I want to talk about a sustainability issue that I am very passionate about, which is animal agriculture. Most times when people talk about climate change they focus mainly on aspects like recycling and staying away from fossil fuels, but we often overlook the animal agricultural system. It’s the second-largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions after fossil fuels and the leading contributor to deforestation and water and air pollution. It’s something that needs way more attention brought to it with serious action being taken. I remember first learning about the damage that animal agriculture has on the Earth and immediately not wanting to eat meat ever again so I no longer contribute to the demand for this system. Although I am not vegan or vegetarian, I do my best to stay away from red meats and limit my consumption of other meats to a couple of days a week and even longer. 

Production

Each year, over 70 billion animals are raised for human consumption. And this number is expected to increase by at least 60-70% in the next few decades. A third of the planet’s water-free land and 16% of the freshwater is devoted to raising livestock. Raising and maintaining livestock is the leading cause of deforestation. Deforestation is a serious issue because this is when forests are cleared out, destroying and removing trees as well as vegetation. The loss of trees allows for more greenhouse gases to be emitted in the atmosphere and soil erosion from vegetation. Deforestation, alone accounts for 10% of climate change. 

A third of the world’s grain production is used to feed livestock. The grain could instead be used to feed people that need it. We could potentially feed an extra 3.5 billion people around the world with the grains we use to feed the livestock. Instead, we feed the grains to animals in factory farms to produce only a small amount of meat that is not even accessible for everyone in the world. 

The meat production is very inefficient. It’s causing water insecurity all around the world; an enormous amount of water is used to grow crops, feed the animals, clean the factory farms, and produce the actual meat to eat. The main issue is when it comes to red meats, like beef. It takes about 1,900 gallons of water to produce only one pound of meat. Also, cows can produce up to 65 pounds of manure in a single day. According to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), in US factory farms alone, animals produce over 500 million tons of manure in a year. And so factory farms are both unsustainable and inefficient, there is no proper sewage for this waste to go, so a lot of the manure seeps into clean groundwater and waterways, contaminating them. Not only does it cause water pollution, but manure can emit toxic greenhouse gases into the air.  

What Can Be Done

I think the most obvious thing we can do is eat less meat. I know it’s not always possible to stop eating meat completely although other times, people simply don’t want to stop eating me. And that’s ok. However, we should all opt to not eat meat every single day. Limit your meat consumption to 3 or 2 times a week. Maybe even try “Meatless Mondays” or whatever works best for you. I think the most important thing we can do on an individual level is reduced our consumption so there isn’t a large demand in the meat industry. 

Another possible solution is trying to purchase our meats from more sustainable groups and local farmers that are much more ethical in the way they produce their meats compared to large factory farms. One group, Solutions from the Land is a good resource that’s helping farmers find their sustainable way in their productions. 

Sources:

https://www.peta.org/features/dirty-dozen-12-worst-ceos/

https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricultures-impact-on-climate-change/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3z8az/1800-gallons-of-water-goes-into-one-pound-of-meat

The issue I choose for my issue brief is whether the US should cut their military budget spending and allocate that money to another discretionary spending such as Education. Currently, the US federal spending is around 4.4 trillion dollars. Among the 4.4 trillion dollars, 15% of that money is spent on defense and international security. As for all of the discretionary spending, Military spending is well over 50% of it. The US spends around 750 billion on the Military while they only spend around closer to 80 billion on Education. 

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0070_discretionary_spending_categories

The US spends more on the military combined than 8 other countries, including China, India, UK, Suadi Arabia, and more. This topic is an intervention in a policy discussion because many political leaders and citizens believe the US should cut military spending by at least 10% and redistribute the money to other places such as healthcare and education. I will focus on whether or not the US should cut military spending and allocate the money to education. If more money was spent on education then more children would have access to higher education because secondary education would be free.

This is a response to an exigence because the US should spend more on Education. In recent years student debt has skyrocketed to over 100%. Especially in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, this has only become worse and will continue to increase. With an increase in Education spending, we could potentially have free college and better access to more quality education for children living in poorer areas. 

I think the cause of my issue is a mechanical cause. The US has always prioritized its military superpower over anything else in the country. So it makes sense that the US spends more of the federal budget on the Military than Education. However, this has had negative effects on the education system and other ones like health and transportation because they are way underfunded. 

The policy instrument I will use in my issue brief will be system changes. This policy instrument focuses on changing how institutions work. I will advocate that the federal and state government change how they prioritize education by increasing their funds. 

I thought my group’s deliberation went very well. During the deliberation, we had a good amount of participation from the participants and engaged in good conversions. Looking at Gastil’s Deliberative Criteria, I feel that my deliberation group effectively incorporated the criteria from it from both the analytical aspect and the social aspect of his list. 

To create a solid information base, we drew on our group’s personal experiences as well as allowed for the participants to share their own pertaining to our issue. In the personal stakes section of the deliberation, Casey led this part where he first explained how our issue of censorship affects our lives because we are all social media users. Drawing onto personal experiences with this issue, however, was not strictly for the personal stake section, we also allowed for the participants to continue to share their personal opinions during our approaches.

While working on our deliberation, my group and I identified a broad range of solutions to the issue we chose. We spent a lot of time researching our topic and discussing various ways we can solve the issue of censorship with each other. Those solutions included: improving media literacy, limiting exposure to content that includes hate speech on timelines, and eliminating replies under posts. Our group then further researched those approaches to give as much information as we could to make the information accessible for our participants. 

I think all deliberations did a great job at weighing the pros and cons of the solutions for the different issues, The participants gave their opinions on each approach and what they thought would work and what would, which I found was very effective.  In the deliberation that discussed mental health in schools, I feel that participants were really good about weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the solutions, especially because so many people had very different experiences with mental health in their own schools that they were able to bring in new discussions that were not mentioned previously. In the last deliberation that discussed gender bias in the media, certain participants brought up that the approach of body positivity is very beneficial for young women’s self-esteem, and glamorizing obesity is not necessarily a con to this approach. 

Another highlight from my group’s deliberation was the distribution of speaking opportunities for everyone. A lot of people participated and included their own perspectives on our topic, which was very effective. Our group didn’t really have to facilitate as much of the conversations as we thought we would have because the participants took control themselves. With so much participation, I think our deliberation was very successful in achieving the best solutions for each of our approaches. Something I found interesting from the other deliberations, more specifically the last deliberation was how they attempted to get everyone involved in the conversation. The issue was heavily directed towards the female participants, however, they still tried to get male participation as much as they could to hear possibly a different perspective. 

Our group did a good job at considering other ideas and experiences. During the deliberation, we had a lot of good conversations, and different people giving their opinions on the issue. Our group did a good job at carefully listening to what each person had to say and not cutting anyone off even in the interest of time. Anyone that wanted to speak was allowed to and no one outright disagreed with anyone’s opinions. Alongside considering others’ opinions, everyone respected the other participants in the deliberation. The moderators of our deliberation were all very respectful and did not insert their own opinions when participants shared. In our deliberation, when the participants did not necessarily agree on an approach, no one was rude about it or outright said they disagreed. Participants offered other solutions that they thought would work better.

Overall, I think we did a great job on our deliberation and incorporating Gastil’s Criteria. 

The United States is the second-largest annual greenhouse gas emitter in the world, following China. According to PBS, China is responsible for emitting 10 million metric tons(of carbon dioxide) and The U.S is responsible for 5 million metric tons. As of right now developing countries and especially the United States most likely has the most responsibility to combat and take climate action to reduce the ever-changing environment of the Earth.

Climate change is caused by human activities. The use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gases are the primary drivers of climate change. The biggest shift occurred during the Industrial Revolution when countries were using fossil fuels more for factories and companies. Deforestation as a result of the Industrial Revolution also contributed to climate change. The effect of climate change includes: the Earth’s temperature rising at an alarming rate. With the Earth warming, heatwaves in certain areas have occurred, droughts and sea levels are rising because of melting icebergs. Climate change also will severely affect our health in the long run. 

The Paris Agreement

As a way to combat climate change, the UNFCC proposed the Paris Agreement, which is an international treaty on climate change(Demchak). The treaty was adopted by almost all countries in 2015. The goal is to limit global warming as soon as possible. The targeted number to get the heart’s temperature down is below 1.5 C. 

In 2017, however, President Trump made the executive decision for the US to leave the Paris Agreement. This was a very detrimental decision considering the United States is one of the leading countries of the cause of climate change. The United States and China alone make up almost 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. Thankfully, President Joe Biden on his first day in office signed the US back into the Paris Agreement. Hopefully, the US can pick up where they last left and make the changes they initially agreed to make back when they first joined.

What are the Key Components of The Paris Agreement?

The agreement binds all countries involved to significantly cut their climate pollution and fully stick to their commitments. The biggest key component is to lower the Earth’s temperature. Countries plan to do this by reducing their carbon emission, most counties plan on cutting back their emissions by 30-40 %(Demchak). 

The agreement also includes mandatory measures that hold countries accountable and transparent. Countries must provide a report of their greenhouse gas progress and have it evaluated by experts. Developed countries have agreed to allocate to the developing countries that can’t help themselves. Most developing countries are small and have contributed the least amount to climate change yet they may suffer the most consequences if serious change doesn’t happen. So the Paris Agreement includes the Green Climate Fund to provide financial aid for poorer countries. 

Has the Agreement Been Successful?

The Paris agreement just recently met its five-year mark back in December. So far, experts have said that some countries have actually upheld their commitment to slow down the temperature rise. However, there hasn’t been a significant change. Still, a lot of countries have not kept their promises in the agreement. And for the agreement to fully work to combat climate change, all countries have to do their part and quickly. 

However, most climate analyses have stated even if countries strictly crack down on their promises, it is still not enough to see actual progress in climate change(CFR). The pledges the countries have made would not be enacted quickly enough and are not as ambitious as they should be to see serious change. 

 I think that countries, especially wealthy developed ones that rely heavily on their economy will not live up to their pledges fully. Countries like China, the United States, and the UK use millions of tons of fossil fuels for their economy. It will be hard for them to make actual progress in cutting down their carbon emission. Those countries would have to make serious changes in the way they operate their economies. Also, those developed countries have to help developing ones in order for the agreement to fully work and for all countries to be involved. However, a lot of developed countries don’t want to help or provide aid to poorer countries. This was one of the main reasons why the United States originally left the Paris Agreement under Trump’s Administration. It proved to be too costly for the US and it has been for other countries as well. However, I think the costs of climate inaction greatly outweigh the costs of working towards climate action. 

Are There Other Solutions?

I think the best solution for climate action is to focus on the action more locally than globally. It seems the most progress that has happened is happening outside the Paris Agreement. As for the agreement, the commitments are very broad for countries and they rarely have any accountability. It’s important to focus on small groups or sectors(CFR). In the US, many cities and large companies like Amazon and Starbucks have decided to make plans to invest in more carbon neutrality practices.  If smaller, local action takes place, hopefully, more global action will follow.

Works Cited:

February 19, 2021 Melissa Demchak. “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know.” NRDC, 19 Feb. 2021, http://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know#sec-costs.

“Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20signed%20the,and%20later%20withdrew%20its%20signature.&text=Paris%20Agreement%2C%202015.,to%20set%20emissions%2Dreduction%20pledges.

There is a serious problem that faces the reality of sustainability. That is fast fashion. Fast fashion is defined as “A business model that uses cheap materials and labor to churn out clothing collections at a rapid pace and can be summed up as cheap, trendy clothing… mass-producing cheaply made, ‘of-the-moment’ items that are sold at a lower price point(problem w/ff). Some of your favorite stores such as American Eagle, Zara, Urban Outfitters, and even very popular brands that we all love like Nike and Adidas. And, while we all like to shop these brands because of the accessibility and cheapness, we have to open our eyes to the damage it is causing to our environment. With fast fashion continuing to grow globally, we have to ask ourselves, is it worth it?

The fashion industry has completely changed, even in just over the last two decades. Consumerism has skyrocketed and continues to do so. According to Treehugger, the 70s, and 80s are when the shift first occurred. Factories in South and East Asian countries opened up mass-producing clothing selling them for cheap. American retail stores began selling these items from those areas. People then started to spend more of their money on those items because of how cheap it was to purchase. This was the start of our modern-day consumerism Now, the average American family buys well over 70 pieces of clothing within a year as opposed to during the 60s when the number was under 25 items a year. 

Right now, the fashion industry is the second leading cause of pollution on the Earth. The biggest problem with fast fashion is the amount of textile waste it is producing. With the rate of clothing being produced and trends going in and out of style, it allows for consumers to throw out old clothes and buys new ones, causing an endless cycle of wasting clothes. In America, an average of 9.5 million tons of clothes is thrown away in landfills a year(BWSS). Most of the materials to create these clothes are not biodegradable, such as polyester and nylon. It can take up to 200 years to fully decompose in landfills, which is very harmful to the environment. 

Not only does fast fashion generate textile waste, but it also accounts for water pollution and CO2 emission. Cotton is one of the most popular fabrics used to create clothing. And while it is different from polyester and nylon, because it is biodegradable, it still poses a very big issue for our environment. Cotton can take up to anywhere between 2,000 liters of water to 20,000 to make one cotton shirt. Excess water is also polluted with dangerous chemicals and clothing dyes to create these clothes. Synthetic fabrics contain microplastic. When the clothing is washed or even sitting in a landfill, the plastic seeps into the water system, ruining our clean water. While the clothing textiles are laying in landfills, they emit greenhouse gases into the air and seep dangerous chemicals into our groundwater and soil, again, destroying our clean water(Brown). 

So what can we do to solve this problem? 

Well, one of the most obvious things we can do is stop supporting fast fashion brands. Easier said than done, right? In theory, that would be the most pragmatic solution, however, in practice not so much. The reason why people shop in fast fashion is in the definition. It is cheap and accessible. Sustainability brands can be costly and not available for everyone. In a capitalistic society, it’s not easy to just “stop fast fashion.” That is an issue we have to solve on a systematic level, not an individual one.  

There are always alternatives to everything though. Thrifting is the easiest and best way I have reduced my environmental footprint. Lots of times I have found clothes from fast fashion brands, but it’s better because I am buying recycled clothes. Another way to do your part in solving this issue is donating your own clothes instead of throwing them out when you no longer have use for them. It’s ok to shop these fast fashion brands, I do also, mainly because it’s the only brands I can afford. However, I usually try to buy fewer clothes each year only when I really need them. 

Works Cited:

Brown, Rachel. “The Environmental Crisis Caused by Textile Waste.” RoadRunner Recycling, 2021, http://www.roadrunnerwm.com/blog/textile-waste-environmental-crisis#:~:text=And%20when%20consumers%20throw%20away,the%20groundwater%20and%20our%20soil.

Part 1

Student Names: Devon Lawson, Cole Robinson, Ryan Manuud

Work Plan: COVID-19 Shut Downs

Duties of members: 

Scribe- Ryan Manuud

Park Ranger- Cole Robinson

Goalkeeper- Devon Lawson

Day 1: On day one, we assigned roles for each member of our group. We all spitballed 10 possible topics in relation to public controversy. After all 10 topics were listed, we discussed each of them while creating a ranking list. The group then took the number 1 choice of topic, which was COVID-19 Shut Downs, got organized as to what areas of interest we would like our video to hit. 

Day 2: After our day one discussion, we decided to go with the controversy of shutting down schools and businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. We split our research into three sections: economy vs health, who is profiting, and peoples’ perspectives on reopening or shutting down. We each did research on the three sections and found multiple articles on the topics. We determined our stasis questions which are facts/context, nature of the problem, quality, and policy. 

Facts/Context: COVID-19 Pandemic 

Nature of Problem: Comes from people trying to make decisions on reopening businesses/schools to protect the economy. Economy vs Health 

Quality: Subjective. Business owners want to stay in business however there is a health threat that some believe is more important.

Policy: Economy vs Health. Business owners will return close to normality while those who care more for health issues remain to support shutdowns. 

Day 3: Once we collected enough research to feel comfortable with moving along with the process, we developed multiple stasis questions that would further develop and enhance our project. We outlined and decided, as a group, what the video is going to be organized. We were also able to find precise points that we were going to focus on for the video. 

Part 2

We are speaking on the public controversy of COVID-19 shutdowns. What makes this issue a public controversy is that it is one of the most highly debated topics that even was an important discussion point during the presidential debate. There are different opinions for business/school/governors owners on whether they should reopen or not. Some framing questions that relate to this topic/controversy are what are the perspectives on economy vs health? What are the health risks for workers/consumers in reopening? Is it worth reopening to save the economy? Who is profiting from this pandemic? Who is failing because of it? How is business adapting? What do the people/civilians think? What locations contain similar perspectives? What do polls indicate about the opinions in relation to COVID-19 shutdowns?

How we historicize the controversy might be a bit difficult due to our topic taking place currently, present day. We will historicize this controversy by how it will affect the future. We will include visual aids such as images relating to shutdowns, graphs showing the facts, and polls showing opinions. The audio will be narrated by us three members and will overlap our audio over our images. We will include interviews with individuals and get their perspective.