Calling All Scientists!

Who should be our environmental advocates here, really? Scientists? Or those doing it now?

In our last class we talked about whether or not scientists should actually be advocates for environmental problems. A few people agreed that they should be and others disagreed. Those that agreed sayed that scientists should be because they know the information about problems going and because they have the data concerning it right in front of them. I'd say that that makes sense. I mean who knows better than someone that has the data right in front of them (or in a desk drawer close by). Science is unbiased, its straight forward. To have a scientist as an advocate for anything could work, I actually think that it would work best. Scientists know best and I feel that instead of depending on someone else to present the information (which could end up being twisted in a way that supports their side of an argument), scientists can give the information as it is. Who do you think can be the best advocate for any issue at all?

Manipulated by a T.V.

What are we suppose to believe in? We are to believe that Global Warming and the millions of other environmental problems that are occurring, to be false or true. Agenda setting is perhaps the single most influential theory of the medias effects that applies to environmental news. According to Robert Cox, the author of Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere; News reporting "may not be successful in telling its readers what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about."

So again I raise the question...

WHAT ARE WE TO BELIEVE IN?

So we believe Al Gore's video, "The Inconvenient Truth" or should we believe that is a FRAUD? Should we believe everything that is put in the papers, because according to Robert Cox the main media organizes the bits and facts of certain events and using them to aid the stories so that the audience well be affected the way they want us to be.

What are we the Public Sphere suppose to believe in when we are told what to think about. Its as though our right to think and have an opinion on certain topics was taken away. So, the question I rise is....should you still rely on the media to know the truth or do you rely on what you see with your own eyes.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Over the weekend, I saw so much trash and it reminded me of how more people should recycle to help our earth. I decided to go online and look up ways of recycling and the background on recycling. A paper company in the United States wanted to create a symbol so people would know that its products were a recycled-content. This was almost forty years ago and it started recycling. When things get recycled, it has twice the impact then burying it in the ground.

There are ten top ways on how to recycle. The first one is to reduce, reuse, and recycle. The second way is to know what can and can’t be recycled. Another tip is to buy recycled things. The fourth is to encourage an artist by giving them some of your wastes so they can make art with it. Recycle your water by using your bath or dishwasher water to water your garden or to reuse in the toilet when it gets flushed. Recycle your greenery by composting your food scraps will help your trash not fill up as quickly. Recycle your robots, which mean to send your broken electronic things back to places that can rebuild them and make them into something that works. The seventh thing you can do is to anticipate recycling by buying things that can be recycled. If you don’t love something, let it go by giving it to someone else if it can still be used. The last main tip is to become a waste-stream analyst which means you can separate your waste items so you know what can be recycled. Even if you only do one of these steps, it will still help our earth to become a better place. There are also many other things that can be done to help recycle.

To help the earth, I recycle everything I can. I have a bag in my room for bottles and I use the bins in the hall to recycle paper and cardboard. When I don’t want something anymore, I bring it to a

The girl who silenced the world for 5 minutes

I came across this speech and found it to be very moving.



This is an excellent speech presented by a 12 year old girl at Earth Summit in 1992. Cullis Suzuki's speech is very moving which is excellent in making her point. First she explains how she traveled 5000 miles just to get here and that they had to raise the money on their own. This shows how she has true determination in trying to change the world for the better. And the fact their only concerns are for the future shows that they are not at all greedy.

The way she uses first hand experiences is very powerful in presenting points. Such as how she use to fish all the time with her dad when she was younger. Now she no longer does because they found the fish to be full of cancers. Also the way she gets the audience to think is also very effective in seeing her view. She says how when she sees some butterfly or plant it makes her wonder if it will still be around when she has children. She then says that back when you were children you didn’t have to worry about that. Also she points out that you may be at this speech as a politician, business man, reporter, and so on; but remember that you are also all mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and etc. So remember that when it comes to making a difference in the world.

Lastly she brings back the innocent child in you. You might remember things you did or said back as a child that may be moving to you. She explains how in kindergarten we are taught to respect each other, clean up after your messes, and to share with others. She says she finds it outrageous how you do the opposite of what you want us to learn. She then ends the speech with a very touching line. She says “my dad always says you are what you do, not what you say. Well, what you do makes me cry at night”.

Local Green Yogurt

This passed weekend I was able to go home because of Unity College’s fall break. While I was home I ate some yogurt from a local NH company called Stoneyfield Farm. On the label on the yogurt container, it explained that they are organic and an environmentally friendly production. This caught my attention. I decided to go online and look at into it further and see exactly what they meant.
I discovered that Stoneyfield Farm was started in Wilton, New Hampshire, in the early 1980’s, and has been committed to responsible environmental stewardship ever since. One of their biggest goals they explained on their website was “to serve as a model that environmentally and socially responsible businesses can also be profitable”. This attitude of protecting our natural resources and environmentally communicating to the public is the very backbone of their business.
One of the biggest ways Stoneyfield Farm shows their commitment to environmental conservation is by donating ten percent of their profits every year to organizations and projects that work towards protecting and restoring the earth. In 2007 they donated a total of $1,947,109 to various non-profit organizations throughout America that included both environmental and organic programs. They explained that when looking for organizations to financially contribute to, they look for projects that protect and restore the planet and produce measurable results.
Along with sponsoring other organization to be environmentally responsible, Stoneyfield Farm continues to work hard to make their facilities as environmentally friendly as possible. Some of the ways they do this is by reducing the amount of waste, recycling, and donating unusable yogurt to local pig farms. One huge way Stoneyfield Farm conserves is by using special product materials for their cups and lids that can be recycled into useful products. A couple of examples of these products are toothbrushes and disposable razors, which are made out of their cups.
It was really great to see a large business so active in communicating to the public about environmental issues. Not only is it good for the environment, but also for their business, because customers are being attracted through the environmental attention Stoneyfield Farm is getting. They have been recognized numerous times for their efforts through national awards. These awards were won for recycling, for energy efficiencies, for tree-planting, for their emission offsets, and for their innovative efforts to reduce global warming. I hope in the future other large-scale businesses can follow in Stoneyfield Farm’s footsteps and become more environmentally friendly.

For more information on Stoneyfield Farm visit them at http://www.stonyfield.com/

Take It Or Leave It

When it comes down to science, scientists usually are right on target with the solid truth and facts about a particular environmental dispute. When an environmental dispute arises, it is the scientists’ job to research the problem and find out the threats of the problem and answers about ways it can be solved. Since the scientists job is to research these problems. The only thing they can provide is “their” answers to the problem.
A scientist’s job is unique in one way. They study an environmental concern and provide their answers. The only catch is whether you want to listen to them and believe their answers. Basically, a scientist is like a doctor. The doctor lets you know what “he” thinks is wrong with your high blood pressure for example. Yet, it is your decision to either believe him or not. The scientists’ information is information thrown in the air. Whoever wants to grab it, can. Whoever wants to let it fall, can as well. It doesn’t hurt their feelings so what ever you choose, you choose.
Lets take the environmental concern about global warming. Since scientists have told the threats of this problem. There has been a lot of stir about this problem worldwide. Many people take their information and do their part to help. While others don’ believe it at all. This is why this environmental problem becomes such a concern. People believe it and some don’t. Whether the scientists’ information is true or false. It is there for the taking. Scientists are just “early warners” of problems and they hope people will listen. They should not be looked at as anything more, like an advocate for example. They just gather their information and present it.

The Rotten Side of the Burger

Should Americans banish the burger?

That's the question posed on a "Larry King Live" interview. Millions of Americans eat ground beef daily without problems. However, that same meat may be contained with E. coli bacteria -- which has sickened, paralyzed, and killed some individuals.

E. coli bacteria is only on the surface of meats, and thus can be destroyed when cooked. Yet this rule doesn't apply to hamburgers because the meat has been ground up; the bacteria is inside the meat. To quote Bill Marler, a source on foodborne illness litigation: "...During the slaughtering process, those guts are nicked or there's fecal material on the hides. It gets on the red meat," Marler explained to King.

But Patrick Boyle, the president of the American Meat Institute, insists that foodborne illnesses have decreased in the United States 60 percent in the last decade. E. coli, he states, can be killed through cooking or irradiation (the later is not commonly used).

Then Dr. Colin Campbell of Cornell University made his comment. He said that Americans should aim for a plant-based diet for overall health. This man is not corrupted by bias. In fact, he was raised on a dairy farm with the firm belief that animal protein is essential to the human diet. His opinion changed only upon years of research. His opinion was then challenged by Nancy Rodriguez at the University of Connecticut, who feels that animal protein in moderation is essential for health. She suggests that people consume about 200 calories of meat, or a three ounce serving.

The experts continued their debate, bringing up powerful points to aid their opinions. But the fact still remains that some things cannot be forgotten. Take for instance 22-year-old Stephanie Smith, whose nervous system was attacked by E. coli through contaminated meat. She is paralyzed, her brain is damaged, and she could suffer from kidney failure. She is now in rehabilitation therapy but her progress will be difficult. What's the most tragic is that she longs to dance again... but it's unknown if she'll even be able to walk.

Another tragic story: Barbara Kowalcyk, the director of food safety at the Center for Foodborne Illness Research and Prevention, lost her 2-year-old son from the bacteria. He was healthy and then died within 12 days.

Although the above is more of a health issue than an environmental one, I feel it is a perfect example of communication and debate. (In addition, I have always felt there is a powerful link between the environment and health.) There was an interview, experts from both sides, and the issue was a hot one. In the end, what is more important? Health risk or satisfying our appetites? The answer may seem obvious, but think about your daily choices. Chances are you consume burgers...

Where do I stand? I eat meat... even though I know the full consequences, from environmental (yes, there are environmental impacts) to ethics to health. This is a field I am highly knowledgeable in, as I have written theses and was a vegan for 2 years. I can say with 100% truth that I was healthier as a vegan. My skin was clear, I weighed about 20 pounds less than I do now (without exercise!), my blood pressure was absolutely perfect, I felt more energized, my asthma improved, and I never once had a cold. What was perhaps the greatest of all, though, was the dramatic weight loss. I went from 168 lbs. to 110, with no exercise, in under a year. All of the benefits have gone away upon consuming meat and dairy again, and I only have two reasons for doing this: 1) It's more convenient, because so many products contain meat and/or dairy and 2) it's tasty. But having read this article, and adding it to my bucket of previous readings, I am again questioning if those two points justify harming my health.

Hmm...

What's your opinion on this issue? Do you agree this article is a great example of communication and debate?

Source: CNNHealth.com article.
Image Credit: Here.

Questionable Questions Questioning Me!

Do you ever look at a question and think, well what the heck does that even mean? The question causes you to think about it, and then you question the question and then you are like, well, what the heck!? all over again. Well, while I was meandering through the blogs I caught the blog prompts for this week, and the same "what the heck?!" question was haunting my life: from class to blog. So, I figured I'd give it a stab and try to make sense of it, or at least not make sense of it so it makes sense that it doesn't make sense (does that even make sense?).

This question, on Blog Prompts, consists of asking us to make a list of legitimate authorities that could change or inform issues and policies regarding climate change. So, my little personal list consists of the economy (because it rules a lot of decisions), religion (because some religious people follow whatever their religion sees as correct), and the president/congress/ all those political people (because they are important to people). 

So, while I'm thinking through these, I'm realizing that other than scientists, no one really cares, so no one would really care too much about climate change. Honestly, is the economy going to move to purely "green" things to sell and trade with other countries? Well, our economy will be practically non- existent if we do that. Though environmentally friendly things are great, they are expensive, and only a few people can actually afford going green.

So, moving to the next group because the economy would bag going green pretty quick. Religion makes no sense to me whatsoever. How could religion help the environment? What, are priests/rabbis (that's really all I can think of for those things) going to do? Call down on God/Buddha/ ??? and then God/Buddha/??? is going to say "Help the Environment!". Like, I know there are sacred things in the Bible (and I'm Catholic so I'm not against religion at all)and such that involve the environment and stuff, but as a priest/whatever, you can't just say "well, God says No to climate change!". What did you just float up to Heaven for a night and have a nice chat? No, probably not, I mean, unless some great miracle occurred. So the validity of a preacher preaching about how God does not want climate change is not very legitimate if you ask me.

Next I thought of Political Figures. Yup, the climate is pretty important, but I think their minds are more filled with Health Care, Terrorism, Wars, Economy, and all that important stuff. I mean, if the environment was the primary concern of the world (wouldn't that be nice?), then yeah the Government could totally help. But, climate can easily be shoved in the back burner if something more interesting comes up.

So, after thinking about how these groups affect the public and peoples views on important things, I thought wow climate change would be pretty insignificant without scientists. 

After going through this long epic process, I thought back to the question. And I got back to my normal "what the heck!?" response. Other than science!? Well, if science was non-existent or was paid less attention to than everything else, hmm... how would we even notice global warming? Without scientists, who would take charge to even recognise it? Then how does this question even make sense. What the heck.

Scientists in Our Communities

Imagine you are living in a town with polluted water and land, resulting in unsafe drinking water and contaminated playgrounds for your kids (where would the children play?) Asking for the government’s help alone may not be very effective in solving the problem. Instead, your town will probably need scientific facts on the exact quality of the water and land and the consequences of the pollution to the community in order to get your voice heard. In this way, science is probably the most important part of an environmental problem. Researching the problem is key to understanding the situation and finding a solution.

The streams in my town and state have been monitored by scientific organizations that get the public involved. In 2005, I was part of a group of more than 30 volunteers that surveyed a stream near my home as part of a River Watch Program (see picture). After going through a short training workshop, we went out into the field to record different features of our section of the stream, such as how deep, how wide and how clear the water was. We then submitted our information to the science organization to be compared to previous years’ results. The River Watch Program has shown that not only scientists are gathering evidence on environmental issues, but the public, on a local scale, are being encouraged to get involved. In this way, scientists are acting as researchers, advocates and public supporters and I think this is the way it should be.

If anyone is to be an advocate for environmental issues, scientists should. If they don’t someone else will, whether it’s the government, religious organizations, or the general public. Since scientists probably have the most accurate and fact-based information regarding any environmental problem, they should have the ability to influence the public to act accordingly.


For example, if the government is given primary authority, they might focus more on the problem of funding an environmental cleanup rather than on the health and safety of a community. They might therefore conclude that the problem is not worth fixing (perhaps even end up like the video above). While funding is a legitimate problem, I don’t think money should be the primary focus of a problem that could lead to more danger.

Religion should also not be the authority for deciding on environmental actions. Unlike religion, there is generally only one belief in science. While both are, in some way, universal, science is often given more credit and is therefore less opposed to than many religious beliefs.


I think scientists have priorities to manage the health of the planet and its inhabitants and therefore should be given primary authority in the case of any environmental issue. When facts are publicized, they are based on what scientists, and the public in cases like the one mentioned above, have discovered. Since these scientists have discovered the problem and are most likely to understand the true nature of a situation, they should be the ones to not only educate others about the problem, but offer solutions to fix it.

Unity College has Competition!

The Impressive EcoDorm at Warren Wilson College.

Unity College, proudly sporting the slogan of “America’s Environmental College” should keep watch on tiny Warren Wilson College. While Unity House (the sustainable home with solar panels on its roof which you may have seen) is the abode to the UC president Mitchell Thomashow, it seems that WWC has an even more remarkable building. This school, located in Swannanoa, North Carolina, has the EcoDorm.

It is a residence hall with “green” at the very essence of its core. It has a rainwater-collection system, kitchen cabinets created from recycled fence-posts, a permaculture system, and composting toilets. Even the wood siding is eco-friendly: It was taken from trees on campus that were ill from pine-beetle infestation. The EcoDorm hosts 36 students “who have sworn off hair dryers and gravitate toward acoustic music.” They have linked their actions with their values -- something which Unity College students (myself included!) should acknowledge and admire.

Surprisingly, the EcoDorm produces almost two-thirds less electricity than a typical building of the same size would.

But the hype is not limited to just WWC. Nationally, colleges are aiming for sustainability and 600 schools have pledged to become carbon neutral. Approximately 90 residence halls are LEED certified, although EcoDorm is only one of two which has LEED’s platinum rating.

I am delighted that colleges nationwide are becoming more aware of environmental sustainability and are incorporating it into their housing. Perhaps in time there will not be only one “America’s environmental college”, but rather a collective of American environmental colleges! And UC, watch out; looks like you have competition!