The Final Cut of our Video

This is the link to the final cut of our video:
Today's Environmental Movement: Friends of Trees and SOLV

http://vimeo.com/24447669

Enjoy!

China, Renewables, and Our Future

We recently watched the documentary "Deep Green," a film that Portlander Matt Briggs wrote, directed, and starred in, examining how to transform one's life into a more sustainable living system. It was very informative and covered nearly everything we have been discussing in class. Briggs covered everything from cars to coal, going into detail about easy it can be, and increasingly accessible it is, to change a lifestyle into something that uses less energy.
One major aspect of the film was the issue of China and how they are making moves to become more sustainable, even though they currently top the charts in carbon emissions. Coincidentally, National Geographic magazine also issued an article discussing the very same thing in an article titled, "Can China Go Green?" Both "Deep Green" and the National Geographic article said the same things: China is the leader in green-living production. According to the article, written by Bill McKibben, "China now leads the planet in the installation of renewable energy technology -- its turbines catch the most wind, and its factories produce the most solar cells." Even though no other country burns as much coal to fuel its economy, no other country is as dedicated to lowering its carbon footprint.


Another discussion we recently had was the concept of using other countries' renewables. David MacKay in his text "Sustainable Energy -- without the hot air" goes into detail about the issues surrounding this discussion. Is it true that the entire Sahara desert could provide energy for the entire world? What about geothermal energy from places like Iceland? According to MacKay, in order to provide enough solar energy for the world, it would require 1000km x 1000km of heavily maintained desert in the Sahara. The amount of energy cultivated in this space would be enough for the amount we consume today. MacKay makes the point, however, that we should supply more than what we consume, because some consume far more than others and it's much harder to project the amount of energy needed for a more equitable world. MacKay suggests that to supple every person in the world with an average European's power consumption (125kWh/d), the area required would be two 1000km x 1000km squares in the desert" (178).


The issue surrounding the concept of us swooping in and roping off the Sahara desert is the issue of exploitation. Do we have rights to this land? How do we work with the countries there to create a compromise from which everyone benefits? It is hard for me to distinguish colonialism and exploitation, especially when it comes to Africa and its resources. How can we share the resources of the world without exploiting anyone or withholding them from resources that could be rightfully theirs?


I hope we can find an answer to that, sooner than we find the answer to solving the case of global warming.

An article on Climate Change -- USAToday

Our view: America, pick your climate choices

One way to deal with a problem is to pretend it doesn't exist. This approach has the virtue of relieving you from having to come up with a solution, spend money or make tough choices. The downside, of course, is that leaky faucets and other problems rarely solve themselves and, in fact, usually get worse if ignored.

• 
  By David McNew, Getty Images

Enlarge

By David McNew, Getty Images

• OPPOSING VIEW: All pain, no gain

Such is the case with climate change, a threat that too many members of Congress, most of them Republicans, have decided to manage by denying the science. That head-in-the-sand approach avoids messy discussions of higher energy prices, but it just got harder to justify.

Late last week, the nation's pre-eminent scientific advisory group, the National Research Council arm of the National Academy of Sciences, issued a report called "America's Climate Choices." As scientific reports go, its key findings were straightforward and unequivocal: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by human activities, and poses significant risks to humans and the environment." Among those risks in the USA: more intense and frequent heat waves, threats to coastal communities from rising sea levels, and greater drying of the arid Southwest.

Coincidentally, USA TODAY's Dan Vergano reported Monday, a statistics journal retracted a federally funded study that had become a touchstone among climate-change deniers. The retraction followed complaints of plagiarism and use of unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia.

Taken together, these developments ought to leave the deniers in the same position as the "birthers," who continue to challenge President Obama's American citizenship — a vocal minority that refuses to accept overwhelming evidence.

The Climate Choices report didn't generate big headlines because its conclusions aren't new; they are consistent with the scientific consensus about global warming. That consensus acknowledges some uncertainty in the extent to which climate change is the result of human activity, and how bad global warming will be if nothing is done.

Even so, as the report says, "uncertainly is not a reason for inaction," and the most effective national response to climate change would be to "substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

If the deniers want a more legitimate basis for resistance, it is this: Even bold and costly national U.S. actions to limit greenhouse gases will be ineffective unless developing nations also curb their emissions. It's hard to imagine China and India acting, however, if the U.S. doesn't lead.

For now, his party's rejectionist stance is unrivaled among major political parties, including conservative ones, around the warming planet. The latest scientific report provides clarity that denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It paves a path to a future fraught with melting ice caps, rising sea levels, shifting agricultural patterns, droughts and wildfires.The Climate Choices report, requested by Congress, suggests investing in clean-energy technology, looking for ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and — most important — putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions. "Cap-and-trade," a complex but proven way to use market forces to reduce pollution, passed the House in 2009. Like health care reform, though, it has become so unpopular in GOP circles that at the first Republican presidential debate this month, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty abjectly apologized for once supporting the idea. "I've said I was wrong," Pawlenty groveled. "It was a mistake, and I'm sorry."

Leaky faucets, indeed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-16-Report-puts-climate-change-deniers-in-hot-seat_n.htm

Think Big

Recently, we have been reading David MacKay's online book "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air." He delivers his information in a specific form; his writing is very funny, in depth, practical, and factual. And he is very honest.
Our most recent reading assignment as focused on sustainable heating, and how little changes with how we heat our homes have an enormous effect on the amount of energy we use, even up 90% of our overall energy use. Most of this is unnecessary; an average American keeps their heat on in every room at a temperature that is plenty comfortable, sometimes 70*F! That amount of heat staying on throughout a home at such a high temperature uses up tons of energy, not too mention it is also not completely cost-effective. Just by turning the thermostat down a few degrees can save energy. According to MacKay, "turning the thermostat down from 20*C to 15*C would nearly halve the heat loss" (141). When converting these numbers to Farenheit, the gap between the numbers is a little larger (68*F and 59*F), therefore really affecting the temperature of one's home. But it's the thought behind it that counts.

One thing MacKay makes sure to mention, however, is that if we think little, and "if everyone does a little, we'll only achieve a little" (3). By turning down your thermostat, you are making a change, but it is not the change that is going to save the world. It takes more than that. One could say, "well I turned my thermostat down, unplugged the TV and the microwave, and took a five-minute shower instead of a twenty-minute shower." But all of that effort would be walked over when they jump into their gas-guzzling car to drive to work.
On the topic of carbon emissions, MacKay writes "that some countries, including Britain, have committed to at least a 60% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, but it must be emphasized that 60% cuts, radical though they are, are unlikely to cut the mustard" (14).
So what are we supposed to do? Even if we manage to cut carbon emissions by 60%, that still won't be good enough to lower Earth's temperatures and halt global warming. We must make even more changes.
Yes, lower your thermostat five degrees, unplug the TV and the microwave, and take a five-minute shower instead of a twenty-minute shower. But if you want to make even a bigger change, take more extreme steps to a change in lifestyle. Re-insulate your house so it traps heat better and invest in double-paned windows. Bike to work. Buy local and monitor your consumption as well as your waste. Take more public transportation and install ceiling fans.
There is so much to be done, but we have to think bigger and act bigger, because then we will achieve bigger and hopefully make the changes we need to make.

The Rough Cut

Here is the link to the rough cut of our video:
http://vimeo.com/23999262

We are aware that the second half is still missing description, but the images are mostly what we will be using as well as the interviews.

Enjoy!

Corporate Immune Systems?

In Paul Hawken's "Blessed Unrest," he dedicates a chapter discussing corporate involvement in environmental issues, social issues, and movements for change. Hawken makes a point to argue that globalization, industrialization, westernization, and even "internationalization" are things that are making it harder for us to protect our own important values as well as the environment. These are all happening in the interest of economics; according to Hawken, corporations argue that the best development is the kind that furthers business and economic standing. Because of this development and globalization, languages, cultures, and precious environmental resources are quickly being eliminated. Because these changes are occurring so rapidly, even businesses are sometimes struggling to keep up. According to Hawken, this "extermination of languages, cultures, forests, and fisheries is occurring worldwide in the interests of speeding up business, even while business itself is stressed by increasingly rapid change" (135). Businesses and corporations are aware of these rapid changes, and are sometimes struck by them, but more often than not, still turn a blind eye, continually at the cost of nature.

Hawken also talks about the roles of the World Bank, as well as how well a government listens to and respects its citizens. The World Bank brags about development and helping countries who need extra monetary support. What usually results however, is a "misery of unpayable debt,... dragging a country backward into an austerity that truncates formerly affordable education and healthcare" (132). All this in the name of development and aid? Hawken also makes a point that governments are supposed to abide to the wishes of its citizens. People have a voice, and "that voice comes from citizen organizations, although when it does, it is often ignored or patronized" (132). When will our government take our desires into account? When will they protect our jobs, our education, our healthcare, and our environment like we ask them too? Isn't that their role?

In Hawken's chapter, "Immunity", he describes the world as a living organism, basing his idea from the Gaia Hypothesis but developing it further. Humanity has its own immune system, this pulsing heartbeat that can get sick, need a blood transfusion, become fatigued, even die. But it also has the ability to heal itself. I appreciated this chapter because of the analogies Hawken makes. Our immune system can even be seen as a web of network and connections. Some say that the immune system "can best be understood as intelligence, a living, learning, self-regulation system -- almost another mind. Its function does not depend on its firepower but on the quality of its connectedness" (143).  We have the ability to connect, to stand up against these corporations and bring our immune system back to a healthy place. This connection will take strength, however, because the viruses attacking our system are more powerful than we give them credit for. Our human pulse is dwindling, sometimes fighting back other illnesses, but we have the ability to bring it back to health.

Apartheid and the Environment: History and our backyard

As we continue to look at social movements, past and present, we learn more and more about the people behind the change, and the other factors for helping the movements to become successful. In South Africa, history was shaped by the events of apartheid, meaning "the ruling white minority maintains domination over the labor of the black majority" (Apartheid Organizing...pg5), or more simply, "separateness". As the demand and discovery of resources increased, so did the demand for labor, and before too long, the larger black population was segregated into specific areas of land, no longer considered citizens of their own country.

Thus began the history of violence apartheid brought. People around the world began to boycott good being shipped to and from South Africa as well as protest against the inhumane practices. When reading the "Anti-Apartheid Organizing On Campus and Beyond" pamphlet, I was surprised at the specific role American Universities took in protesting against apartheid in South Africa. During a time when the Vietnam War was drafting and taking the young, students in Universities around the U.S stood up and marched against apartheid, defending those who had been prosecuted. Even faculty made a stand, taking time to fight the horrors of apartheid. These movements helped spread international awareness and  led to active responses to end the brutalities.

Through these examples, it is important to see that these movements were charged by groups of students, not one leader followed by a group. It is probably true that many of these protests around America were led by an active group of students, but the movement itself was powered by every-day American students: us.

Yesterday, I volunteered with SOLV with my group, taking out invasive plant species in Mount Tabor park. When we arrived, I was surprised to see that there were many different groups of people there, not just SOLV volunteers. There was a large group from Gresham High School, helping their community by volunteering some of their hours. I was so impressed with these students; they really enjoyed helping the community and getting their hands dirty. Without these experiences, they said, they would never have really known or understood how important it is that we do practice good environmental stewardship. We are sharing these natural spaces, so why not work together to protect them?
These students are similar to the American University students in the way that they did not need a leader to follow, they see it important on their own to change the world around them. Fighting apartheid was difficult, scary, important, and global. But protecting the environment is also all these things; we cannot undermine those who take time out of their lives to make the world a safer, cleaner place for everyone.