People all over the United States are joining
the revolution and showing they care about the environment by going green.
Whether it is using reusable bags at Whole Foods, buying recycled paper, or
planting trees to moderate the amount of carbon in the air, many people hope
that these collaborative eco-friendly efforts will somehow slowdown or hinder
the realities of global warming. With the talk of climate changes and global
warming, neighborhoods such as Savannah have implemented recycling programs, even
claiming how fines should be placed to encourage others to participate in the
act. However, researchers are saying that the efforts of recycling are not
enough, and ends up negatively impacting the economy and environment even further.
Daniel Ettehadieh from the University of
Maryland explains how curbside recycling programs, like the one mentioned in
Savannah, actually make cities “spend $200 more than it would spend to dispose
of that waste into a landfill”. And although some may argue that the environmental
benefits would be beneficial in the long run, the Environmental Protection
Agency reported that “recycling 100 tons of old newsprint generates 40 tons of
toxic waste” along with the increased amount of trucks on the road that adds to
air and noise pollution.
There are many routes that we can take, starting
with accepting that global warming is a prominent threat. The Washington Post
surveyed scientists and the public, showing the differences in knowledge
between the two. Simply educating the public would help them understand how
their actions really influence the environment, instead of promoting the blind
actions of recycling. Once this happens, the public would be able to understand
the changes in the environment and make educated decisions to take effective
actions.
In 1965, James Lovelock was one of the first to
predict that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. He claims it is
too late to take sustainable routes in attempts to offset the carbon in the
atmosphere, and instead, we need to accept the fact that global warming may be
irreversible. I believe that global warming is a problem we’ll have to deal
with sooner than we think, and I, too, admit that I let myself believe that simply
recycling would somehow prevent this issue. James, along with Obama, believes
that nuclear power is the answer. We must now face the issue head on, and use
our technology to make wise decisions for future generations.
http://www.english.umd.edu/interpolations/2601
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/
Great article, but after reading it I'm left wondering... why do Obama and Lovelock think that nuclear power is the answer? My curiosity led me to read the article you listed from The Guardian and while it doesn't explain any better why Lovelock thinks nuclear power is the answer, I did notice that it said he predicts 80% of the population will be eliminated by 2100! That could very well be in our (fellow U of M students) lifetime! I personally fell under the "global warming is somewhat serious" category, but now I believe that it's a very serious problem. Please, anyone else who views this blog post, read the Guardian article in its entirety because we really do need to educate the public on the severity of this issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amanda on the Guardian article. As for the article by Jane, I do agree on some points but disagree on a few as well. Maybe going green may not be cost effective for the government but that is not true for trying to use biodegradable resources. For example you could throw away your fruit and vegetable waste into the trash everyday or you could dig up a compost pit in your backyard or in a garden and ensure that this biodegradable waste can return back to the soil and provide vital nutrients to plants growing around it. Yes maybe recycling paper may come with huge consequences and costs associated with it but at least people are making an effort to do something good for the environment. They have the right thought and motivation but might just be misinformed. There may be huge repercussions to a lot of ideas and projects that aim to bring sustainable living to this planet and ensure that the environment is protected but at least people are not giving up and trying their best to save the world for future generations. What we need to do is inform everyone of the current state of the environment with facts, evidence and a plan to keep it safe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/run-a-business/going-green/measure-cost-effectiveness-of-efforts-to-go-green.aspx
You bring up a good point that I ask myself sometimes too. I have also questioned the movement here at UofM to participate in sustainable dining by using no trays and preplating food. When I attended a summit last year about it, they claimed that trayless policies discourage people from grabbing more food than they can actually eat, which is supposed to cut down on food waste. I beg to differ that this does not actually do much for students from what I watch in the dining halls and what I see in the dishroom. The amount of food that comes back on plates is still substantial and trays did not do much more to stop that. You have to wonder when more research will come out about whether our efforts are really worth it in terms of sustainability and going green. If the research is already out there, is our society just choosing to ignore it?
ReplyDeleteEveryone is bringing up very good points, and I'd just like to add that recycling isn't the only method of "going green" that has unintended detrimental results. Studies have shown that hybrid cars and alternate fuels, which the public would like to think are "green," often require more carbon dioxide in their production that offset the benefits.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, for 2014 Formula 1 racing has adopted a hybrid regenerative engine and maximum fuel intake per race for all cars, in the hopes of contributing to the future of the "green" initiative. However, the sport has since come under fire for neglecting the hundreds of gas-guzzling trucks, vans, and planes that carry the equipment from continent to continent each weekend during the season. If the sport truly wanted to go green, and not just give the illusion, all of the behind-the-scenes work would become green, not just the twenty-two cars that the public sees.
This is just another example of the unintended, and sometimes intended, consequences of the "green initiative." It takes much research, and not just one simple act, to contribute throughout the entire chain of production. And unless the entire chain of production goes green, often there are detriments that offset the benefits of doing it.