Derek Fisher's EMSC 240N Energy & Sustainability in Contemporary Culture Blog

Believe it or not, this picture completely makes sense and ties together both topics.

Topic 1: Chapter X (Ten) The New Pangea – pp. 195-198, pp.205-209

Mankind’s participation in creating essentially a new Pangea was very enlightening in that it provided academic depth to what I had previously only had parcels to. I sail. I still have a sloop in Waukegan, WI that is forlornly sitting in dry dock. Why this is relevant to this topic is because I was very aware of an invasive species threatening Lake Michigan. That species is the Asian Carp. I also knew about the issue with kudzu here in the south, and my least favourite animal of all time, the fire ant is really making my life miserable down in Texas. So I had some pretty extensive personal familiarity with invasive species, but I didn’t connect the dots like the New Pangea concept does.

My previously held belief was that humans were responsible for introducing more invasive species than if we didn’t exist. What I didn’t realize was the immense scale that this alien introduction is occurring at. Unsurprisingly, there is a plethora of information supporting the severity of this issue. The chapter discussed the accelerated introduction of invasive species to Hawaii at one a month (p.211)  but it is believed that up to 42% of all threatened or endangered species are at risk because of invasive species. Before mankind landed on Hawaii’s shores, the frequency of a new species arriving was one every ten thousand years, or still faster than a Spirit airlines flight from Dallas to Chicago. The alarming rapidity compared to once every thirty days to once every ten thousand years gives very compelling rationality to scientists calling our earth a New Pangea. Scary stuff when you really think about it.

Sources:

https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Threats-to-Wildlife/Invasive-Species

Founded in 1936 by Ding Darling (totally not making that up) the National Wildlife Federation is the nation’s largest private 501(c)3 conservation organization. It currently has six million members. I remember the NWF from its children’s magazine Ranger Rick.

Topic 2 Chapter XI (Eleven) The Rhino Gets an Ultrasound

or as I alliteratively call it:

Maoris Murder and Menace Massive Multitudes of Moas

In the picture above, you can see I am wearing an All Blacks jersey. Like Charlie Brown’s black jagged striped shirt, I pretty much am always wearing an All Blacks jersey when I’m not suiting it up Barney Stinson style. The All Blacks are the national rugby team of New Zealand, and I have many kiwi mates and am pretty much an honourary New Zealander. I can perform different hakas so I have heard of the moa before.

I suppose a Western style myth is that aboriginal tribes like the Native Americans and the Maoris are much deeply connected to nature and live within their means. There is an assumed respect for the environment because these tribes and cultures have a greater commensal relationship with nature. I was very surprised to read in this book that by the time European settlers arrived in the 1800’s, all the moas on both islands were extinct.  (p.232)

Due to my previously held beliefs, I would have bet the farm that the last moa died at the hands of an English explorer or sailor who didn’t realize just how imperiled they really were. For once, English sailors can’t be blamed for the moa’s demise, although I looked really hard to try and make this so. Alas, not only did the Maori rely on the moa for food, but they attacked the moa at all life cycle stages, from egg to adulthood. This is a pretty spectacular way to stress the population. It is believed that once the Maori arrived, very few moas ever got to collect social security checks. Several aspects hurt the moa’s chances. First of all, rumour has it that they are absolutely delicious. It would be much better if they tasted like a freezer burned hot pocket or supermarket sushi, but they did not. Secondly, they are really, really, really big birds. Larger animals do not reproduce as quickly. Moas had no predators, but also, there was no diversity of animal life in New Zealand. No lizards, mammals, or amphibians made it to Aotearoa. People can talk about a place being for the birds, well, New Zealand really was. The invasive species that spelled their doom were human beings. Large, tattooed rugby gods that probably tackled Big Bird into oblivion.

Sources:

MorellMar, Virginia, et al. “Why Did New Zealand’s Moas Go Extinct?” Science | AAAS, 10 Dec. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/why-did-new-zealands-moas-go-extinct.

Science Magazine is a peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science founded in 1880. Interesting fact: less than 7% of all articles submitted are accepted for publication (according to Wikipedia)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOMXm8mfwBc

 

Challenge 1: Species Area Relationships

If it involves math, it is guaranteed to challenge my way of thinking. I was plodding happily along this book enjoying the fact there was very little math when: BOOM! A formula arrived. Several drinks later, I decided to really explore what this meant.

In Chapter VIII (8 for non-Romans) The Forest and the Trees, starting on page 165 and ending on 167, the Species Area Relationship (SAR) is discussed. It was stated that SAR is a universally held truth. In mathematical terms, it looks something like this:

If you graph it out, it looks something like this:

Source: http://dnaofbioscience.blogspot.com/2017/01/species-area-relationship.html

A concept that was introduced in the 1960’s, like the book says, it’s so simple that it is self evident. Or is it? For example, if you look at the biodiversity of 1 sq. mile to 2 sq. miles, it’s exponentially higher. However, if you go from 50 sq. miles to 100 sq. miles, it will not even double. It is not a linear equation.

The thing that is interesting to me is why it isn’t a logarithmic line but an exponential vertical relationship in the intermediate area range. What is it about the first couple of miles that effects biodiversity in such a dramatic way?

And that this holds true regardless of environment blew my mind. I felt that surely in a polar/arctic region this would not hold true. This is explained in the exponent z for variables to consider. One of the contributors to SAR is latitude. At higher latitudes, species richness is general lower. The prevailing theory behind this is that these regions are “newer” regarding biological life and therefore do not have the length of time to develop new species.

In the study The Latitudinal Gradient of Species‐Area Relationships for Vascular Plants of North America what was very interesting was the graphs provided of different latitudinal zones in North America and the biodiversity found in them. The higher the latitude, the more linear the relationship became.

Sources:

Qian, Hong, et al. “The Latitudinal Gradient of Species‐Area Relationships for Vascular Plants of North America.” The American Naturalist, vol. 170, no. 5, 17 Sept. 2007, pp. 690–701., doi:10.1086/521960.

What really surprised me is that there was greater biodiversity in Zone 4 than there was in Zone 3. Zone 4 is the upper latitude and Zone 3 was just below that. If LDG really is a factor, then it must be the inverse, yet it wasn’t. I’m still looking into why that is the case. If you know the answer to this, don’t be selfish and share with me please, because it really will drive me nuts.

This work was peer reviewed and published in the American Naturalist. It includes the works of the Illinois State Museum, Syracuse University and Oklahoma State University.

Challenge 2: Is there really no life next to vents in the ocean?

In Chapter VI (Six) The Sea Around Us, starting on p. 116 but really discussed on pp. 122 is the lack of biodiversity directly next to seabed vents spewing almost 100% CO2.

The closer the reefs got to the vents, the less biodiversity existed, until there was no signs of life directly next to the vents. The pH level directly next to the vent is simply too acidic for the surrounding ecosystem. The tipping point of acidity is a pH balance of 8. The pH around the vents are 7.8 This is viewed as inhospitable. Or is it?

The diversity of life means that there are few impossible obstacles to sustaining life. It is thought that smaller sized fish would be able to adjust to pH levels around 7.8. The issue is that the change in environment would occur faster than nature’s ability to evolve and adapt. There are microorganisms that flourish in acidic environments and the more accurate statement would be that life as we know it would not exist, but the foundation for an entire new set of flora and fauna would result.

Through my search, I have not found any academic research that supports the idea that current environments wouldn’t be devastated by rising pH levels. Academia seems to be solidly united that ocean acidification is an existential threat to ALL life on this planet.

The research beyond the book just really vary on the severity of the consequences. Arguing that all life stops in acidic waters is missing the forest for the trees. Many of the things that are important to us – shellfish, coral reefs, large tasty fish – those components do not fare well in pH levels below 8.

So while technically I might be right that there is some life that can exist in acidic waters, the point is thoroughly stupid because the mass extinction of marine habitats radically alters the bioverse and nature cannot replace the lost species with new ones based on different conditions in the same amount of time that it took to destroy the current ocean’s flora and fauna.

Sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2841714.htm

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/top-ten-places-where-life-shouldnt-exist-but-does-144112310/

The sources provided are from respected and acknowledged scientific resources. The video was produced by the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and was originally aired on Discovery Planet Green channel.

 

1.Briefly describe your understanding of the relationship between anthropogenic climate change and biodiversity.

A. My current understanding is that anthropogenic climate change is the largest threat to biodiversity that has existed since asteroids the size of  Fresno were slamming into the earth. I believe this because there are very few things that human beings do to this planet that can be put in the “good” column.

B. I suppose I have come to this conclusion by watching too many BBC documentaries narrated by David Attenborough. They are literally my favourite thing to fall asleep to, so I’m constantly watching them. If True Facts with Zefrank was an hour long, Mr. Attenborough would be immediately sacked and my dreams would get even more interesting. This topic is one that is of strong interest to me, because I am fascinated with the arrogance of mankind to believe that an earthworm or a plankton doesn’t really matter. And in fact, they really, really do.

C. I believe that I have investigated this belief fairly extensively. I do possess the lethal trifecta of: insomnia combined with curiosity combined with news addiction. I do not get to read cool stories of species being taken off the endangered species or threatened species very often. My belief that my opinion is correct is strong. How strong? As strong as a Shetland pony. That is an Eddie Izzard Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader British accent reference.

2. Briefly describe your understanding of the severity of the impact of human society on biodiversity.

A. I guess I jumped the gun here and partially answered this question with the answer above. We have a really good chance of making an entire planet that could be the set of  Mad Max Fury Road. While this is very good news for Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron, it is really, really bad news for the rest of us.  I believe this because I also support the WWF (World Wildlife Foundation) and I am consistently being told that we need to protect wildlife from human beings.

B. I have come to this conclusion because the only things that seem to be doing well in this world at the moment are fire ants and jellyfish. Two of my least favourite creatures ever to evolve from single celled organisms of the ocean. I literally just had a discussion with someone about the idea of transplanting polar bears from the Arctic to the Antarctic because of the loss of habitat that is occurring. When asked, my suggestion on what to feed them was Trump supporters. His response was to wave his MAGA hat he had in a really cocky manner, in my opinion.

C. I also subscribe to National Geographic and actually read the articles.  This has resulted in perhaps a broader understanding of our planet and the flora and fauna that abound or at least used to. So I guess my belief of this opinion is also very strong.

3.Briefly describe how urgent you believe it is that we address biodiversity loss on a global scale.

A. Biodiversity loss is an existential crisis that scientists are really doing a lousy job of explaining in a way that the masses can understand. Perhaps if Pete Davidson and Ariana Grande got matching tattoos that said: We’re Doomed if Biodiversity and Mass Species Extinction Isn’t Addressed and we had a GoFundMe campaign for it, it might get more attention. Dan, these are really depressing questions. I really wish you hadn’t slammed me for the Yoda post, because I’m getting pretty bummed out over here. 

B. I have come to this conclusion because I’m the idiot that complains that local towns don’t have their own varietals of apples anymore. I’m also a little concerned that we might not have bananas anymore because we decided it was a good idea that all bananas should look alike and so the Cavendish banana is all we got for the most part and it’s about to be wiped out due to fungal issues that are, well, it’s a private issue for the bananas, and HIPAA rules and all, I just can’t mention it here on a public forum.

C.  Investigation is a relative concept. Can I give a TED talk about biodiversity? Absolutely not. However, I do know that there are undiscovered wonders in the rain forest, in the ocean, and in Ziggy Marley’s dreadlocks that may never be known because they will have vanished before we ever get to find out what they are. Of course, I still haven’t planted my wild seed packet that I got from Cheerios to fight the loss of bees, so I guess I really can’t give myself a very strong in my belief rating, a strong rating is as high as I can go.

The tarsier is endangered. Videos like this will be harder to make with fewer cool animals like the tarsier.

The New York Times

Currently being critized as a leader in “Fake News”, the NY Times has won 125 Pulitzer Prizes and has been around since 1851. It is the second largest by circulation newspaper in the US (Yours truly is a subscriber and very proficient completer of the crossword puzzle).  While the editorial deparment is perceived to be liberal, there are few news outlets as respected as the NY Times for journalistic integrity. So suck it, Trump. The NY Times as a whole is completely unbiased.

The Wall Street Journal

Who has two thumbs and is the most circulated newspaper in America? This guy! (I subscribe to this newspaper, as well) Recipient of 37 Pulitzer Prizes, this newspaper embraces free market capitalism and has a natural pro-business lean towards its viewpoints. Even though it is a conservative-leaning newspaper, the WSJ does a superb job of providing detailed reporting regarding economic and business issues that few newspapers can match. The WSJ is largely unbiased, but not 100% so.

The Heritage Foundation

Few things originating from beer are ever good things, and the Heritage Foundation started from seed capital provided by Coors. This organization was created due to the belief that Richard Nixon. Yes, that Richard Nixon, was too liberal. The first sentence in the About Heritage states the promotion of conservative public policies. This organization is the epitome of unbiased.

What a diverse group of people!

The Brookings Institute

The Brookings Institute is a public policy think research “think tank” located in Washington, DC. Equally cited and adored/loathed by the left and the right, that fact alone makes it an unbiased source. In the What We Stand For section, it states: “Brookings’s commitment to institutional independence is rooted in the individual independence of its scholars. Therefore, the Institution does not take positions on issues.” They truly seem to strive to achieve that objective. Therefore, the Brookings Institute is an unbiased organization.

Economic Policy Institute

On the other side of the Heritage Foundation lies the Economic Policy Institute. A little bit more discreet, the EPI claims nonpartisan ideals, but does immediately disclose attention to “the needs of low and middle income workers in economic policy discussions”. What this means is that there is a decided bias to pro-labor and because of that, it must be categorized as a biased organization.

Derek Fisher

This left-wing lunatic nutjob was established in 1974. His father served as chief aide to Gus Yatron (D) PA 6th for ten years. While he was surrounded by a staunchly conservative community and has been in industries like financial services and oil&gas, this stalwart of progressive principles has not moved to a more centrist position. His policy statements include universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, environmental protection and conservation, decriminalizing marijuana, and classifying Republicans as a hate group.

Writer’s Note: I am not currently under the influence of anything except too little sleep and overload from 8 classes (the last pot smoked was 25 years ago!). The following post will be written as if a very stoned Yoda was answering your questions. My last post depressed the hell out of you, so this is my attempt to provide a contrasting experience.

1. Mmmmmm, interview interesting, this was. Structure to answer, very difficult.
   1. Lights go out more often you say? Problem this is. Mmmmm. Very large problem. Tee hee hee.
      1. Truthful, this statement is. Look to google, you must.
         https://blog.schneider-electric.com/power-management-metering-monitoring-power-quality/2017/03/24/power-outages-impact-averted/
      2. 285% percent increase we have. Failures to the system occur. 33 years the time it examines. $15 billion dollars it costs. Hmmmm, the dark side is strong in this country. Stronger than other developed nations, it is.
      3. Search your feelings, Dan. Numbers cannot lie. Mathematics is your friend.
      4. Although French this company is, Schneider Electric is also your friend. No benefit does Schneider have to lie. Good source you find.
   2. Boring lady say free electricity? Dagobah have, we should! X-wing fighter require much power it does. Lower bill, Yoda want.
      1. Also true, this statement is. Powerful in truth Gretchen has. Appealing name, alas, she does not.  (Seriously, Gretchen Bakke is a truly unfortunate name).
      2. https://www.txu.com/residential/plans/free-nights-solar-days.aspx the proof you seek.
      3. TXU Energy offers plan, they do. Customer service, alas, they do not. The dark side is strong with this company. Be careful, we must. I sense great bait and switch tactics ahead. Mmmm.
      4. Accurate this information is! Enrolled in Free Nights & Solar Days 12, Derek has!
2. Bakke mentions that battery storage will be a very important aspect of making the grid reliable and mentions a few possible methods – vehicle to grid, molten salt, Sisyphus train, Tesla’s power wall, pumped storage hydro, salt domes. Pick one of these sources and briefly:
   1. 1. A salt dome you say? Wise is your choice. Impermeable to air, salt dome is. React with oxygen, salt does not. Underground Tupperware®, I think this is.
      2. Creation of brine, salt dome can. Leaching into water, it could. Many people fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Salt in water difficult to use. Sustainable, I think not.
      3. Collapse, salt dome can. Sinkhole it creates. Dangerous a sinkhole is. Know when the collapse, we cannot. Not knowing leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Toward the end of the interview, Bakke mentions that “there’s not a shortage problem” when it comes to renewables. In other words, there is more than enough renewable energy available, but the storage and other issues are preventing 100% renewables from becoming a reality.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/how-energy-storage-works#.W7aWk2hKhhE

Adventure. Excitement. The Union of Concerned Scientists craves not these things. Since 1969 this organization seeks truth it has.

Storing the power currently (ha ha ha, pun intended) the problem is. Many technologies possess we do. Problem be solved, indeed, it can!

An unconcerned scientist, reliable he’s not. Search within the title, the truth awaits you. 

https://www.popsci.com/the-world-can-power-itself-with-renewable-energy

Respected magazine, Popular Science is. Read as youth, Derek has. Happy childhood have, he did not. Yes, nerd, he may have been. Nerd, he continues to be. Strange nerd that can destroy you on rugby pitch, he is. Tee hee hee.

https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/the-energy-debate-renewable-energy-cannot-replace-fossil-fuels/

Valid points this article has. Truth cannot be what we desire, but solely what is. Difficult is the path to completely renewable energy consumption. Troubling times for this galaxy, I see. Single malt scotch, I must have.

 

 

 

• Describe the item that challenged your thinking and how it contradicts what you had previously thought or known.

Greenwashing is a relatively new concept for me that I really explored this summer with some of my ESP classes. While I knew of the concept, I wasn’t really prepared for the depth and extent of the deceit that occurs on a daily basis with institutions that exploit our trust. It makes me want to want to bulldoze every marketing class in every college.

• Identify why you thought the way you did before. Was it something you learned in school, a friend, the internet, etc.?

I suppose I believed from my own experiences running a marketing firm that we had a responsibility to paint the best picture in an ethical manner. I always told my employees that my definition of marketing was:

“An attempt to communicate a message”

I didn’t consider the fact that the message might be one that is not completely founded in truth but a message distorted in the prism of distortion. I suppose we are all guilty of it somewhat, in some manner or another.

• Do you think that your previously held position was influenced by bias in any way? Was the position based on un-investigated assumptions?

As someone with a 13 year background in financial services, I really should know better the power of a profit motive. Idealistically, I suppose I want to believe in the better instincts of humanity to do the right thing when faced with the option of truth or deception. My bias is that people are inherently good entities. Businesses are comprised of people, so businesses must be good entities as well. There are so many logical fallacies to this that it’s just a galactically stupid statement. And yet, I so desperately want this to be concretely true.

• Are you rethinking your previously held position or not, and why? What evidence changed your mind, or reinforced your previously held position?

I don’t think I am quite ready to claim that all businesses lie, capitalism is terrible, disengage from society and start writing manifestos. But I am now much more cynical when it comes to all messages and will strive to fact check to the best of my ability every claim that I hear, even the most innocuous. As we explore more and more aspects of this class, it becomes more and more apparent that the vast majority of pillars of society are really just smoke and mirrors.

Being in the Oil & Gas industry allows me a potential greater familiarity with many of the energy sources we went over this week. The company that I used to work for, CB&I, got into massive financial trouble because of the issues that came with the most recent acquisition of the Shaw Group several years ago.  There was a big bet made by the Shaw Group in nuclear power, which dried up quickly after Fukushima and massive cost overruns on the two nuclear projects that Shaw was the EPC firm for. I also dealt with cutting-edge proprietary gasification technologies for coke (coal) and petcoke (refining residue from petroleum) and therefore have familiarities with  nuclear and coal.

Having said that, I did manage to learn something new in this week’s module!

1. Describe the item that challenged your thinking and how it contradicts what you had previously thought or known. A: Levelized Cost of Electricity is a concept that completely makes sense but wasn’t fully articulated before. I’ve expounded upon this before when talking about the benefits and value of renewable energy to the Chicago-based consumer for ComEd. I ran a company that was responsible for the enrollment of Chicago consumers to a renewable energy option based on the partial deregulation of electricity.
2. Identify why you thought the way you did before. Was it something you learned in school, a friend, the internet, etc.? A: My way of thinking was based on the economics of technological implementation vs operation. In 2010, it was still exorbitantly expensive to build windmills and fields of SPV cells. I factored in the similar benefit of nuclear energy, which is that the facilities can run a long period of time. If one amortized the initial cost of production of the renewable energy over the lifetime of the facility, I was arguing that renewable energy would have lower LCOE than coal and natural gas. The primary driver of this was the operational costs of solar and wind are minimal. We do not have to worry about the pension plan for the wind. We do not have to worry about COLA wage adjustments for the sun. Coal and Natural Gas plants have significant operational costs on wages alone, and besides occasional maintenance and repair, solar and wind do not have those costs.
3. Do you think that your previously held position was influenced by bias in any way?  Was the position based on un-investigated assumptions? A: I believe as I was tasked with enrolling customers into a renewable energy program that I was carrying a fair bit of bias into my argument and belief. The investigation of my claims were at the time not necessary, as it was simple economic fact and the laws of amortization are not negotiable.
4. Are you rethinking your previously held position or not, and why? What evidence changed your mind, or reinforced your previously held position? A: What is nice now is that because of advancements in technology and economies of scale, the upfront cost of building renewable facilities is nowhere near as high as they used to be. This means that the break even point for energy producers is much quicker and the savings can be passed on to the consumer. Something that isn’t mentioned very often and I believe is often overlooked is the contributing value that the existing facilities have on affordability. The concept of economies of scale really takes off after surpassing a certain threshold of units produced. We apparently have finally surpassed that number. Electricity costs can start creaping to the low single digits at this pace and producers still “generate” a profit. Ha ha ha, pun intended.

Here are some thoughts that correspond to the assignment and then I’m going to go on an additional lengthy tangent because I’m so bothered about what my thoughts are.

1. Describe the item that challenged your thinking and how it contradicts what you had previously thought or known:

A: I was watching the video from the Khan Academy regarding Environmental Justice and it hit me like a folding chair at a pro-wrestling event. I was under the impression that we, as a global community, are all in this fight for environmental justice together. I am coming to the conclusion that the reality of this is very, very far from the truth. Really, the fight for environmental justice is square in the laps of myself and people like me. The haves. To place some of the responsibility on the have-nots is flat out ridiculous. And grossly unjust.

2. Identify why you thought the way you did before. Was it something you learned in school, a friend, the internet, etc.?

A: I suppose due to my progressive leanings I was under the belief that everyone had an equal stake in this. My interest in this major was because I wanted to make a difference, but I knew that we all had to play a larger role in ensuring sustainable practices going forward. Social media probably played a large role in fostering and nurturing this belief. I suppose the hypocrisy of it all is that we, as Westerners, condescendingly point at the destruction of Amazon rainforest to support agriculture and grazing for beef that goes into our hamburgers that we cherish so much. We point at the local population in India burning wood instead of biofuel to stave off deforestation and soil erosion as we watch about it on our giant flat-screen televisions. You know what you don’t read a lot about? Why my household needs three damn televisions. There are only two people living here. That’s not including the two televisions sitting in storage in my garage.

3. Do you think that your previously held position was influenced by bias in any way?  Was the position based on un-investigated assumptions?

A: My previously held position was absolutely biased. It is a self-righteous, holier-than-though, hypocritical stance seeped in a supercilious notion that the best path forward is for developing countries to learn from our mistakes and not hold us really accountable for any of it, because, hey, we didn’t know any better. It’s a lot more fun and interesting to point out the shortcomings in others than looking in the mirror and taking a hard look at what we are doing wrong. Media here in the US doesn’t hold ourselves to the task, because, that’s not the American way.

4. Are you rethinking your previously held position or not, and why? What evidence changed your mind, or reinforced your previously held position?

A: I have concluded that the quest for environmental justice must be lead by the haves. I believe that the vast majority of the effort must come from people like myself because I helped create the vast majority of the issues. I suppose I already knew subconsciously the reality, but watching the video and having the benefits and the burden so starkly visualized made me realize the shocking inequity of it all. I’ve lived on pristine beach fronts twice in my life. I’ve lived in Greenwich Village, Wrigleyville, L’Exaimple, and the Galleria. These are all very nice neighbourhoods with access to many green spaces. I have had very little exposure to the burdens that the lower income and other people of colour besides myself have had to deal with.

Until today, I used to think I was a pretty aware individual regarding our issues with global climate change and sustainable practices. How could I not be? I’ve never owned an SUV, I recycle and try to get recycling programs started where ones didn’t exist before, I don’t go to Las Vegas because I don’t think a city where a city shouldn’t be is exactly a sane policy, I buy organic produce, I buy green electricity, blah blah blah blah blah

There was a lot of discussion in this module about ecological footprints. In spite of all my diligent and conscientious efforts to existing within my means, I have absolutely surpassed what my “fair” share of resources should be. I have over 40 dress shirts just in the colour white, for pete’s sake. Double that number for blues, stripes, and other assorted colours. This is AFTER I donated over half of my wardrobe to charity. The reality is that I am too lazy to do laundry or go to the dry cleaners, so it suited my lifestyle better for me to just buy new clothes. This is not hyperbolic. When I played semi-pro rugby, my tradition was to wear a new pair of socks for every game and practice. I just liked the feeling of new cotton on my feet.  I would give the once-worn socks to my teammates and on to the new pair for the next time. Nobody needs as many pairs of shoes that I have, although thank goodness I had them, as our second dog had a penchant for chewing on them and so many of them have been ruined, I still have over 30 pairs left after he went through about the same number.

It only gets worse from there, my consumption habits in clothes pales in comparison of my consumption habits of food and beverages. So the reality is this. Any form of justice, social, environmental, or any other sort starts with the jackasses like myself changing OUR standards of living. This is not something that we should even be looking at developing nations to address until we become better stewards of our resources and learn to cut back on what our consumption choices are. Almost 80% of the world lives on less than $10 USD a day. $3,650 a year. That covers a little over half of this semester’s tuition. Which I did not have to borrow money to pay. I would say a large reason why we are not properly balancing our resources is that people like me are providing the incentive for society to behave irresponsibly. I hope my changes in consumerism aren’t too late and that I haven’t done irreparable harm all on my own. : (

I absolutely adore this song. I now realize I don’t know the first thing about what it truly means.

 

As I am going through the first lesson of this class, the following thought struck me: Why is this not a required class for every single college student? The realities that we are exploring aren’t looking too bright for our shared global outcomes. The Primary energy consumption by fuel charts have 2040 energy consumption look pretty static to what it is right now. The following are inspired by Richard Heinberg’s axioms and are listed as our Module 1 Lesson 1 Food for Thought:

1. “Learn to live without fossil fuels”
2. “Adapt to the end of economic growth as we’ve known it”
3. “Support 7 billion humans and stabilize population”
4. “Deal with our legacy of environmental destruction”

All of this is achievable, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For too long we have left the argument to the academic community and let’s face it, academics don’t exactly have very good marketing skills. Big business is kicking academia’s ass, and rightfully so. The BIG change that needs to occur is to start educating ALL students to the future that they are directly contributing to realizing.

Making classes like these mandatory is far more relevant in today’s world than it was in the 50’s.  Just my reciprocated food for thought in return.