You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2007.
At first hear, biofuels seem like such a great idea (renewable sources, fewer emissions). But the more I hear, the less good of a solution they appear to be. In fact, some view them as leading us astray–conservation is really what we should be focusing on–while still others think they spell actual disaster.
The main question appears to be whether our rush to find fuel alternatives to oil will cause us more problems than it will solve? And it’s becoming hard not to think so, given what the media are saying.
I get most my news from NPR–mainly Morning Edition/Weekend Edition–and just a few months ago I started hearing about how increased demand for biofuels is causing food prices to rise. At first, I did not think much about it. But now one cannot but with suddenly everyone talking about it–and, well, because food prices really do seem to be rising.
The perfect example that biofuels and its effects are the new hot topic–besides the ever more frequent and increasing number of pieces about it on NPR–is the fact that it’s the cover story of the current issue of National Geographic (October 2007). The eye-catching depiction of a cob of corn with the words Growing Fuel: The wrong way, the right way printed across it is hard to miss. Inside on page 38, the actual story is titled/subtitled (in print, slightly different online): “Green Dreams: Making fuel from crops could be good for the planet–after a breakthrough or two,” which I found informative and very helpful in understanding about the different types of biofuels (they also have a really cool “Biofuels Compared” “Interactive” online).
However, the topic isn’t new. Like I said, I already started hearing about it on NPR a few months ago and even a quick, basic search in Lexis yielded close to 1000 hits. For example, already back in April, CNN similarly reported on the topic in a piece titled: Biofuel: Green savior or red herring?
I find skimming the popular press can be a great way to stay current and get topic ideas. I make it a habit to cut through the current periodical aisles in our beautiful Reading/Reference Room rather than walking around them. And I never fail to spot something of interest–often enough in a magazine or journal I would not otherwise think to look at.
Articles like the above mentioned may not be academic, but they give one a quick overview, the basics, and ideas for keywords and search terms. They should not be underestimated.
One of the worst contributors to global warming is an issue that is rarely discussed, even among champions of the global warming cause: meat. In a New York Times article from August 29th, 2007 titled “Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change,” author Claudia H. Deutsch notes “raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.” The evidence for this claim can be found in a report issued last November by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, not exactly a group that would be considered “radical” or “extreme.”
Why is the meat issue so often absent from the list of global warming perpetrators? I think that people who promote global warming awareness and education worry that bringing the meat issue to the forefront of the discussion will reduce concern and lessen involvement, for several reasons.
As of 2004, vegetarians comprised only 2.8% of the American population – although this number is slowly increasing. The majority of Americans eat meat. Vegetarians may be viewed by many members the population as a fringe group championing the PETA agenda (some of them do but not all) who would use global warming to further the case for animal rights. I think global warming activists may not be ready to bring the connection between eating meat and global warming to the forefront of the discussion until global warming as a concept becomes as mainstream as racial equality or women’s rights. Activists worry that pairing global warming and vegetarianism will make global warming seem like a leftist, radical cause.
The manner in which the meat issue enters into the global warming discussion is delicate. I think a public awareness campaign in the form of statements of fact would be much more effective than a campaign insisting that people to stop eating meat. Present the argument and let individuals make their own conclusions. This approach might reduce the number of people who recoil from the meat – global warming connection. It is too risky to wait until global warming becomes solidly mainstream before discussing the delicate issues.–AMD
When we talk about climate change and global warming and saving the planet, what are we really talking about? I think we need to be clearer about that. Clearer to ourselves. (I know I am pretty confused by it all.) So I am going to think out loud here (provoke some reactions/comments?) and maybe risk sounding like I don’t care about climate change, global warming, etc.
Let me back up a bit: On September 6th, I attended the Common Reading faculty (plus one student) panel discussion over in Gamble, and listening to Joe Smith, Vinnie Ferraro, Jill Bubier, Marjorie Fisher, and the various students asking questions and making comments, it struck me that, as so often with complex topics, things/discussions easily get muddled. The matter at hand is so huge and complex that to make it real for each of us, we each tend to focus on some aspect of the issue to make it more manageable/comprehensible. But then we also talk about it using the same terms and things get muddled.
Similarly, we (many people, main-stream media, environmentalists, etc.) have started talking about the issue of climate change/global warming in very black-and-white terms. Suddenly being green, saving the planet/Earth, being concerned about climate change and global warming, etc. is cool, is right, is smart. But is it really that simple? Climate change = bad. Using CFL Bulbs = good. etc.
The following questions may seem pretty basic and obvious, but when I think about them, really start thinking about them, it helps me re-focus and widen my perspective again–which I think is a good thing. Because while, on one level, it has to be about me and my actions and the choices I make, on another level, it is so not about little me.
So here goes:
Why are we talking about climate change/global warming? Does it really matter in the scheme of things? Are there more pressing, bigger problems out there that we should be more concerned about? Can we as individuals do anything about it? How much? What about it am I concerned about? Why? What is motivating me? … I wouldn’t mind a shorter winter. Maybe it is just our time, as a species, to come to an end. … But if it does matter, to whom does it matter and why? Whom will it/does it affect? Obviously, not everyone in the world in the same way. Whom will it affect in a positive way? (For example, when I look at a map of the Arctic ice receding, I can imagine the Russians are not too upset.) Whom in a negative way? (The focus seems to be primarily on whom it will affect in a negative way: coastal regions, low-lying lands, areas/countries that will experience extreme drought, etc.) … How do I know? Where am I getting my information from? What is their agenda? … Will/does global warming/climate change affect me in a positive or negative way? Whom will it affect positively or negatively in the future/in the long run? Are we (Americans) just trying to maintain the status quo? Are we/should we be more afraid of the geo-political effects than the actual local-environmental ones?
I am pretty sure the Earth cares less. She is neither happier with us or without us. She just is; that is, she is on a different time-scale and constantly changing in any case. We will neither destroy her, nor can we save her (from what?). Heck, according to a recent piece in the New York Times, she may even survive the Sun’s demise (in 5 billion years).
So it is really about saving ourselves. (But who is ‘ourselves’?)
FYI (because this is a LITS/RIS sponsored blog)
Two books that have recently come to my attention and have to do with my above muddlings:
1. Weisman, Alan. The World Without Us. New York: St. Martin’s Press/Thomas Dunne Book, 2007.
Dean of the College Lee Bowie also mentioned the book in his opening remarks on September 6th at the panel discussion. Moreover, Mr. Weisman will be in the area speaking about his book later in October and at the beginning of November (Oct. 25, 7 p.m. across the street at the Odyssey Bookshop, and Nov. 5, 7.30 p.m. at Amherst College).
2. Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. New York: Random House/Knopf, 2007.
Maybe there are more pressing problems that we should be focusing on and putting money into solving than global warming just now?!
Both authors gave very interesting interviews on NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday and Morning Edition respectively. Check’m out: interview with Alan Weisman & interview with Bjorn Lomborg
