Seminar Three | Fall 2012
Professor Alexandratos
Office Hours: Monday and ThursdayITF: Karen Gregory
Contact: Karen.Gregory@gmail.com
Office Hours: WednesdaysAdd Users
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
Jacqueline Tosto- Week 6
This week in seminar we discussed the policies that integrate societies with the environment and human activities with environmental issues. One of the main problems is recycling when it comes to the economy. Although recycling is a great thing for the environment, its closes the loose which increases costs of products because there is less of a need for new products. Society must operate accept that the economy must operate within limits and that resources will not last forever. Very few countries however act this way.
We also learned about the UN World Commission on Environment and Development and its Chair, Gro Harlem Bruhtdland. She created the first applied definition of sustainability, which is that development must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. I think this definition is a good basis to what sustainability it is, but it needs more. There are too many loopholes such as what are the needs that are necessary and how can we be sustainable.
We also discussed that in order to reach true sustainability we must work with society, the economy, and the environment. Reaching happiness in all three of those categories is nearly impossible. All three have demanding needs and for people to willing to sacrifice certain items in each category is difficult. Also, within each of these three main categories are many subcategories such as jobs, energy, social justice, and species survival. There are so many variable to create true sustainability, or at least the way people are currently thinking.
In class we also went over the triple bottom theory that means that policy decisions can be made by individuals, corporations, and government. This is a very influential concept when dealing with sustainability. Corporations are some of the greatest of criminals when it comes to harming the environment. If corporations affect policy, it will be difficult to pass policies that limit corporations in order to help the environment.
After the infinite sink theory was overruled, new theories came into play such as the end-of-pipe treatment, pollution prevention, design for environment, and sustainable development. The bad thing about these steps is that it is difficult to complete each one. End-of-pipe and pollution prevention are important and need to be accomplished, but very few people consider the next two steps. Fixing our mistakes is a major concern, but we should also be trying to prevent future mistake.
Another major problem about obtaining sustainability is outsourcing. There are laws in the US to prevent unclear work environments and dumping of chemicals, and other measures harmful to the environment, but other countries do not have such laws. Companies can basically do whatever they want in countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia where they have no constraints. This needs to be stopped. Either other countries must take an initiative and stop these corporations, or corporations must be dealt with in the US.
Lastly, we discussed the UN Conference on Environment and Development and the UN Millennium Conference, both which are very disappointing. Countries keep coming together, promising to reduce waste and their energy usage and not a single country can deliver. Instead of making ridiculous and far-fetched pledges, countries should make logical, and obtainable goals, and actually accomplish them.
Jacqueline Tosto- Week 5
This week in seminar we discussed the government actions to fix Brownfields. In 2009, the EPA office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization created an Action Plan. This empowered community revitalization and sustainable development of contaminated properties and provided technical assistance for clean- up and re-use of contaminated property. This would maximize economical, ecological, and social uses and protects human health and environment. It also creates green jobs and uses stake holder outreach. This I feel like may be somewhat difficult. This entire plan relies on everyday citizens to try and protect their land. Getting people interested and willing to help is a much harder job than it may seem. It is a good goal but whether or not it is plausible is a different story.
We also discussed the Ecological History of New Bedford. EPA thought that it was better to study problems in their natural environment. We discussed how New Bedford’s watershed went through many stages such as agricultural, whaling, textile, and post-textiles, over the course of a few hundred years. Each of these stages affected the environment and the watershed. This case study had a very important impact on future studies and understandings about pollution. It showed that pollution occurs over time and that decisions 400 years ago affect the environment today. People today often continue polluting saying that the earth will eventually fix itself. Obviously this is not true. New Bedford shows that even the littlest damage hundreds of years ago affects us and that we must be carful of our actions.
Later in the week we discussed the Greenhouse Effect, climate change, and the effect of global warming on New York City. The United States emits billions of tons of carbon dioxide every year causing more air pollution, slowly raising global temperatures. It seems insane to me that the carbon dioxide released in the air is thirty percent more today than it was during the Industrial Revolution. When I think of the Industrial Revolution I think of constant smoke being emitted from factories, terrible sewage, and a complete lack of awareness of the pollution being created. What could we possibly be doing today that is worse than such a contaminated time period?
We know that Global Warming is affecting our city. The Mayor’s Advisory Panel on Climate Change released some alarming facts in 2009 proving this concept. The annual temperature is suppose to increase by three degrees in just over five years and the sea levels will rise by over two inches. There will be more blackouts, rainstorms, and floods over the next decade as well.
I know the world will most likely not end in 2012, but the predictions of the future seem a bit grim. The icecaps are melting, the temperature is rising, and the air pollution is getting worse. If this is the world we live in now, I am scared about what it will be like 100 years from now. I am sure that the residents of New Bedford did not think that a bridge would hurt their watershed, but it did. What actions are we doing that could be causing harm and we are completely unaware? We have the facts now it is our time to change the predictions.
The Past, Present, and Future
The Past, Present, and Future
Many people would say that America has progressed greatly over the last century, from abolishing slavery to winning the space race. Indeed, America has progressed greatly since the early 1900s, but there are always new issues that must be addressed. Although the US is doing well socially and economically, many countries are not. Outsourcing is becoming a huge problem both for the United States and for the countries where these corporations are moving.
In developing countries, people are practically being tricked by huge corporations into working far from their home for years in factories with horrible condition, and nothing is being done. Mind you, these corporations are raking in billions of dollars in profit a year. Although some make the argument that these working are making well above the average monthly salary, they are still making less than $60 a month. For the long hours these workers put in, it is practically slavery. This is unacceptable behavior by any corporation, and more so by the companies that make tons of yearly profit. In order for that third world country to ever develop, the working class’ salary must go up to drive the economy forward. Only then will progress be made to a more developed nation.
Until that day however, these outsourced corporations will continue to pollute the environment around their facilities. I mean, that is precisely why they outsourced the jobs in the first place – to be able to do what they want, where they want, when they want as cheap as possible. Until these nations realize that there will be extreme repercussions in the future, nothing will be done. All nations should be able to agree on a set of laws that they see fit so that tomorrow’s world is not environmentally compromised. Although Americans might think that mercury filled rivers in Asia would never impact them, one day, that mercury will end up on your plate containing a deadly concentration of poison.
To address these environmental issues, I feel that there should be worldwide organizations that maintain the environmental well being of the world as a single entity. By establishing a set of guidelines to follow, progress could be made towards sustainable development. However nations that are already developed, such as the United States, would have a hard time to move towards environmental sustainability simply upon the fact that there would have to be a total shift in the manufacturing processes. Infrastructure would have to be rebuilt, and some things would even be less efficient than they are today. In my viewpoint, this is one of the largest problems that any nation would have in moving towards environmental sustainability. This progress would take much longer to achieve than it did to abolish slavery in the United States and even longer than getting a man on the moon, I believe, all because of a single fact. All humans are wired to seek instant gratification. With environmental sustainability there will be no instant gratification, which is something we must accept as a reason to push even harder towards going green.
In the case of slavery, steps were taken at a slow pace to abolish slavery, but each of those steps had immediate effects. In comparison, getting a man on the moon was practically instant – build a rocket, put a man on the rocket, and he will reach the moon given that scientists had a good knowledge of physics. However, people will not be able to appreciate the steps taken towards sustainability. Yes, the initial costs will be high and unpleasant, but if we leave things the way they are now, the total costs of living in the future will be higher than possibly imaginable.
Weekly Response 7
The remarkable thing about the environmental crisis we are facing is that the answers are clear and available. Some of them are so common sense and obviously beneficial that I am surprised they have not been entirely adopted. Green engineering is a the path mankind needs to go along but first it must overcome the inertia of a shirt-sighted, profit minded world.
Green engineering is based on three tenets that radically warp how we deal with development and waste but are totally logical intrinsically. Solar income is an underutilized resource. There is essentially an endless spherical battery floating in the sky that we are not taking advantage of. The argument that it is too expensive to harness this energy is misguided. The movement to solar will have to happen at some point, whether it is before we run out of oil or not. Any time spent not utilizing the sun as a resource adds to a pile of money and time that has been wasted. The sun supplies energy that can be used to convert useless matter into useful matter and sidesteps the need for unclean fuel sources.
This segues into the second tenant. Waste is food. Green engineering seeks to close the loop, transforming the linear relationship of resource to waste into a circle of recycling and valorization. During the black rock forest trip, I came across a toilet that did not flush. Instead, it allowed any material going into it to fall down a chute into a composting pit. All this waste went to provide nutrients for crops in the area. This is not the most elegant example of waste as food but it is the most direct. Applied to a more urban area, plastic bottles can be melted down and reused. Perhaps buildings can be outfitted so that wastewater from dishes and restrooms is routed to a rooftop garden.
The third tenet, which is the least tangible but the most important philosophically, is appreciation of diversity. People who claim not to care about biodiversity can shrug many of the problems that the environment faces. These people need to be made aware of the benefits of wetlands, the good that can come of mosquitos, and the knowledge that the intricate equilibrium nature has cannot be fully understood but must be respected. There must also be respect for local diversity. Each environment faces its own problems and has its own challenges. Urban areas specifically have unique challenges that environmental initiatives need to take into account in order to catch on. Green engineering is the path we need to take. Hopefully society realizes the benefits in time.
Green Engineering as Sustainable Development
Because the midterm was Monday and Thursday’s lecture covered “Applying the Principles of Green Engineering,” this response will focus on the article alone. Green engineering is an amazing thing. It seems like the clear “next step” for us to take in terms of industrial development, but it also seems like science fiction.
The three main ideas of green engineering, that waste is food, we should use current solar income, and that we should celebrate diversity, seem like good tenets to not only base an industry on, but a lifestyle. The idea of waste as food should resonate with anyone who recycles or composts. Many people advocate for an end to oil and the rise of green power. And diversity should agree with people both on the surface, and on a deeper level. Most people know about cultural and species diversity, but, as the article detailed, we must also consider the diversity of locale. Each place on this planet has its own unique environment, and its own resources and challenges. We must take all of them into account when determining how to proceed most effectively (and this is sustainable development).
A product that is “commercially productive, socially beneficial, and ecologically intelligent” meets the triple bottom line almost by definition. And the article doesn’t just outline a plan for creating such a wondrous product in the future; a couple instances of actual application are described. I immediately have to ask, “what’s the catch?” Do the products come apart easily, are they scratchy, are they prohibitively expensive? I couldn’t quickly find answers to those questions, but Professor Alexandratos seemed to think they were reliable in those areas. I then asked, “but are they still around? Why haven’t I heard of them?” It seems that DesignTex, which invented the sustainable fabric by 1993, still exists and is still committed to producing a green product through green means.
On the other hand, the Shaw carpet company described later in the paper does not seem to fully emphasize its environmental repute. The main page of their website does not mention ecological advantages; only by navigating to different pages of the site are certain “environmentally friendly” products found. It seems that Shaw does still use the Nylon 6 material advertised in the article, but this information is hard to find and not well-emphasized.
This brings me to yet another question. Why are these systems not the main selling point of the products? I would think such environmental advantages would find an enormous market in the ecologically-conscious portion of our society (the same portion that buys exclusively organic food and drives hybrid cars). I was under the impression that being seen as environmentally conscious was, if not actually useful to the environment, at least trendy and popular. Do these products not have a large enough market to be a main selling feature? If price is the obstacle, I can think of a way we might better spend some of the subsidies we give to oil and gas companies. Barring that, government owned or rented buildings and manufacturing process should make use of these techniques to whatever extent they can.
My main concern now is that this article is 9 years old. Where have we gotten in that span of time? I can’t think of any such ecologically beneficial products off the top of my head, with the exception of organic farming and dry cleaning. Even then, I question to what extent production of “organic” foods and products actually resemble the process described in the article.
A Balanced Earth is Possible!
To rectify the environmental havoc that toxic processes and materials created and continue to have seems virtually impossible due to the large scale of the problem. With the right consumer choices and habitual practices, however, by industries, small businesses, families, and individuals, our small yet significant actions can make a difference and solve many, if not all, of the ecological problems we face today and will in the future.
Making such choices requires a paradigm shift, or a change in the way we think about and deal with the issues. We need to be certain that the products we use, the processes used to create those items, and the effects of those products are of little to no danger or present no hazard to the environment and biodiversity. Intrinsically wise, the purpose of such is to ensure that the environment reaches a sound balance in which mostly natural forces act upon the organisms and ecological constructs present rather than human forces. Instrumentally wise, the essence of correcting our environmental wrongs in a holistic manner is to ensure that future generations and we may exist sustainably.
To attain these environmental goals, it is necessary for industries to adapt cradle-to-cradle mechanisms, even if doing so requires a total overhaul of previous systems used, because these closed-loop processes promote the development of sustainability. That is, these processes assist in diminishing the environmental mark that humans have made and are making yet provide options for humans to continue to live in ways they are generally familiar with. In my opinion, the essence of cradle-to-cradle engineering is to create little to no waste. We must do so in a way, then, that mirrors natural processes on Earth, or create technological metabolic processes that resemble biological metabolic processes.
Earlier in the semester, we discussed the Gaia Hypothesis, which has a similar viewpoint to cradle-to-cradle design. The Gaia Hypothesis encompasses viewing the Earth as an organism with natural processes that maintain equilibrium within that organism. In a sense, we must use a viewpoint of the Earth that is a fusion of the Gaia Hypothesis and of modern ideologies, or the Earth as a machine, to restore the Earth to equilibrium while practicing limits.
While industries adopt such cradle-to-cradle policies, they can use “The 12 Principles of Green Engineering” to aid them in attaining environmentally, socially, and economically beneficial businesses. As industries make these changes, citizens have the responsibility of making the right choices. That is, they should consume products that are made in environmentally sustainable ways to make such products the norm. For example, as opposed to spending large sums of money on a vehicle that uses a lot of fuel, one might opt for a hybrid or one with higher miles per gallon. By making sustainable industries commonplace, not only will citizens contribute their efforts to a cleaner, balanced environment but also their efforts may effectively drive the cost down of the products of the industries, ultimately creating an all-around beneficial system. In this case, one does not have to stress too much upon finding energy or material sources because the cradle-to-cradle designs inherently account for such supplies.
By committing to a paradigm shift and by combining the cradle-to-cradle policies with “The 12 Principles of Green Engineering”, it is possible to achieve a healthy, clean, balanced Earth. In order to certainly reach such goals, however, I believe that one essential element must exist within all of us. This fundamental is emotional engagement. Without genuinely caring about what we are doing, future generations, other organisms, the intrinsic value of the Earth, and ourselves, we would be innovating and acting because we are supposed to rather than because we want to. In this case, if there is no one to tell us what to do and why to care, we will lose all interest eventually and return to our old ways. Emotional engagement is, thus, important to constantly remind us to act sustainably and environmentally friendly as well as remind us of why it is essential to act in such a way.
Sherifa Baldeo
Waiting for the arc to take a turn – Week Seven Response
When I first heard that the third Macaulay seminar was based around the environment and sustainability, I won’t lie I was a little unsure as to what I thought of that. I recycled, I understood the world had environmental problems and thought that in some sense that was enough; I had little idea of how bad the planet’s environmental problem really was, both in a physical pollutant sense and in the sense of how oblivious and ambivalent our culture is on the issue. The BP discussion last class really made me reconsider how bad our culture’s ignorance on the issue.
I can fairly safely say that I too would have written BP off as one of the good guys prior to the spill. You don’t often see commercials advertising the environment so I would have assumed they were a company with some significant ties to green initiatives and definitely would have taken the same message we all extrapolated, that everything is fine and our gas consumption is perhaps a necessary evil for right now. The commercial did not advocate change, responsibility or even really awareness; it simply reinforced American’s addiction to oil while plugging their oil over their competitors. BP completely spun the issue of environmentalism to their own benefit, using a serious danger as a marketing ploy.
Again sadly though I will admit if I had simply been glued to my couch watching Family Guy or something similar and that commercial came on I wouldn’t have gone through any of this. I would have sat through it and perhaps maybe thought its good that BP was doing something about the environment while subconsciously the commercial lulled my scared thoughts about the environment to sleep.
The true danger with the environment is simply the lack of consciousness on the issue. Prior to this class, even I, an honors college student who follows the news and cares about the environment had little idea of what was really happening, and just stopping for a moment to consider the awareness of the issue of my fellow classmates in my regular classes really saddens me. The population seems just so entirely oblivious to what is really going on.
I know the fabled arc of the class foretells solutions rather than simply more problems but honestly for me it can’t come soon enough. I really believe that the only way changes can be made is by individual efforts for I think the masses may be long lost. It will be likely be a long time before the mainstream public really comes to grips with the importance of sustainable culture and engineering so the work of those that do understand it is simply that much more important. Now that I have been “brought out of the cave” as Plato’s famous analogy goes, recycling my bottles and giving a nod of “keep up the good work” to those who are trying to make a difference doesn’t seem like enough. So once again I eagerly await the solutions portion of the arc.
Weekly Journal 7: Alda Yuan
Alda Yuan
Professor Alexandratos
MHC 200
Week 7 Response
A few years ago, long before the BP spill, I recall a commercial they put out featuring a cartoon young boy frolicking in a field. The commercial had cheerful music and a color scheme reminiscent of the oil company’s logo. They managed to somehow depict their company as the easy choice for those worried about the environment. Instead of think about the real issues and solutions that might lead to a reality half as idyllic, BP is encouraging us to leave it all in their hands. It is as if simply by purchasing their products, we are doing our part to solve the environmental crisis. Just the juxtaposition of an oil company using such a green theme and supporting the environment will have convinced a lot of people that they were sincere. Why else would they draw attention to environmental issues and invite scrutiny unless they really are taking action? Even at the time, I recognized it to be one of the most hypocritical ad campaigns out there. I think it is certainly possible for companies to do a turnaround, even switching from fossil fuels to alternative energy but that is plainly not what BP aims to do, as evidenced by the horrendous oil spill.
The cradle-to-cradle concept and approach to engineering seems to be without too many drawbacks. In the long run, it will both be green and economically profitable. The problem will be breaking industries and businesses out of their old ways of thinking and operating. But such fundamental changes are far from impossible. Take the revolution in the way we do business today because of the information technology revolution. Once people realize that producing products in this way and indeed, rethinking the ways we consume resources is profitable, changes can happen quickly.
Obviously, there will first need to be a substantial investment. If the free market is not willing to provide those funds, the government should most definitely step in. Personally, I think the emphasis on the financial costs of investing in green energy is both irresponsible and profoundly misplaced. Or course our government must be concerned of where its money is going with the economic recession. However, to call money being placed into environmental programs wasted funds is illogical. Supporting the burgeoning companies with a focus on green energy and sustainability is not an act of picking winners and losers. Ultimately, if government is successful in spurring a new green revolution, everybody wins, except for perhaps the oil companies. Even if you only take an economic view, a revolution in the way that we obtain energy can fuel development in many directions. The new technologies and devices that will be invented, designed and produced will create the kind of high skill manufacturing jobs that everyone has emphasized a need for. And these are not jobs that would go away and become obsolete quickly. Meanwhile, it has the capability to spur something of a fourth industrial revolution as it involves an overhaul of the whole system in a way that produces more wealth for everyone involved.
Then of course there are the non-economic benefits of such a path. The health of our citizens would be improved by less pollution. That of course can still be linked to lower health costs for us as nation. Less material than that is the question of quality of life. Even if pollution and harm to the environment did not hurt human health, is it not worth investment to preserve the natural beauty of earth?
Weekly Response 7 Eric Kramer
Cradle-to-Cradle design represents a paradigm shift in thinking. Instead of thinking about what to do with the waste we create, cradle-to-cradle design aims at limiting the waste we need to dispose of by reusing our wastes in a closed loop system. This is a brilliant idea, and so long as it works, it is a huge step towards achieving sustainability. This article made me much more aware of certain things.
Engineering is going to be an extremely important field in the near future. We are going to continue to rely on engineers to design new mechanisms to further technological advancement in order to be sustainable. Perhaps an engineer (Patrick?) will design a way to harness solar energy more efficiently, or devise a better way to harness wind energy. Maybe engineers will have a breakthrough in space travel design and become able to visit other planets. Maybe on these other planets we will find alternate sources of energy that we need so very badly.
I think the three tenets of cradle-to-cradle design make perfect sense and should actually be followed. The phrase, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” comes to mind when it comes to “waste equals food”. In an ecosystem, there is no waste, because everything occurs in equilibrium and is constantly being utilized. For example, in humans require oxygen for respiration and plants require carbon dioxide for photosynthesis. Conveniently, humans release carbon dioxide as a waste product and similarly, plants release oxygen.
I think we all know that our future is in solar energy. This goes along with tenet 2, which states, “Use current solar income”. All ecosystems rely on the sun to sustain life. We do too, but we should further our use of the sun. Solar energy is the most natural energy because the sun is always shining down on us. We need to create more efficient ways to harness the power of the sun to fuel our society. If we can do this, many effects of fossil fuels and other harmful sources of energy can be reversed or at least stopped. The keyword when it comes to solar energy is renewable. We would finally have a renewable source of energy. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels because they are non-renewable meaning the Earth will eventually become entirely depleted of them.
Diversity is such an underrated part of successful ecosystems. We need to make sure we do not generalize about all ecosystems, but rather look at them specifically. We give ourselves intrinsic value and so we must move away from our anthropocentric ideas and assign intrinsic value to all living things. This will help promote diversity.
Hopefully, engineers will be able to follow the principles of green engineering and begin to make more significant progress in the near future. These principles make a strong foundation. Words are nice, but I always feel better when I see real action occurring. A good thing to do that Ford has started, is to make cars that follow the principles of green engineering. They used reusable material for the upholstery. We could make all cars the same, instead of having luxurious, more harmful cars. Why not have all cars follow the green principles?
Week 6 Response – The Triple Bottom Line
Achieving proper balance in life and society is to some extent the ultimate goal in human life. Not letting your work or your play time or anything else take over your life is a challenge that everyone deals with. Prosperity would be ubiquitous if people could only accord the proper level of interest to all of the right things. For our world and our class there are three things to be balanced: the economy, the society and the environment – the triple bottom-line.
As great as it would be forget about this balance, unfortunately that option is out. Disregarding the environment is poisoning our very existence but without an economy and the ability to purchase what we need to survive humans also face dire problems. Unfortunately perfectly satisfying any of these without disregarding the others is impossible; ultimately sacrifices need to be made. Only with a healthy balance of each of the three is sustainability possible, and when introducing other sets of threes, such as the differing interests of individuals, corporations, and government, things get far more complicated. Once again however balancing these differing interests is essential.
Truly the only way change is possible is through submission to a social contract by everyone from all of their different roles. Agreements such as Kyoto may not have been completely successful, sadly in part due to reluctance from our own United States, but it is these types of measures that will make change ultimately possible. When looking at basic game theory you can see that while it is in everyone’s own best interest to act with the environment in mind, as long as it the individuals own role is not the tipping point they won’t care; someone else will do it.
Bloomberg has done a lot to force people into acting in their own best interests between the soda ban, the indoor clean air act and countless others, and while I can absolutely understand the argument from those opposed there is no other way to see real change. Humans are not and never have been a species with especially strong self-control and much of our animalistic lack of processing still adversely affects our society. As I’ve discussed before truly most of the world’s environmental problems stem from seeing problems from a limited scope, for if an issue such as fracking were examined from a scope of a hundred years rather than 5 years (if that), the logical course of action in choosing to benefit the environment would be obvious. Sadly however, that is just not how humans seem to think.
Creating a social contract makes people follow what is in their best interest even if it isn’t for their immediate benefit, for it is for the benefit of society and as members of society, themselves. To truly deal with all parts of the triple bottom line, society must come to a consensus and agree to stick to it, electing a higher power to manage them. Sadly the harsh polarization in our current political world makes this easier said than done but hopefully when this disruptive trend comes to a close and the dust settles our government can see the importance in works such as the Kyoto protocol and more generally in balancing environmental interests with economic ones.
