Is GM food also good for our health?

There is one thing that I think about food and the environment. That is, I never prefer to eat or buy genetically modified food. GM food is generally considered as good and effective technology for the environment, but somewhat I have a huge thought (or even could be a streotype) that GM food is not safe to consume. I have this thought in my mind because, in my country's society (I'm from Japan), more and more people are getting very sensitive about GM food's influence on human body and health. For instance, some vegetables and friuts are growing fast unnatually by techonology force. Those techonology and product might have harmful influence on human health. There is a lot of media coverage that warns us potential danger of artificially modified unnatural product. There might be no such problems with GM foods and products, or they might have, or maybe it depends on foods and products.... People are unsure how it influences on our health. I'm not sure myself if they are safe or not. Not many products have those label or notice, but whenever I can, I try to check and see if there is such a label or notice on the product to avoid consuming GM food/product. Even GM product is a great technology for the environment, I'm not so willing to consume those products. (I hope this was not different topic from the blog question....)

I drink coke every day and I think drinking coke every day is a bad influence on the environment. As we tried to estimate how much effort were put into make just one can of coke in class, we learned one can of coke takes a lot of materials and processes in a lot of places. And in fact, it is comsumed by many people in worldwide.

Too much meat...

When I make dietary choices, I usually consider the ingredients of the food from a health standpoint, but I don't generally think of how my food affects the environment. There are a few reasons for this. First, until recently I simply did not know a lot about where our food comes from, how it is processed, and how it changes the environment. Secondly, as a college student I generally buy the cheapest and most convenient food available to me, as I do not have much time or money. Recently I have begun to think more about my dietary choices, though I haven't made any big changes to the way I eat.

Of the food I've eaten in the last week, the various meats (especially ground, pre-processed ones on pizza and in pre-cooked sausage links) probably had the greatest effect on the environment. The animals that the meats came from had to be raised for a long time before being slaughtered for their meat, and they likely consumed a lot of corn and produced gases along the way. I've been trying not to eat as much beef and other meats lately, by cooking balanced vegetarian meals, but I don't know that I would ever give them up entirely, as it would burden my family and friends who are not vegetarian. These seem like minor concerns in the grand scheme of things. However, I also realize that my personal dietary choices, while they are important, are not as important as other actions I can take to help the environment, or a more large-scale dietary reform (which I would happily go along with).

Eating and the Envirnment

Usually, I do not really think twice about what I eat, other than how it will affect my body.  This past week I have been more conscious of what I put into my body.  In response to Kedenard's post about her cup of ice cream, it really made me realize how something so small could make a huge effect.  I eat a lot of dairy, therefore I guess I use up a lot of cow products that, like she mentioned, eat a lot of the grain and other things.  This is a lot of energy just so that I could have yogurt or cheese on my sandwich.  I used to be a vegetarian, but it was not conducive to my activity level and I was not getting a lot of protein.  However, I was eating a lot of things that were not as taxing to the environment.  A lot of the grains that are fed to cows can be used to feed starving people around the world.  So basically I think that the thing I ate this week that had the most effects on the environment would be the amount of dairy that I ate or the Snapple teas I have consumed because of the fact that a lot of the bottles do not get recycled and that it a lot of energy gone to waste.

How my ice cream single-handedly destroyed the Earth

First of all, this class was the ultimate introduction into how much what I eat affects the environment. I had always assumed that because some fruits and veggies were treated with pesticides and that it was somewhat harmful, but now, I am starting to realize that the environmental impact of what I eat is much more intricate. Nevertheless, it is quite lofty to think of the environment with every action I take including eating. Granted, this class has made me much more aware of my lifestyle, I still don't stop with every move to consider what my environmental impact is at that very moment--especially for food. I am sure that the fact that a lot of what I eat is processed and not so much local, this is much more harmful than wholesome, organic locally grown foods. As for what I ate today, I believe that the Snickers ice cream I had for dessert after dinner, was the most harmful to the environment. The chocolate came from cocoa plants grown in South American plantations which probably destroyed a whole football field worth of forest. The dairy came from cows who eat cornmeal and graze on pastures that contribute to soil erosion and its packaging, distribution and delivery contributed to exorbant wastes of energy. I am missing a lot of steps yet I can already see how much the environment went through just so I could have the cup of ice cream that I didn't need to have.

Does Technology Save Us?

I think that technology is necessary for us to improve the environment as many people believe, because technology is helpful for the environmetal problem. Technology reduces waste and negative influence on the environment as it can be seen hybrid cars and buses, for instance. However, I think that technology is not the only and a perfect solution of the environmental issue.
One reason is, technology might be efficient but I assume we are not really sure how those technologies are effective to the environmental issue. If everyone uses eco-friendly technologies and products, does it mean we do not have to care or change how much or how many products or stuff we consume? For example, if I bought a hybrid car, does it mean I can choose to drive more instead of walking or using bus and metro? I think it doesn't. Even we could reduce costs and material to produce something, it won't save the environment if our consumption keep increasing.
Another reason is, no matter how technology is helpful for the environment, it usually costs expensive to develop and use. If technology was expensive, not everyone can afford it. Especially developing countries would still remain being left behind instead of people living more efficient and improving the environment. If people don't use the technology (or only rich people are using eno-friendly technologies), it'll be meaningless.
Again, I think that technology is helpful but we just cannot rely on technology to save the environment.

the technology question

I used to champion technology as the cure for our environmental woes. However, this class has thus far shed light on the fact that technology isn’t necessary the savior to the problem. I don’t think we can just say, “Don’t worry. Technology will save us.” And sit back and keep recycling and wait for the scientists/technologists to create their miraculous technological cure.
I believe that technology should play a part in solving the environmental crisis. But, as I mentioned on last week’s discussion, we need some major laws and policies so that green technology can get some funding for research and development. I don’t think anything is going to save the environment or us from total collapse or destruction until the United States federal government gets a lot more serious about these issues. Once they do, I definitely think technology should play a role changing the way we will lives for the better. In environmental terms, I think the technological advances that are going to “save” us are whatever gets us away from oil and coal…newer, more efficient, clean everything.

Should We Worship Technology?

Technology is a funny issue.  It is easy for most people to say that it has saved us and will in the future.  Ever since the industrial revolution technology has just been able to make things easier for people and that, to most, is a very good thing.  It has allowed us to do many more things than we used to and has opened the world of personal business and working at home to many people craving to get out of an office.  In the future, nanotechnology will change how we do things as well.  So yeah technology may save us from doing more work than we have to.

Do I believe that technology will save us environmentally? This is a belabored topic that deserves much attention.  That would mean that even if the large footprints in the world that will consume all of the Earth's resources, will eventually be able to make more.  I think that technology, for the most part has been the cause of much environmental degradation.  In fact, to say that it will save us is kind of like an oximoron.  How will technology save us, when it is mostly what is ruining us?

Maybe we could come up with new technology that will be really helpful in repairing what damage has been caused, but all of the energy and consumption that the technology will promote negates the fact that it is good for us and that it will be able to save the environment.  When we run out of resources from designing all of this new technology that can recreate anything we have lost, then what will we do? I think changes need to be made without fully relying on technology as the answer.  We need to adapt our lives to a shrinking world.  As more people enter the world, the Earth just gets smaller and smaller.  

There is no way that wasting all of the energy to find technology that can create more energy is an efficient way of dealing with the environmental situation or problem.

Will technology save us? We won't know for sure until it does.

When market liberals say that we will some day discover a technology which saves us from environmental disaster, I become very skeptical. We can never be sure what is possible to do with technology until we have discovered it. In the past, many of the technologies that we have today would have seemed "impossible" to most people- and even to intellectuals. Will we find a miraculous new energy source which is efficient, renewable, and 100% clean? Will we discover ways to recycle materials we previously thought could never be re-used? To clean up the damage we've already done, in addition to lessening the damage we do in the future? We can strive to make technologies which fix these things, but until they actually exist, we can't predict that they're going to exist.

I am sure that we will develop technologies which help to reduce our impact on the environment. However, at the same time, we will be continuing to consume and develop technologies which increase our impact. So, technology is not going to "save us" by itself. We also need to live more sustainable lives by reducing consumption and pollution, or holding back on new technologies which will damage the environment further. Enough is enough!

Technology helps......a little.

To answer the last question first, technology resulted in CFC's which contributed to stratospheric ozone depletion. Additionally, technology has resulted in supertoxic chemicals in our electronics, pillows and even our BREAST MILK!!! With that being said, we cannot SOLELY rely on technology to save us from an environmental crisis. I hate to belabor the issue as we already discussed this last week with Maniates article, but we need to take big steps in our lives i.e. consumption and waste. Our lifestyles in the West need the biggest adjustment in order to save the environment. Technology will help.....but only to a certain extent. We have seen the advancements in technology that are helping our lives become more eco-friendly like hybrid cars and energy-efficient lightbulbs, but that is not enough. Technology is a start, but it is not the answer.

Easy Won't Cut It

I think Mr. Maniates articles’ main point is that when environmental experts and politicians are confronted with “what can we do to help?” we are simply told to read some 10-easy-step books or switch our light bulbs and keep recycling. I think those are obvious things that we should all be definitely doing, but it just isn’t enough.
I think his argument definitely helps us think about effective political action and I think the only way we can start mitigating the environmental problems—climate change, etc—is through tough policy change. It’s the entire system that needs change and the individual will be much more adept at helping the problem when there are laws and such in place to make sure the “green” thing is happening. Outlaw non-hybrid cars in the states. If auto companies aren’t allowed to make bad, oil-guzzling, polluting cars, then Americans won’t be able to buy them. While I don’t know the exact figures, I’m sure if everyone in the United States were driving a hybrid, clean car right now, I bet it’d lower our emissions. While this may seem drastic, I think only with drastic change can we really start making a difference. I couldn’t agree more with Maniates that we are grown-ups and want real answers to our “what can we do to help question” that won’t be answered with “buy efficient light bulbs”.

Maniates' article

I think it is very interesting point of view that the author explains how we are treated like children by being told what we can do for the environment and starts doing easy stuff, because it seems pretty true. I agree with the author. As he mentions in his article, I think it is true that people prefer to do easy thing for the environment because not every one basically know what to do, but doing easy thing is a good start to do something for the environment. Also, people tend to feel satisfied with the fact that we are doing something good for the environment. However, many people don't even realize that easy is not enough. What is more, we are likely to be encouraged to do easy, but even we do them, nobody really knows how it is really making better for the environment.
His article is helpful to make people realize and think what they can do more as a grown-up. However, at the same time I think many people still would be confused and have no idea what they should/can do besides doing "easy." I think that people need to understand what is going on with the environmental issues. In other words, government need to promote an effective policy for the environmental issue and explain it to people. And surely, they need to be open to discuss about the environmental issue.

Maniates' Article & Group Discussions

Maniates' article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," touches on a lot of the things that my group discussed in class last Wednesday. In our discussion, we agreed that individual action is not enough to prevent the environmental damage we are causing; as Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems..."

Unfortunately, the general attitude in the United States towards the environment is that helping the environment means doing a disservice to yourself and other people, in that it makes things cost more and makes us give things up. It is true that we're going to have to give up a lot to truly help the environment, and giving things up is certainly not a good thing, but the result of giving them up is vastly important and will greatly benefit humans and the planet.

What I see as the next important step in helping the environment is the promotion of this attitude- that helping is good, even if we have to give things up- throughout the United States and the rest of the world. In our group discussion, we agreed that it is unlikely for this viewpoint on the environment to become popular very quickly. We discussed the possibility that it will become popular only after a terrible environmental disaster with obvious, immediate effects. I am hopeful that more and more people will want to change their position before they are forced to by such an event. The "small things" that Maniates says don't really help the environment may actually be important in that they at least foster the general idea that helping the environment is good, even if they don't help much by themselves. We need to move beyond doing "easy" things, but the leap from no action to big action will probably only happen if something forces it to. Without such an event, there will have to be small action for some time before we can expect to see much big action.

Easy Doesn't Cut It When We Consider Real Environmental Damage!

I think that Maniates makes a very good point about how the easy things we can do will not be enough.  However, in a society that is so consumer-driven and, for the most part, ignorant to what the real environmental situation is, it is hard to ask for much more.  I think these little things are great, but I do not believe that this society is not able to handle more.  

I think that education about the environment and how the degradation process is proceeding is the most important thing.  Re-using paper, recycling cans, and turning off the water when we brush our teeth are all really great ideas, but maybe for ten years ago.  The main problem is that not many people know what is going on.  The environmentalists and authors of those books about the "lazy environmentalist" are distractions from what could really be done here.  I think that if these books took a more aggressive approach in blatantly telling the situation how it is and what it is doing would really help people realize that they each need to do more.

Sure there will be the pessimists that do not really care any more because they feel anything we do will not work and that it is human nature to be egotistical and to not want to give up anything that no one else is giving up.  If education about the environment becomes mandatory in schools and if these authors really did their research and aimed at educating, rather than making the lives of Americans easier, then I think that we would all want to do more and make more of a difference.  It is important to remember that not everyone knows what is going on, at least not to the full extent.

I think that what Maniates writes in his article really emphasizes the social forces that drive environmental change.  He mentions that the environmental elites and the government officials are not taking enough action.  This helps to highlight to social forces because if we are not all educated or driven by some clear-cut reasons why we should change our lifestyles then nothing will happen.  We, the people, need to hear something convincing and need laws and motivation to really make a difference in the environmental situation.  I think his argument really helps in promoting more political action and that it will only be effective if it is aggressive and pushy.

"Just turn off the water when you shave your legs!"

I thought Maniates op-ed was right on the money. I especially loved how he compared the way politics have been pandering us, like parents to children. Americans understand the concept of "hard work pays off" perfectly well; it is what we built this country on. Nevertheless, when it comes to the environment, we want to do as little as possible, so as not to disrupt our routine too much. What Maniates is getting at in his article is that "the simple things" are way too simple or as he put it "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." He is right. Would-be leaders are afraid to discuss this issue because of what they might lose, i.e. voters, support, funding, etc. As we witnessed with potential presidential candidates platforms for last week's question, there is a general consensus that we need to act for environmental change. Still, how much individual action we need to make is unclear. I looked over McCain and Obama's platforms and neither of them say anything about radically changing individual lifestyles to save the planet. That's just for "environmentalists." However, what Maniates is saying is that yes, radical change in individual lifestyles is not only a step, it is a KEY step in making any noticeable change in the environmental damage we have already put in motion. I especially love the example of leaders who took what many would deem the "radical approach" like Revere, and Martin Luther King Jr. In retrospect, if these individuals took the simple, everyday steps towards change, the world would not have changed much from when they were in action and it may have gotten worse. Likewise, if we continue to take simple steps with no real effort to make lasting changes in our activities and mentalities, the world won't change much for the better, but it will for the worse.

McCain vs. Obama on the Environment

John McCain's stance on the environment is that it is America's "patriotic duty" to ensure clean air, healthy water, sustainable land use, and care of our National Parks. He believes that our nation's economy is tied directly to its environmental interests, and he aims to solve our environmental problems by promoting "cleaner" technologies and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. McCain can be classified as a "market liberal," as he believes that by strengthening our economy we will be able to "meet our obligation to be proper caretakers of creation."

Barack Obama is in some ways also a market liberal. He encourages research of cleaner technologies and reduction of dependence on foreign oil. However, he also has detailed plans to implement policies for reducing carbon emissions, improving energy efficiency and emissions standards, and restoring US leadership in climate change by re-engaging with the UN and creating an international forum of the largest greenhouse gas emissions. These plans place Obama into the institutionalist category as well.

Clapp and Dauvergne’s categories do help to make sense of the differences between these candidates, as political language can often be confusing, but categorizing their policies can help to interpret their policies and exact positions on the environment.

Obama's position on the environment seems to make more sense than McCain's. Obama has a much more detailed plan for how he is going to address our environmental issues, and he sees the environment as a global problem which the United States must address both within its borders and along with other nations. McCain, on the other hand, believes that the primary goals of the United States are to protect its own environment and economic interests and meet our patriotic obligations. His plans seem more vague than Obama's, and Obama approaches the environment from multiple angles while McCain really only addresses America's economic interests and "duties."

Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney

I chose to look at the platforms by Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.
I think that Hillary Clinton has a clearer and more detail and reliable environmental plan compared to Mitt Romney’s. I think that Clinton can be categorized as Market Liberals since she emphasizes on investment plans for technology development, for instance, a $50 billion the Strategy Energy Fund. She has a clear and a detail plans and goals which focus on global warming to seek a better solution for it. Particularly, she set goals for reduction of the carbon emissions and show her motivation to participate globally in fighting against the carbon emissions which President Bush did not really do or complete.
I think that Mitt Romney is also categorized as Market Liberal. What his plan focuses on is energy independence. Hillary also includes energy independence on her platform, however, Romney completely focuses on the energy independence and emphasizes its importance on his plans such as increasing domestic production for pursuing domestic sources of energy development, promoting nuclear technology etc. Overall, as I read his platform on environmental issue, he only focuses on energy independence which is completely different from Hillary’s. (Actually, I think Huckabee approaches similarly) His plan sounds great but seems a little narrow and I would question about other issues such as global warming.

Comparing Environmental Solutions: Clinton vs. McCain

McCain's platform is significantly different than Clinton's platform for environmental change.

I would say that John McCain could be classified as a market liberal.  I say this because his platform seems to be focused on the importance of economic growth and high per capita incomes.  He discusses the responsibility that he believes America has for changing the environmental situation.  He makes the connection, that he thinks is undeniably there, America's economic interests and its environmental interests.  He strongly believes that ignoring the problem is what will lead this country to its destruction.  Market liberals operate on the main fact that the higher incomes, due to economic growth, which in turn "generates the funds and political will" to drive environmental change that will benefit the rest of the world.  He mentions that he believes that even though rich countries like America will become richer, but the poor countries will become richer as well.  This way all benefit.

I would classify Hilary Clinton as an institutionalist.  I say this because she outlines in her plan for environmental change the changes she would make in order to make the United States sustainable in its resources.  Clinton hopes to make us independent when it comes to resources such as oil and hopes to make energy emissions significantly less.  She also expresses her interest in gaining or putting forth more federal investment for basic energy research and aggressive action to transition the economy toward renewable energy sources.  Institutionalists, like market liberals share an interest in the economy and the connection that it has with the environment and environmental change.  Also they believe that a lack of global cooperation as a key source of environmental destruction.  The fact that sovereign states exist rather than a one state world, contributes to the fact that there is a lack of international cooperation.  Clinton wants America to rely less on others for resources and to become sustainable and independent in our sources.  Furthermore, Clinton offers suggestions for new institutions that can aid in these changes that she would like to make to improve the environmental situation.

The categories introduced by Clapp and Dauvergne have made it easier to differentiate between the two candidates.  Though there are similarities between the two, and there is a fine line between market liberals and institutionalists.  I think that Clinton's proposal for a better environment makes more sense than McCain's small attempt, merely to address the problem of the environment.  I think that Clinton's Institutionalist approach is and will be effective in making changes in the environment.  Clinton actually outlines real solutions to the problem, whereas McCain merely discusses the problem itself and how America should deal with its own economy.

McCain and Clinton's green ideas

I chose to look at the environmental platforms of John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Based on Clapp and Dauverne’s categories, I think McCain and Clinton are market liberals. Market liberals believe that “economic growth and high per capita incomes are essential for human welfare and the maintenance of sustainable development” (Clapp & Dauverne, 4). Both candidates’ websites talk extensively of economy this and that, strengthen US economy, make a green economy, and so on. McCain’s website admits that global warming and climate change are a problem and that we should do something about it, but he doesn’t really outline any type of plan at all. Clinton, on the other hand, has a very definitive plan for how she’d handle the climate crisis—green research funding, carbon cap-and-trade programs, reducing carbon emissions, etc. I think because of her more in-depth planning and also that she plans to make the “National Energy Council,” she could border on the side of Institutionalist as well, but mostly a market liberal because the tenet of her environmental plans have to do with the economy and job creation for economic growth that will in turn all help the environment.

Clearly, Hillary’s plan makes more sense to me than McCain’s short webpage that it’s our "patriotic duty" to stop climate change. McCain is just saying things but Clinton seems to be actually promising things. All of what Hillary says she’ll do is what I would want a president to do—cut emissions, foster green economic growth, enact policies that make us live cleaner, more efficient, and establishing bonds and research funds to make sure this can all happen.

McCain and Obama trying to be "green monsters?" not really

According to his environment platform, it sounds like John McCain is a market liberal. Due to how limited the explanations of his proposals are, I judged based on the few references he had like the passage, "America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked. Our economic prospects depend greatly upon the sustainable use of ample and unspoiled natural resources. A clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy. History shows that poverty is a poor steward." This statement leads me to believe that his focus is the economy and that correcting market and policy failures are the way forward indicating a market liberal perspective.
Barack Obama had a lot more to work with in terms of what his environmental platform is and what he proposes. Based on the plans presented, I would deem him an institutionalist. The language used in his plans, such as "Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires,
the periods of drought. By 2050 famine could force more than 250 million from their homes,"
suggests that he recognizes the potential for an environmental crisis. He references the Bush administration a lot in terms of policies or lack thereof that have had damaging effects on the environment and he plans to implement programs that encourage global institutions for change.

Overall, McCain demonstrated that he could care less about environment and the issue of global warming based on the presentation of his environment platform. He says a lot of fluff about American values and how that ties in to protecting the environment, but that's about it, so I am thoroughly unimpressed. On the other hand, Obama has a lot of fluff too, but like I said, he has a lot more fluff to work with and even some interesting proposals. A couple that caught my eye and that didn't sound too generic were to: Create Green Corps Jobs, Re-engage with the UNFCCC and Protect Children and Families from Lead Poisoning. I feel that Obama's campaign put in a great deal of effort to at least appear to care about the environment, if that's the only thing they are able to achieve. I'm a pessimist but not a fatalist, and hopefully, some of these plans will be implemented by whoever is the next president because there is no doubt that the planet needs help.