Eco-Turkey

On Thanksgiving I talked with my cousin and uncle about the environment.

My cousin Danielle, 10, is doing a project about organic dyes for her science class in New Jersey. Her task is to use various fruits and vegetables to dye cloth and see which one stains or causes the darkest shade on fabric. In her class, she’s learning about dyes that contain dangerous chemicals, especially for kids, and how it affects overall health and the clothes we wear. At the end of this term they’re going to use the natural dyes on organic cotton to create something wearable. She explained some of the hazards they’d learned about and how she thought it was connected to the environment – I felt optimistic after talking with her. Her teacher has the right idea to integrate the material it in a way that will stay with them after the class is over.

My conversation with my Uncle Dean didn't leave me as optimistic. My uncle is a big fan of Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton, and likes to say that he saves energy by turning off the T.V. when Al Gore’s on. We talked about McDonough's idea to rethink design and “Cradle to Cradle” but his response was always the same: “this is going to cost a lot of money.” I showed him how the book is made of polymer but he wasn't impressed. The only thing he said was, "okay...but how much did that book cost?"

Since our polymer/design conversation was headed in the...wrong direction, I brought up an article we had both read that morning about the opportunities President Obama will have to invest in clean energy technologies. Although he agreed that there are definitely good options for clean energy, he didn't think that addressing climate change should be our first priority, or even a top priority. Issues of national security and the economy (ironic) were first on his list.

Talking about the environment with people who disagree about the severity of the situation can be frustrating. I think it’s a good idea when you’re talking about controversial issues to respect people's opinions (esp. if you disagree) but also be provocative (without patronizing) although managing this is a challenge in itself.

An Island State of Mind

I'm sitting writing this blog post from the tiny state of Rhode Island. I can see the waves crashing in from my adirondack chair on the porch. It's a bit chilly outside, but it's a coldness I can take if it means being able to watch the high and low-tides during the day. Sitting here and being able to feel the ocean breeze hit me is something that I never will take for granted. I never get sick of it--it's pretty amazing to watch the waves crash over and over again, no matter what time of year.

Last night at Thanksgiving dinner I had a conversation with one of our family friends about the environment. Ironically the conversation started following a game of "Apples to Apples" (quite possibly one of the most entertaining games) with the 16 people who came over for Thanksgiving dinner.

For those of you who are not familiar with the game: Each player receives 7 cards (random nouns) and the judge places a card in the middle that is an adjective or noun, etc. The object of the game is for each player, for example, to lay a card down face-down in the middle that they believe relates to whatever the adjective or judges' card that has been played. Then, the judge chooses which player has the "best" card that relates to the judge's word. Usually the judge chooses the "funny" word that has been played that relates nothing to the actual judge card. Anyway, that was an awful explanation of a great game, but hopefully you get the idea.

So, the word that was played in the middle was the "ozone layer," and it was interesting to see what people placed down in relation to it. Some of the words were "amazing," "useless," "disturbing," etc. I was surprised by how many of the words relating to the "ozone" were negative ones. There were a lot of people playing the game who were of all different ages and genders, yet the overall consensus was that the "ozone" was something negative. Following this game I started talking to our family friend about the environment. He is only 2 years out of college and studied IR in college as well. I asked him what he thought about the environment and he immediately rolled his eyes. He started talking about how much the environment is obsessed about and how it doesn't seem like much of anything can fix the current state it is in now.

Just outside of our window the coastline reflects how well the community of Newport has taken care of the coastline and beaches. As a newcomer to this beautiful beach town it was hard for me to believe that the coastline, marine life, water quality, etc., was something that some people could view as something that was not good enough to merit our time. Yet, I can see how much money has gone into protecting the coastline and marine life here. Even the Navy has worked on protecting the coastline in addition to many individuals within the area who donate time, money, and energy to environmental issues that face the island, such as air quality relating to smog, toxic waste, pollution, and many other issues. However, after talking to my family friend about the environment, I started to think more about the uniqueness of being on an island when it comes to the environment.

If only we had more money or time to direct our actions toward the environment in other areas of the world. In Newport it is much easier to talk about the environment and take real action not only because the island is inhabited and controlled by less than 25,000 people, but more importantly many of these people are well-educated (or at least in theory) and have a lot more money to spend on things such as environmental protection and policies. They are around it, therefore, it is something that ultimately affects them every day they get up for work and walk outside. I just wish there was something more we could do in other places in the world, so that more people could benefit and see the positive effects of spending money on the environment and improving environmental standards now so that our future generations can benefit as well. It is too bad that so many people are turned off from the environment, i.e. the eye-roller, because it is really something that needs to be talked about.

We have come to a point in which the seriousness of the situation makes it hard to not be serious when talking with another person. However, I realized after talking to my family friend, who did not share the exact same environmental views as me, that the very idea of talking about the environment in a friendly and inviting way is a great way to engage people about the environment. It should not be about trying to make the person feel like an outsider or less informed about the environment, but instead open discussion and forums in a positive setting is the only way creative ideas and genuine collaboration will occur. Sorry to ramble...just thought it was something worthwhile to think about. Have a good rest of break. Safe travels.

On the Trinity of Despair...

The Trinity of Despair attack on mis-assumptions people have towards the environment is both useful and hopeful. The HN for Human Nature, I must admit that I have always assumed people were at least somewhat selfish, but having that re-stated a different way, that people are self-interested not selfish is both more accurate and less obnoxious. I can see that people are self-interested, naturally people are focused on their little part of the world, but to say that they are completely selfish, all people, all the time is definitely going to far.

The SC for social change, I was a little confused about this idea at first, yes of course everyone needs to get it together, it won’t work with a few of us. However, you can see that at some point a sort of critical mass of people’s accepting of ideas and opinions can really change everything, it will take a significant amount of the population though. The good news is that I think people are finally dismissing the idea that the scientific community is debating the issue of climate change, as we know they clearly are not!

ES for Environmental Strategy, or Easy Stuff. I knew this one already, that if everyone simply used the right light bulbs or used paper instead of plastic (or is it the other way around?), that all our problems would be solved, but I think it is even more pernicious than that. It is the corporations that are switching the blame on the consumer, by making everyone believe they have the power to affect change by doing small things, not only are you not allowing people to really be involved in the bigger things that could actually change the planet, but somehow taking the responsibility away from the worst of the environmental offenders by placing blame on people not using the right kind of light bulbs is absurd.

Radical Social Changes.

Professor Maniates' "Trinity of Despair" serves as an example of the kinds of underlying assumptions that often times prevent individuals from deciding whether or not to take action in regard to helping to improve the environment. I cannot even count the number of times in my life that I have heard people say "turn off the lights when you leave a room" or "RECYCLE, RECYCLE, RECYCLE." Yet, this class has taught me that maybe this is not enough. Perhaps we need to search for more radical changes. Protest. Campaign. Lobby, etc. If a few of us work together, then we can accomplish more things instead of waiting for the rest of society to jump on board.

I'm not sure if it was the fact that I was born on April 22, coincidentally Earth Day, that I have always been interested in the environment, or what it was. But, to this day I can still remember my first grade birthday with freakish accuracy. A boy named Jonathon who happened to ride the same bus as me was littering out of the bus window. Immediately I thought of Earth Day at this time. I remember thinking, "Hey, you can't litter on EARTH day!!!!!" I'm not sure who ingrained that in my head...whether it was the result of what my parents had taught me about respecting the planet, or even a combination of both family values and values acquired through my schooling and education (in this case, kindergarten and first grade). Regardless, I have since taken on the idea that "one person can change the world." If it means not littering on Earth Day, then so be it. We can each do our own little part in the world.

However, I have come to the understanding that "individual action" is not going to save us (at least not in the case of environmental destruction and climate change). But, that does not mean that we should give up. As stated by Laura, social change was never a result of "everyone jumping on board." Instead, history reveals to us that radical social change, from the abolitionist movement to Seneca Falls, from immigration to health care reform, is something that is worth fighting for. We may not always be in the majority, but that does not mean we should wait around until that happens. The little voices, the grassroots organizations, the town halls, and hard work and dedication will get us there.

Often times people speak of our generation---the Millenials...Gen X...Y...Z...whatever you want to call us---and that we do not care about the issues enough to take to the streets like our ancestors did. We did not live in the 1960s, nor the 1970s. However, I do not believe that means that social action does not occur from youth movements. We may not always be protesting in the streets, but we have incredible access to education and jobs that allow us to discuss environmental issues and lobby Congress. The reality is that we have to demand change in order to get it, and it is not always going to be easy. Of course there is always room for improvement, but what we must realize now is that just because we cannot fix everything about the environment now, does not mean that we should turn in our badges or sit back and enjoy it while it lasts. Instead, we need to take action now and continue to educate others about the current state of the environment.

New Angle

Prof. Maniate's “trinity of despair” has helped me to think about being an effective environmental change agent in a different way. It integrates a lot of the themes and ideas we’ve talked about in class this semester with a firm message to challenge conventional assumptions.

Prof. Maniates hit the nail on the head when he said, “we are telling people that they can consume their way out of the environmental crisis.” Advertising (in the states) is directed at consuming your way in and out of everything. It’s very clear that doing “easy things” like turning off the water when you shave your legs (sorry Dave and Greg) is not going to save us from the crisis or allow us to be effective environmental agents. If this is what Hollywood is telling our celebrity-obsessed society, can we blame some people for thinking this is effective action?

The social change angle is very interesting. Maniates argues that getting everyone on board is not necessary to effect the change we need with respect to the environment – I agree with him here. It is disempowering to think about getting 300,000,000 + people living in the U.S. on board to pay attention and be effective environmental change agents – unless we defy our social history, we know this will not happen. Instead, we need to figure out the keys to make the environmental movement more effective. I couldn’t tell if this was Prof. Simon and Prof. Maniate’s example, but women suffragettes like Alice Paul worked (extremely hard) to secure women’s voting rights despite extreme opposition and a war by persistence and sacrifice... it can happen.

In terms of getting the general public to pay attention to the environmental crisis, I disagree – if you consider public opinion or mass public opinion in this country, something devastating will need to occur to get people involved. Maybe I’m underestimating the American public, but as far as I’m concerned, people hold coherent attitudes with very little information to back it up and like to reject information that means changing their beliefs (i.e. most environmental issues if it means giving up your SUV). People are likely to continue to ignore the environmental crisis until something catastrophic happens.

But to end on a much happier note...happy Thanksgiving everyone!

We can do it!

Finally! A book that shows environmental friendliness instead of solely preaching. As soon as I picked up the book and noticed that it was not made of paper I knew that reading this book would be a different and positive experience. McDonough and Braungart urge us to reconsider the traditional "cradle to grave" mentality and begin to look at new ways to make old things new again.

I like how McDonough and Braungart are not afraid to be explicit when describing the dangers of pollutants we have produced throughout history. Even from the startling introduction that features a peaceful family residing amongst deadly toxins, the authors use a mix of harsh reality and optimism for the future to get the point across. "So much for trying to maintain a healthy environment, or even a healthy home. So much for peace, comfort and safety." They urge us to look at everything around us and do two things. One is to realize the dangers, and the other is to realize the solutions. We have the capabilities to waste less and recycle, we just need to focus greater attention on doing so. Nobody wants their child to be surrounded by harmful chemicals, and nobody wants to be told that everything they buy is full of these chemicals. But McDonough and Braungart are not saying what people want to hear, they are telling us what we need to change.

This has been my favorite thing we have read so far. It encourages me to be creative in how I reuse things and helps me to come up with new ideas on how to spread the word to others. I've been showing my friends this book (and how I can read in the shower!) and they've all been impressed with, not even the content, but the mere fact that it is printed on something other than paper. With what I have learned about William McDonough he is not afraid to think outside the box and come up with new and more importantly realistic ideas to help the environment. This inspires me to do more than what I thought I could before. Instead of being "less bad", I know strive to be good, or even more so excellent. Instead of me recycling, turning off lights and water etc., I am now encouraging others to do so as well. I realize that the path to environmental salvation is not impossible, and though it is going to take a lot of effort, we can do it!

The Importance of Creativity

I believe Cradle to Cradle did a remarkable job in illustrating that there is still hope for the future, despite all of the negative things that are going on in the world. One of the major problems with fighting to improve the planet and the environment in the first place is that it is hard for many people to jump on board.

Through Cradle to Cradle the authors reveal to us that being less bad toward the environment in our daily lives is simply not good enough. Instead, through innovation and creativity in various industries we can have a shot at improving the environment, even if that means we cannot fix everything.

I agree with Laura's point about Cradle to Cradle serving as a positive example for us to look to in comparison to the other viewpoints we have been dealing with in class. It was interesting to hear what the authors of the book had to say about individuals such as Malthus, who for many years served as primary voices on this kind of negative emotion in relation to the environment that the authors try to stray away from. Yes, the world is in bad shape, especially when it comes to a lack of individual action in regard to saving the environment, but we can still work to improve it.

One of my favorite parts of the book dealt with the Ford Plant where the engineer came into the office and was not convinced in the beginning that new creative ways in dealing with the environment were practical or even sensible. However, this particular engineer later contributed to the effective changes that were made to the Ford Plant. If anything, this example shows how much creativity can inspire anyone to seek change in the world. Even though something such as restructuring the Ford Plant can seem out of reach and sometimes impossible at first, there are people out there who are ready to make sacrifices and develop new ideas in order to improve the current system. It is not something that is not going to be easy, but it is still worth a try.

Overall, I thought this book was very successful in showing how 'being less bad is not good enough,' but instead we must work together no matter our different backgrounds or interests, in order to use our skills and expertise together in a way that can benefit all of us.

Cradle to Cradle

I am impressed with the concepts in the book Cradle to Cradle. It is hard to choose which area to talk about as there are so many new ideas that I must admit to never having thought of before. I will discuss two, eco-effectiveness and using Corporations and business rather than Government and regulations to address environmental problems.

I have always been guilty of thinking in an eco-efficient manner; the only solution lies in producing and consuming less. Improving the environment will take sacrifices and people are not willing to make such sacrifices, therefore the prospects for any real environmental change remains remote. The idea of eco-effectiveness or designing a more environmentally friendly world is a fascinating new way of looking at the problem and, it seems to me, a realistic way to slove these problems. I think people would be excited to support (consume) many shiny new eco-products with the same vigor as any other product and that they would even have a “trendy” quality to them. It is clear that taking things away from people will never be a lasting solution, but re-designing the things people want in a way that is not environmentally destructive could be the answer.

I must admit that my first reaction to involving Industry and Corporations in the solution to the problems of the environment turned me off. After all they are the enemy and cannot be trusted! The Corporations are the greed-mongers whose only ambition is to make more and more useless stuff, and then convince us that we cannot live without this stuff. However, I can see that the best way to truly address environmental problems is not solely through Government and regulations, but through the producers. True environmental change must come from those that are causing the majority of the problem in the first place, the Corporations. McDonough and Braungart are truly sensible to realize that if change does not come from the manufacturers that it will probably not come from anyone.

Cradle to Cradle has definitely made me think in new and positive ways about how our environmental problems can be fixed. They will not be fixed by essentially telling everyone to stop consuming; they must be fixed through innovations of design and a new paradigm of thinking.

Good Thinking

McDonough and Braungart’s work to redefine and rethink design is incredibly creative and thoughtful. I am easily convinced by optimistic people with creative ideas – and in that respect have a difficult time being objective enough to foresee potential failures or flaws of their model. Isn’t it hard to discredit the ideas of people who want to design in a way that replenishes, restores, and nourishes the rest of the world?

The idea to rethink design is brilliant. Of all the “options” we’ve studied in class so far, I think there are more opportunities for success under the model that McDonough and Braungart propose than anything else. Perhaps this is because of the optimism with which they approach the challenges of industry and protecting the environment – may sound cheesy, but it’s pretty inspiring. Their design plans seem to be intricate and thorough, they aim to collaborate with members of the international community, and their integration of different academic areas suggests the kind of partnership we need to effectively change broken systems that are hurting the environment.

I really like how McDonough and Braungart challenge our current notion of efficiency. There is definitely a drive to be efficient in the U.S., not only in industry but in our daily lives. Living life at a rapid and “effective” pace is the norm in some parts of the country – for those of us who grew up near cities in the Northeast, you assume living life at 100 mph is the way to live. But they’re right – we don't have to accept that or believe it to be an end -- who wants to live a life of complete efficiency? And if we rely on technology to get us out of this environmental mess, is that where we are headed? By using nature as our model for design, we are more likely to effectively signal and meet the interests of industry, environmentalists, and workers, protect our planet, respect biodiversity, and seek fulfillment from the natural world.

My lame Dr. Seuss poem...

I’ll go to Whole foods to help the environment.
I’ll buy bushels of organic in all their refinement.
Carrots, and cucumbers, and all the right stuff.
I’ll fill up my basket, will it be enough?
But the problem, you see, is not in organic.
It is buying food that was grown in Chile, Nepal, and all the Slovanics!
Shipping it here uses so much gas.
That at the end of the day, it would be better to fast!

Ok, I'll do number 2. See you guys in class!

Thanks Rachel!

I'll research #1 Efficiency-Dave

Lorax part deux

If the Earth could speak, what would it say?

What would it be like to walk in Earth's shoes for a day?

Is it impossible? A feat only to be imagined within our minds?

No! it's quite easy. You only need to understand Earth's language: signs.

Take the ocean for instance, a liquid enigma once vibrant and alive;

is being over-fished, making it difficult for these ecosystems to repopulate and survive.

The ocean is viewed as a profitable territory that humans believe they inherently own;

and through careless irrigation techniques, their pollution has turned it into a dead zone.

Tuesday's Class.

Hi everyone...we need to split up the research for our Tuesday, November 11th class.

Here are the directions, again:

The simulation is about climate change policy and action. You will be asked in your blog groups to weigh up 15 or so different policy and technology options for tackling climate change. You will then be asked to choose (and justify your choice of) 7 of those options.

The 15 different options are grouped into 4 categories:
1. Efficiency
2. Decarbonization of power
3. Decarbonization of fuel
4. Forests and agricultural soils

Each member of your blog group to take responsibility for researching one of these categories. That way, when we get together on Tuesday you will be able to have a detailed, informed discussion of our different choices.

What this means is that you should:
1) decide who in your group will research which category (if there are 5 in your group, just assign 2 people to one of the categories);
2) watch this short flash movie describing the exercise and the different options (www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Stab_Wedges_Movie.swf); and
3)go to this website and read the information about each of the options in your category (www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/wedgesumtb.htm)

I am researching #4 Forests and Ag. Soils, so we just need people to sign up and research #1-3. 1. Efficiency
2. Decarbonization of power
3. Decarbonization of fuel

Feel free to comment on this post on which one you will be researching. Good luck with your papers, and see you tomorrow!

Lorax

It’s time to step up as citizens and act,
As consumers we are on the wrong track,
The Oncler wants us to purchase those thneeds,
But the planet cannot survive without presence of trees!

What does purchasing thneeds mean anyway?
Do they make us happier, day by day?
Our value should not be determined by buying,
Let's listen to the Lorax and stop our denying

The structures of the world may perpetuate the issues,
But now is not the time to sit and sniffle in a tissue,
Together, as citizens, we can lobby the Senate!
Make the public aware, with cartoons by Clay Bennett

Your voice is powerful; don’t listen to the nay-sayers,
The skeptics, the deniers, and the delayers,
Let’s consider science carefully and not just reject,
The figures that the IPCC projects,

We can set up farmers markets in our hometowns,
Support local farmers from tumbling down,
Into a market system that will make you frown,
Together we can protect our planet from the North, South, all-around!

Global warming is not a partisan topic,
It’s an issue for Washington, Beijing, and the tropics,
No longer the days of President Reagan,
President Obama, let’s get on the road to Copenhagen!

Environmental Wake-Up Call

I was really impressed by Van Jones' idea to aggressively fight environmental problems through coming up with real solutions that are both practical and reasonable for every individual to partake in. The reality is that saving the environment is not always about making sure that the international organizations and structures are doing their part, but also the individual needs to contribute in whatever way possible, so that living green is something that we can all work on.

Jones speaks of potential green jobs that can be created in order to effectively address the issue of climate change and to make sure that people are actively taking part in the fight toward saving our planet. Saving the planet through the creation of green jobs that bolster the economy and contribute to positive environmental progress can be attained, and it is still possible to make a difference. Many people are drawn away from environmental issues because they take on a kind of mentality where it is often times possible to detach oneself from the severity of the environmental problem. People don't want to believe that one day they could wake up and the world that they have lived in for so long is turning into an environmental war zone. It is hard for many people to care about the long-term effects of environmental problems, especially when that means making changes and sacrifices now that do not necessarily serve their self-interests in the present day, but instead focuses on future generations and sustainable development.

It is extremely scary to get caught up in all of the "what ifs" that may or may not happen when it comes to the state of environmental issues around the world. But, if we look at the hard facts on climate change issues specifically, we can see that the world in the past few decades has not gotten any better. The environmental issues have gained even more momentum as the Earth's temperatures continue to rise, the number of endangered species increases, and our willingness to take action still remains at a mediocre level as a global society. We speak of economic meltdowns on Wallstreet and the government comes to the rescue, yet when it comes to combating environmental issues many people choose to ignore the situation at hand. What does it really take to make a difference? What we do know is that we, as global citizens, must actively and aggressively lobby Congress as much as possible, so that our leaders look toward environmentally friendly solutions that are beneficial to us all. For example, increasing the amount of green jobs, as mentioned in the reading, as well as lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

There is no one solution to global climate change, but one thing that is for sure is that sooner or later there will be an environmental wake-up call in whatever catastrophic form it may take. However, instead we must listen to the wake-up call now! We cannot afford to wait any longer. The optimist in me believes that we can change the future, but at the same time I do not ignore that the environmental situation cannot fully be fixed at this point. That does not mean we should give up.

I fear that the real environmental wake-up call will come later when it is too late to change the current state of the environment. The only thing that will be left is that scientists, environmentalists, and others fighting for environmental change, will agree on one thing:

"I told you so."

Unleashing Green at the bottom

I thought the ideas that Van Jones presented were brilliant. Something that has been heard time and again from politicians is the need for job creation. I have yet to see them do anything about it. Van Jones proposes a solution with benefits that are twofold: create green jobs, save the environment. His idea proposes a job training program, that would teach people from low income areas to install solar panels and other green technologies in homes and businesses. I also liked how he said that he wanted to target younger people. So many people from my high school never go to college, either because they think they aren't good enough (Clark County is one of the worst school districts in the country) or they can not afford it. Many of them find jobs working in the casino industry, or join the military. As much as I want everyone to get their education and I always try to encourage everyone to go, the reality is, is that school is not cut out for everybody. I know there are nursing programs and paralegal certification, but sometimes that option may be too difficult for people. Providing jobs that are more manual labor intensive, can appeal to almost everyone.

There is always talk about how we need to save the environment, and no one ever does anything about it because they don't really see how they can benefit from it. Van Jones proposes training people in the green trade, and then they are using their knowledge to transition homes, and are getting paid for it. He also brought up the point that it is nigh impossible to outsource to China, so it creates more job protection at home. I like his approach to going green because he incorporates the business aspect of it. Which I think is more effective than passing out pamphlets and telling people that they should care about the environment.

Blue to Green

I’m glad it was brought up in the discussion question post -- I was definitely down after our intro to climate change on Friday. It’s hard to be optimistic about the planet’s future when you consider how many resources and systems we’ve altered and destroyed in a very short period of time.

There was a quote in one of the readings about concerned people who keep the environment in mind. For those who are looking for reasonable ways to effect change – those who are looking for some “sort of medium” – where do they start? If effective environmental action is what we’re after, I think Van Jones has the right vision.

I’m impressed by Van Jones and his work: address two of the biggest problems in the U.S. in order to change the reality of both situations. He’s exactly right, if you’re worried about putting food on the table, it’s unlikely that building solar panels and protecting coral reefs are items high on your to-do list. But instead of focusing on the bleakness of the situations Jones sees opportunity: what if addressing such environmental problems enables you to put food on the table? I hope that his work is met by some success – I am a little skeptical that blue-collar can become entirely green but will remain optimistic. At the very least, the growing green collar job movement challenges the rest of us to think of creative ways to protect the planet. What other creative ideas do people have (or could we think of) in order to address climate change?

**I clicked on the "Dot Earth" section of the NYT and came across this: if you haven't seen it, you may want to check it out. http://www.350.org/

Ideas from TED

Activist Van Jones has figured out the most important idea in politics, George Lakoff’s notion of framing a political argument. In this case that “going green” is more important than merely saving the environment, something that is understandably obtuse for someone living in the inner city, and framed it to be about creating a wealth of new job opportunities. The kinds of arguments, such as green jobs and climate change as a national security issue, are the ones that are going to change public perceptions and encourage genuine action on the part of the public and government.
While climate change does represent an extraordinary threat I have just begun to learn, in this class and my Energy Politics class, about all the ideas that are out there trying to solve these problems. It seems to only be a matter of political and public will to demand changes. Some cool examples of ideas floating around out there can be found on an amazing website called simply TED for Technology, Entertainment and Design:

www.ted.com

Specifically, Paul Stamets on 6 ways mushrooms can save the world:

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html

Also, controversial but fascinating ideas from David Kieth on slowing global warming:

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

I believe that ideas such as Van Jones’ addressing climate change in terms of job potential to lower income sectors is a positive way that allows for real change in people’s lives and can only bring about the kind of political and public will needed to create genuine action rather than just rhetorical hand-wringing.