vermont there is a community under development called the Sweet Pond Eco-Community. This community is a group of nine eco-houses built in an apple orchard surrounding a beaver pond. Picturesque right?
The design is actually quite simple, using two simple shed form, using sheltering and the low-lying structure for passive solar.



It's basically two boxes stuck together with varying roof angles. They also plan to incorporate things such as shared parking structures, shared septic, and shared water to limit land use. While these are all fine and dandy, I am still waiting for a residential home that is 100% eco-friendly, or at least above the 75% range.

Taking into account the landscape, environmental challenges, and challenges of an eco-friendly home, the conventional ideas of a house or home may not be applicable. Say you were to incorporate a living machine into your home, it would need to be a proper size to support several people and the waste that they produce, and rather than have a room dedicated to your living machine, you would need to find a way to incorporate it aesthetically into your living spaces.
I met someone the other day who had decided to build a 100% eco friendly home using a slightly altered conventional farmhouse design to blend better in the Vermont community and architectural landscape. I wonder if conventional design and aesthetics and another system that will have to be completely remade to become sustainable.
We have said in class that this is an opportunity to rebuild every system. Does that apply to cultural aesthetics too?