“I unplug stuff more…”

This intentionally “folksy” and grammatically awkward line is appearing all over the city on bus stops in an advertisement for Chevron. The words are supposedly coming from a nice looking youngish woman who is presumably letting us know that she is doing her part to help the environment and to get us off foreign oil. This goes to the heart of one of the debates we have been having in class, that our government and the corporations are, through advertisements such as this, trying to make the consumer feel personally responsible for the environment and dependency on foreign oil. By assuming that all it takes is a little effort by each one of us, rather than a wholesale societal change, to stop climate change and that change is well within our reach, all we have to do is “unplug stuff more.”

Okay, I got that small tangent out of the way, now on to technology and a little more positive outlook this week. I have been firmly in the camp that believes we are fooling ourselves if we think all we have to do is wait for a technological solution out of our current problems concerning the environment. However, that being said, there are interesting ideas that, if implemented, could help to solve climate change to some degree. For example, this video by Amory Lovins discusses new conservation technologies that are truly astounding:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html

He has bold claims that the United States can break the oil habit and revitalize the economy through using light-weight carbon composite materials to build cars.
While certainly this is not a complete solution to all the problems one can foresee, given a rather large problem of mustering the financial backing, that a combination of technologies coupled with grand societal changes on an international level could go a long way in beginning to address the issues of climate change towards a more positive future.

Riding Mankind

Will technology save us?

Are we willing to depend on anything else?

We tend to think of technology as a positive force because it make life easier. Most of the things we depend on are a product of technology, stuff created to make our lives more efficient, and stuff that has arguably put us in the current environmental crisis. If the power of technology is so irresistible to us, do we expect it to help guide us to a better future and resolve our environmental crisis?

If we expect technology to save us, we should think about an Emerson quote we talked about in class: “things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” Consider how this applies to current technology like the iPhone. The iPhone is impressive: one tiny device makes it possible to call, check e-mail, read newspapers, play games, listen to music, find restaurants, and even provides directions when you're lost on E Street. It's great and may make life more organized, but dependence on it quickly crosses the line from organization to control. For users, the iPhone is in the saddle, riding mankind. Consciously or not, we’ve accepted this.

Although environmentalists know solutions to our environmental crisis can come from sources other than technology, I’m afraid we’re not willing to change our lifestyles enough to invest in other options.

Sorcerer's Apprentice

I'm kind of sitting on the fence on this question. I generally think that yes, technology will save us. Technology is continuously getting better, there are so many things that are in the works, that I'm sure we don't even know about. If we are supposed to have intelligent robots by 2030, imagine all of the other advancements we will have made by then. Maybe we will have a cure for everything and we will all just live forever and ever!!! Juuuust kidding. Could you imagine the Paris Hilton's and Britney Spears' of this planet living forever? I know, it's the kind of things nightmares are made of...Ok, back on track. I'm just saying that, with the way technology is progressing now, it's hard to think that there won't eventually be some kind of technological solution out there that will preserve us AND the planet.

BUT...I also think that while we are trying to create new technologies to save us and the environment, that we'll end up screwing ourselves over before any good comes from all of these tecno advancements. For example, a grocery store in Canada offered five cents for those customers who brought back their used bags. The store would then recylce those bags and create a sturdier bag that would last longer. Yay green livin'! Well, later the store found out that it caused more environmental damage to create the recycled bag than it did just to create your average grocery bag.

I think that technology has the potential to do a great many things offer us, but it's almost like "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" from 'Fantasia'. We are currently in the apprentice position. We run amok with our master's wand, making magical mops and buckets to our chores, creating all sorts of instruments that do our work for us and make our lives easier. Yet, there will come a time when we can not control our instruments that we created any longer, and then we're in BIG trouble. We will only be saved if we can learn to control our wand (technology) and learn to become the Sorcerer who can tame it.

Subsidies and High Crop Prices

Here is the link to the US NEWS & WORLD REPORT article on ethanol if you're interested:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/01/24/subsidies-and-high-crop-prices.html

Technology: A Necessary Evil

The question as to whether or not “technology” will save us is one I have asked myself before. It is important to look at how much we have advanced as a society because of technology, but it is also just as important to realize that with great advancements and improvements to society emerge other kinds of problems from the same types of technologies that benefited us in the first place.

In order to accurately address the question "will technology save us," we need to define what technology really means. If you turn to Merriam-Webster, one definition of technology is "the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area." Therefore, in terms of the environment, technology is the practical application of knowledge in relation to the environment. Without getting too caught up in definitions and words to describe technology, this kind of practical application of knowledge has a significant meaning to the fate of environmental problems in the future.

For example, as we have discussed in class earlier, the technologies that have emerged in order to solve problems have the potential to actually hurt or harm other aspects of our environment just by simply "helping" to solve the other problem. An example of this can be seen through the technologies that have been heavily implemented around the United States in hopes of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Many individuals, especially farmers, have focused on ethanol research as a means to fix the oil problem. As a result, many farms have simply focused on their cornfields, because it is here that they believe they can make a profit since there is such a high demand for ethanol research, specifically in relation to U.S. government subsidies on corn-based ethanol. The fields, however, are being destroyed. Farmers are relying too much on one crop and trying to make a living as it has become harder and harder to keep the American farm alive and functioning. Here, the issue of the role of the government comes into the picture. Should the farmers receive agriculture subsidies for their ethanol production?

The following is an excerpt from US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, January 2008:

"What's causing grocery bills to rise? Some blame policies that have made it especially profitable for farmers to divert their crops into corn for the production of ethanol. "The ethanol industry is hogging more and more of the corn supply, and that is squeezing ranchers and dairy farmers," says Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

The federal government gives preferential treatment to domestic, corn-based ethanol in the form of a 54-cent-per-gallon tax on imported ethanol, which largely affects Brazilian producers of ethanol from sugar cane. That tax comes on top of a 51-cent exemption from the federal excise tax on gasoline that goes to fuel mixed with ethanol.

These subsidies raise the demand for domestic ethanol. That drives up the price of not only the corn used to produce the ethanol but also of wheat and soybeans, which farmers plant less of because they switch to corn. That, in turn, translates into a scarcer supply—and higher prices."

Although this is only one example of the types of problems that arise from technology, especially in regards to the involvement of government in problems, it seems to accurately illustrate how technological improvements can affect individuals, specifically ourselves as consumers, at a more personal level. If the price of food increases, what does that really mean for us? More importantly, how does that have an effect on individuals living in poorer nations who could barely afford the high price of products such as rice in the first place? We have talked about the food riots around the world since Day 1, which reveal to us that technology is not always effective in many cases. Yet, it is important to believe in technology and the fact that it can have a significant effect on the population.

The practical application of knowledge means that we not only learn from our mistakes as we continue to search for answers to solve problems, but it also means that because of the spread of knowledge around the world, technology and the flow of information and awareness regarding environmental issues have a positive effect on our global society. The fact that we can discuss these issues within the blog world and share with others is only one example of how important the spread of knowledge and increased discussion is for the future of environmental progress.

Slate article

Hey Everyone,

I think this is very relevant to what we're studying in class. Check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2200911/

We need to start somewhere!

Professor Maniates has valid points - it's true that we are being lazy as a global community when it comes to the environment. But Americans seem to be lazy about everything these days. Look at the wars we are fighting in the middle east. If this were the 1960's or 70's you would see thousands of protesters with signs concerning the troops, economy, and gas prices. Today, though there is significant turmoil in our economy and we are facing one of the biggest financial crises in history, you barely hear a peep. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that the environment is just as, if not more important than the economy, but if we can't even get an uprising over significant current events, how can we get people all excited to make large changes concerning the environment, a much slower disaster? While Professor Maniates is quick to criticize the "easy way out" when it comes to helping the environment, his solutions are hardly anything to write home about. Sure the general public being lazy environmentalists wouldn't be as effective than if everyone was a hardcore environmentalist, but we need to be realistic here - that would never happen. If everybody started somewhere, doing easy things to help out our planet, it would become second nature to recycle or turn off the water when brushing teeth. Once people realize that they actually can make a difference, perhaps there would be more public interest in the subject matter. And yes, a strong environmentalist leader (The MLK Jr of the environment?) would help as well. Americans are not willing to make big steps at this point, though it pains me to have to say this. I think that we should encourage everyone to do at least something, and then we can go from there!

What then?

While I agree that leadership is necessary to effectively confront global environmental change, I’m not so sure it starts with government. If coordinated action from government and individuals is what we’re after, or, if action by the government is the end goal, the potential for INGOs as a means to be effective is huge.

International organizations force states to do things they wouldn’t necessarily do, and in this respect, I think that citizens can actually make a difference. INGOs allow so called “non-state actors” to rally around and alter policy preferences. If we’re going to talk about history like Maniates brought up in his article, why not consider the success and influence of citizen activism more recently: case in point, the activism of Jody Williams in the 1990s against land mines not only challenged US interests, a review conference at the UN ended with a partial ban. Also, since the primary goal of INGOs is information, “frank talk” about how to best confront situations in ways that are “rewarding, confusing, and creative” is possible.

Someone brought this up in class today and I think it's a valid point: maybe American citizens are apathetic towards environmental change and policy because it’s perceived as an abstract thing that it is out of our control. Not in the sense that we have no control over our impact, but in the sense that no matter what small eco-friendly actions individuals take, recycling, driving a hybrid car, etc, it’s unimportant. Like Rachel mentioned, examples of successful IO initiatives may entice more people to get on board for environmental activism.

Leadership required

Hi again! While I agree with Professor Maniates argument that we, as Americans, are only asked to make the easy choices as far as environmental degradation, I do not quite share his optimism that when presented with the truth, and when that truth involves drastic lifestyle changes that Americans will stand shoulder to shoulder and readily accept the challenge. After all, when was the last time we as Americans truly banded together and sacrificed to solve a problem, WWII? I may be pessimistic, but our consumer based culture is not geared for sacrifice. Granted we have generally not been asked to, all that was asked of us after 9/11 was to go shopping, but if we were asked, more than likely the response would be a mass withdrawal into our ever-spiraling consumption shells.
When confronted with the fundamental societal changes and upheavals that are truly required in order to put the environmental situation in the world right would require drastic elite leadership, the kind that drug the country kicking and screaming to the issues of racism and integration. Maniates is correct that we do need true governmental leadership on these issues. Leadership who will guide us and do what is right regarding the environment even when it goes against corporate interests and public outcry and involves the possibility that they will not be re-elected. If I ever see even a glimmer of such actions, then perhaps, I will not be so pessimistic.

Is Easy Good Enough?

I was very impressed by Professor Maniates article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." I agree with him that Americans do in fact work best when we come together as a nation during times of crisis and search for solutions in order to solve problems. It is hard not to get wrapped into believing that simple, easy individual changes to our daily lives can be the answer to the "planetary emergency." Part of me has always thought of Professor Maniates point about large environmental agencies such as the EPA and even the American Association for the Advancement of Science truly believing that small, individual changes are "all they think we'll go for."

However, at the same time, I believe these particular agencies try to focus on what is practical for the American citizen. It is sad to think that we haven't done more as a nation to fight environmental dangers, but the fact of the matter is that Americans don't know how to address the issues in a way that is beyond what they can do individually. The issue, for many, becomes far too abstract and overwhelming if we always look at the "big picture," and therefore miss the opportunity to convince Americans that they can help the environmental challenges at a personal level. I agree that there should be more done on the part of the nation as a whole to address these issues, but I don't think it is productive to always blame Americans for being lazy or not caring enough about the environment, because there are many hard-working Americans who have made an effort to better the environment around them. Yet, the number of hard-working Americans who do actively campaign against climate change and other environmental issues is still not high enough. We need to get more people on board to fight this. It's true that it won't be easy to do so, but I still believe it is a fight worth fighting.

Going Green..

I apologize if this blog seems a tad pessimistic, optimists beware.. I generally liked Professor Maniates' article: short, sweet, and too the point! I also thought that it was interesting that he posted it on one of the holidays where Americans consume the most. On Thursday, we stuff our faces, watch some good ol' football, then stuff our faces some more. This gluttonous day is followed by another day of over-consumption: Black Friday. If shopping malls are America's temples (as Professor Nicholson so wonderfully put it), then Black Friday is the holiest day of all. It's a day where Americans wake up early to take advantage of extreme discounts. And what do discounts mean? More consumption, if you can get more bang for your buck, Black Friday is your opportunity to "go out with a bang". I know that Maniates accuses many authors giving advice that is "private, individualistic, cost-effective, and easy", which is definitely true. But what else should these authors do? It isn't easy to permeate America's cult of consumption. If someone goes all out and tries to tell your Average Joe to stop using his H3, recylce everything, take 5 minute showers, etc., this person is going to be viewed as a crazy hippie and no one is going to listen. So it makes sense for authors and those who call themselves environmentalists to appeal to America's cost-effective side. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are selfish, and everyone is out for number #1, so it isn't surprising that everyone isn't pouncing on the opportunity to recycle or save a little energy.
I do agree that we need to band together as a nation and address the issue of our affects on climate change, but the problem with trying to find solutions is that not everyone agrees that we have such a significant impact on the Earth. We all know that the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. This is definitely hard for Americans to admit to because we don't see our impact on the environment, we ship our waste else where.Then, it's not our problem anymore. I do appreciate Maniates noble proposition for us all to come together and save the world, however, the reality is that people just don't care.

Environmental Perspectives

Good points Dave and Rachel! I agree with your categorizations: Senator McCain – market liberal, Senator Obama – institutionalist. As Rachel mentioned, it can be difficult to fit the candidates into a specific category since some of their platforms have more than one focus. According to Clapp and Dauvergne, neither market liberals nor institutionalists believe that we are “officially” experiencing a global environmental crisis. To me, this suggests that market liberals and institutionalists question the merits of environmental change such as global warming, which doesn’t seem to be the case for either candidate.

One of the main instruments of liberalism is international institutions, so it’s not surprising that Obama wants to re-engage with the UN on climate change issues. Although McCain also states that he will “actively engage to lead UN negotiations,” Obama is more specific. For example, Obama states that he will focus on working with institutions such as the UNFCC and ultimately create a Global Energy Forum.

McCain’s focus seems to shift out of the international arena. He claims that economic growth domestically will help to improve the environment by implementing such policies as “Cap-and-Trade.” According to his website, “Cap-and-Trade harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels.” Such policy highlights his focus on economics through promise of financial incentives: if you participate in this program and invent a way to reduce emissions, you can “sell [your] extra permits for cash.”

Overall, it appears that Senator Obama is more environmentally-oriented. Obama’s focus is on sustainability and global environmental cooperation: to borrow from Hardin, instruments necessary to save our global commons. One final thought -- Obama and Biden currently co-sponsor the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, a bill to amend the clean air act and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. What do you think about the bill? Link to the summary is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-309 .

See you in class!

McCain vs. Obama; Old Guard vs. New Guard

After looking over both Obama and McCain's environmental platforms, I agree with Dave's perspective on the Clapp and Dauvergne's categories. McCain seems to be more of a market liberal; whereas, Obama seems to be more closely linked to the institutionalists. Obama speaks of consuming foreign oil faster than ever before, and that "energy independence" has been an issue with every single president since Nixon! In terms of global warming, Obama speaks of melting glaciers and dangerous weather patterns. "Global warming is now a fact!"

Both McCain and Obama believe that the U.S. relies too much on foreign oil. Yet, like Obama states, McCain voted against energy bills, against solar power, against wind power, etc. McCain speaks of the "failure of Washington to address environmental issues," but Obama brings up the fact that McCain was part of the problem in Washington for 26/30 years of failure.

I don't believe it's easy to always use Clapp and Dauvergne's categories in order to classify each of the candidates. Obviously every idea concerning environmental improvement will not always line up with only one of the groups. Obama seems to be more for stronger institutions (institutionalist), yet he also addresses the importance of saving the environment (bio-environmentalist) through strong institutions AND government regulation.

I thought Obama's environmental platforms were far more direct than McCain's. It was easier for me to understand after a couple of minutes of reading or listening to one of Obama's environmental speech, that he was for or against certain environmental policies or changes. In terms of McCain's platform, although I could tell that he was for an increase in things such as alternative fuels and new technologies, it seemed that Obama was more up front about the fact that the environmental is in tough shape. As a result, I was far more impressed by Obama's environmental platforms than McCain's. Obviously I am bias toward Obama, since when it comes down to it, I still think McCain represents an old guard as well as representing the "Washington" that has not effectively addressed the environment in the past! Obama is right, no matter who is at fault, something has got to change. If McCain did not do much about the environment in the past, then what makes people think that he will once he is president?

More thoughts from Dave...

Hi all! Looking at Clapp and Dauvergne’s typologies from Paths to a Green World to characterize our two wonderful presidential candidates did not seem too difficult, as they seemed a pretty close fit in their respective categories. While both agree on the cap and trade issue, that is setting a limit or cap on carbon emissions with incentives and credits industries can sell or trade, but there are some clear ideological separations from there. Speaking broadly, I see McCain as a near verbatim Market Liberal, while Obama seems much more of an Institutionalist. Of course, there is room for argument on this.

My reasoning is that, in general, a Market Liberal tends to see the woes of the environment in terms of lagging economic development, and that the free market, if given free reign can solve these problems on its own. McCain also puts an emphasis on new technologies to solve climate change while strengthening the economy.

Obama as more of an Institutionalist, while being similar to Market Liberals in terms of economic growth and a reliance on technology, his differing focus lies in the utilization of international institutions rather than the free market as a means. Obama’s platform suggests he is more of an Institutionalist in that he wants to use government institutions to initiate changes to the current system. For example, new job training programs for clean technology and federal investment in plug-in electric vehicles.

I must say that to me Obama makes more sense on environmental issues, his plan calls for much needed infrastructure investment. He also embraces more long term energy strategies such as and at least a call for ending our dependence on foreign oil from the Middle-east and Venezuela and, albeit the rather modest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

As for McCain’s proposals, it seems to me that we have tried the free market as savior many times over, such as a war run with private, some would call mercenary, soldiers from Blackwater, or by a de-regulated finance system that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is “to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.” This seems to be a great deal of the McCain plan, letting the wolves guard the henhouse some more since it has always worked so well in the past. Also, the last time I checked Halliburton doesn’t have a bill of rights!

Whitney's two cents..

I think the biggest challenge I face when it comes to recycling is not that I don't want to recycle, it's that I don't know where to recycle. I have yet to find recycling receptacles around my apartment complex. All they have is a "trash room" where I open up a little metal door and throw my trash down the chute. A big reason why many Americans don't recycle is that there isn't an infrastructure already in place for us to recycle, and unfortunately, the government doesn't see recycling as a major problem or else it would have done something already. I know it seem lazy, but I don't have time to bring all of my trash to a place where I can recycle.

When I studied abroad in Berlin, each household had at least 4-5 trash cans. When you are sorting your garbage right from the get-go, it makes it easier to just dump it in a recycling bin all at once. Also, there is a nasty little fine if someone doesn't recycle. I don't understand why this system couldn't be implemented in the United States. There are many states where littering is punishable by a fine. So I guess it's not OK to trash your immediate neighborhood, but it's OK to export your garbage to other countries and trash the Earth? Why can't we stop sticking our toe in to test the waters, and just dive right in?

Recycling Regulators – Too Many Rules?

Is recycling over-regulated? Stanley Fish comments on this issue in his article and I think his point is an interesting one to consider.

Recently, the DPW and Conservation Committee in my hometown have been encouraging "single stream recycling." Single stream recycling is fairly effortless: throw all of your recyclables in a 64-gallon cart and haul it out to the curb – no sorting or folding necessary. That is unless you happen to leave your recycling cart less than three feet from your solid waste cart.

As Fish mentioned in his piece, the regulations for recycling have definitely intensified. And if you break the rules, you’re going to pay. Forgot to leave more than three feet of space between your trash bins and recycling cart? Don’t expect WM to collect the recycling of a rule-breaker. Not curbside by 6 a.m. on collection day? Looks like you’ll be stuck with a full cart. Refuse to invest $30 in a green and yellow Waste Management bin? You’re a disgrace to the neighborhood. Kidding aside, it seems that even with the elimination of sorting, folding, and cutting, such rules could undermine the overall objective of reduction.

Many counties see the benefits of a single stream system, however. A plus to the new system is that only one truck (garbage) is needed to haul both recycling and waste. Garbage trucks can haul about 5 tons more/trip than the standard recycling truck, ultimately saving gas and money. The elimination of guesswork also gives people more of an incentive to recycle, since everything can be put in just one bin. If you’re interested, the link to the article where I found this information is below:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92913195

Overall, I agree with Fish: recycling is good, single stream or mainstream. Recycling certainly won't solve every environmental problem, but practicing it is a good alternative to throwing everything in the waste bin. As long as you pay attention to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------

Also, if you get a chance you should check out this picture posted on The Age’s website on Friday; satellite view of Gustav, Hanna, Ike, and Josephine.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/more-on-the-way-as-caribbean-feels-hannas-hammer-20080905-4aps.html


See you in class!

Laura

SAVING THE PLANET ONE CHARMIN ROLL AT A TIME

"But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require" (Stanley Fish)...

It goes without saying that the environment's in tough shape nowadays--something VP Al Gore illustrated through his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

It touched on one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment today: helplessness! Individuals realize the environment is in dire need of help, but wonder, how can my actions really improve it? From world news reports on ill-fated climate change, to reports of an ever-expanding endangered species list, it's tough to avoid the media coverage that comes along with trying to alleviate the growing environmental issues around the world.

However, a lot of individuals feel far-removed from these types of environmental problems; after all, is a glacier melting in the North Pole going to affect whether their child makes soccer practice tonight Often, the problem isn't that the individuals don't care about the environment, it's that they feel overwhelmed by the extremity of the issues. In result? They resort to the "I'm just one person, what can I do?" mentality, a means of justifying indifferent or apathetic views toward it all.

But, we can make a difference. Not necessarily by means of big, extraordinary gestures and movements, but in little ways. Stanley Fish's actions are a fantastic example of this: When it came to choosing something as mundane as toilet paper, he opted for the more environmentally-friendly brand. With this sort of thinking, we can find new ways in which to better the environment, without feeling the need to make drastic changes to our lives. Change can be tough, sure, but if it means improving the environment we live in -- as well as the future lives of our children and grandchildren -- we need to get on board. Cue the caring! Time to think twice about that Charmin roll.

Just a few thoughts from Dave

I guess I’ll get our blog rolling. I can see that, at least one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment is general apathy and reticence towards even the simplest of “green” tasks. I can agree with parts of the Stanley Fish article, behaving in an environmentally friendly way is a pain, while I disagree that it is not desirable to me. The detergents and paper goods from Whole Foods simply do not work, and everything there is extremely expensive. I have to walk down two flights of stairs with all of the various categories of trash to correctly recycle everything in just the right place; they even want me to organize my glass by color! Driving is always faster and more convenient than any bike, bus or Metro. I like taking long, hot, showers even in the summer. It is fair to say that living ones daily life in America is much easier without trying to be ecologically correct. Further addressing the issue of environmental consciousness and general human apathy, I wonder if it is not apathy at all, I feel like my behavior, one way or the other, is such a drop in the proverbial bucket that it is of little significance. This may be part of the problem, we are not only asking people to change their way of life, but to make them ponder their place in the world, no one likes to feel small. In the same way that some people look at the Milky Way on a lonely country road and feel impressed and inspired, others look at it and feel…insignificant. Are these the same impulses that keep people from examining their own conduct, that they would have to admit to being a very small cog in a vast machine, but a 3, 4, or 5 planet consuming cog nonetheless. Perhaps the appeal to these people would be to downplay the global implications and concentrate more locally. “Hey, let’s take care of the neighborhood lake. Keep the Chesapeake clean,” so on and so forth. Anyways, I just wrote down a few thoughts to chew on. Recycle!

Welcome

Hi Everyone,

Welcome to our blog -- feel free to edit!

Laura