Going Down

To me the word “Downtown” means the center of the city. I grew up near Chicago and when we would go downtown it was where all the nice restaurants, theaters, bars, clubs, and entertainment venues were located. In my hometown of Rockford Illinois downtown had a much more negative stigma associated with it. Many of the newer and upper class establishments would start up on the east side of town. Because of this the downtown area was poorly kept up and quite honestly an area filled with crime and poverty. Fort Myers from what I understand was the same way although from our trip I can see that a restorative effort has been made in the area and it was surprisingly clean. Some of the things we encountered had influences from Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Harvey Firestone (the three men who lived in this area and were depicted in the statues along the water). An effort was also made to incorporate an ecological element into the area as seen in the plant names carved in the artwork as well as the variety of species found in the area. It is interesting to see how the river had been straightened and the land had been built up in some areas artificially. We also viewed the marina, the Olympic art museum, an old theater, and many of the restaurants, hotels, and shops. You can see that Fort Myers is making a big push to show people that the downtown area is a great place to be and I think the ultimate goal is to model it after Naples. The Naples downtown area is beautiful and Fifth Avenue is a prominent spot to go out even during the week. It would be nice if Fort Myers could someday be like that again to attract tourists and locals alike.

Eco-Footprint

According to the eco-footprint calculator it would take 5.4 earths to support my lifestyle if everyone lived like me. Some of the suggestions to change this were to pledge the reduction of animal products I consume by 50%, pledge the use of fewer products containing plastics, and pledge to take a local vacation this year. If we assume that we are close to or over our carrying capacity now, and if the average person takes 4.9 earths to support their lifestyle, we would only be able to support about 1.5 billion people rather than the current 6.9 billion. I think that the main thing that I could do would be to reduce the amount of plastics that I use. Instead of buying single serving foods I can cook my food at home and use re-usable containers to take it with me. I am a bigger guy and because I work out often, I need more food than most and I don’t see myself reducing animal products anytime soon.  I can definitely take local vacations and I am looking into ways to insulate my house better to reduce my energy consumption (and the bill!).  Another thing I thought of was to buy a re-usable water bottle to take with me instead of buying bottled water. It would save plastic as well as money and it is an easy change to make. I have also been purchasing more organic food products for health reasons which can also help my eco-footprint.

Flying ninja monkey tears---The future of renewable energy

Just kidding, but in reference to renewable energy, I agree that it is probably too cheap. As a country, it seems that we only pay attention to a problem when it directly and significantly affects us. Now for some people it may already be too expensive but for most I think it is the opposite. How do we determine when something is too expensive? The simple answer is when we stop or limit our consumption based on the price. We all complain a bit about the price at the pump or our high electric bill, but I know that I haven’t been driving any less or turning my A/C off. Right now there are many options for renewable energy but they are currently not cost-effective enough for us to use them instead of fossil fuels. Once the price of oil becomes more expensive, it will cause a rapid transition into better, more renewable options. Was Jimmy Carter right? I think he definitely was ahead of his time in the way he was thinking but it only further proves my point that people will always choose the cheaper, more convenient option until it is no longer worth it. So why not stop the artificial lowering of gas prices and let the market steer us in the right direction? Many other countries have gas prices that are more than double that of the U.S. and they have transitioned into smaller cars, scooters, bikes, etc. Now with the technological and financial resources of the U.S., this would result in better alternatives rather than a lack of convenience. Every type of renewable energy has its pros and cons. I look to the ones that tend to have the highest potential energy output per space required and the ones that have cost as their main drawback. We will always find ways to make the process cheaper but we don’t have an excess of land due to the growth of our population and food requirements. To me, using algae as a bio-fuel is the most interesting. Algae receive their energy from the sun, (photosynthesis) which makes it renewable and it is grown in water (something the earth has plenty of).  Geothermal energy was another that I found interesting, as it derives energy from the earth’s core. Unfortunately the drilling process is an expensive one. Solar panels have been around for a while but are fairly inefficient; they take up land, and are too expensive. I did read about a company has used Nanotechnology to develop a more efficient solar panel cell which may cut the cost in half. If financially viable could we see panels on every house? The topic is an interesting one and I am excited at the possibilities some of these ideas hold.

No need to honk.

Ok. When asked about climate change and if it is man-made this is my response: partially. We are definitely causing more CO2 to be spewed into the air and we have been ever since the industrial revolution. Does it cause climate change? Probably, but we have been shown also that the climate of the earth has always cycled through high and low points throughout history.  Either way, most scientists that are much smarter than I am agree that it has an effect so why not do something about it? I forget who said it but I heard the quote “But what if you’re wrong and we make the earth a better place to live for nothing?” I thought this summed it up nicely. The point is that no one has a definite answer but it’s still a good idea to be proactive about it. The media tends to lean to the left on this issue and therefore has caused a bit of panic over the whole issue which is a bit overblown in my opinion. Alternative energy, personal responsibility, strict regulations on pollution, and other measures are still good ideas for many other reasons so if panic is the only way to promote change, I guess it's not so bad. The whole personal responsibility concept is a tough one though because it is easy to make companies comply but when it comes down to the individual it gets tricky. I am reminded of a joke by Jerry Seinfeld that goes like this: A bunch of cars are waiting to turn at a light. The signal turns green and the first car doesn’t move because they are not paying attention. Meanwhile, the person in the second car doesn’t honk because they know they will get through no matter what. The guy in the third car thinks the same way and the person in the fourth car is pissed but too far back for the first car to hear him honk. The first driver finally wakes up and the first three cars go through while the fourth gets caught at the red light. In this story our parents are the first car, we are the second so we don’t do anything because we won’t be affected, and neither will our children. Meanwhile, our children’s children may be left to deal with our mess. Like many people I will probably not be motivated since it doesn’t directly affect me and although I know it is a problem, I am not convinced it is of the magnitude that the media portrays it to be. But just in case I will not have children. Problem solved!

Over the Limit

The most pressing environmental issue in my opinion is over-population. Although it is not a specific environmental concern, it is the issue that encapsulates all others. If I had $100 billion dollars to fix a problem, this would be the best use of my money as it will make a dramatic difference for a multitude of environmental issues such as lack of farmland and the over-use of resources. We are simply over our environmental carrying capacity and our technology is amazing, but it has tricked us into believing that we will just magically invent a way to solve it. Our space on this planet is not infinite and if we don’t make changes it will end in disaster. The first thing I would do with the money would be to raise awareness. Like any cause, the people need to be educated and it seems the only way to do this is a massive worldwide ad campaign to get people talking. Once people are aware of the problem it will be easier to implement policies. Birth control pills, the morning after pill, and abortions will be subsidized worldwide. In the United States I would propose a program to promote couples not having children. China had the right idea but they relied on negative re-enforcement to fix over-population. With my idea, I would reward families for complying but still give them a choice. If a couple decides to not have children, have been married at least 5 years, and have reached the age of forty (or whatever age a women would typically not conceive), they will get a $20,000 tax-credit voucher to be used as a down payment for a home. Not only will this help over-population but it will also boost the economy and the housing market. This will have to be given under the mother’s name since it would be difficult to track the father’s paternal history. Other benefits could be given to singles or married couples that only have 1 child but this would be the main benefit. Part of the credit could be government subsidized since it will cause an economic boost and yearly tax breaks for non-parents would also help motivate people in the short term. Any extra money should be used for education in the schools to teach children about the problem early on.

I Louv it

The first Louv reading is about the relationship children have with nature and how it was different when he grew up. I definitely agree that it has changed for many but I believe I was fortunate enough to have a good mixture of time inside and out. My backyard growing up was a forest preserve and I was always playing in the woods and down by the river with the other kids. I played basketball and football, fished, built forts, and other outdoor activities but I also loved TV, computers and videogames. However, I do agree that it has changed for many children and there is less nature and more technology so I feel it will only get worse. The second reading, “The third Frontier,” talks about many of the same issues. He explains the transition from the open frontiers in America, to the beginning colonization, all the way to the present-day which he calls the Third Frontier. The third, in his opinion, is the opposite of the first. In the first, people interacted continuously with nature and it was a part of them. In the third, he paints a picture of an overabundance of technology, and an almost synthetic version of nature, characterized by small parks in the middle of urban areas. My first reaction was that it is both amazing how far we have come, as well as sad at the fact that we can never go back to that simpler time he talks about. I am left wondering what someone from that time would think if they were brought to our time. As for his third article I must admit that the whole time I was reading I could hear the voice inside my head say “this is a bunch of crap”.  I disagree with the author when he implies that a lack of nature is the reason for the overmedication of children. I think it has more to do with the foods that we are ingesting, the pollutants and chemicals in the air, etc. As for nature creating a calming effect that could help a child with ADD, I agree but I think there are many things that have the ability to give the same effect. Calming music or exercise for example can reduce anxiety but I don’t think a lack of it is why we have more cases of ADD.  

As sustainable as I want to be!

I am not really sure what to expect from this class. I guess my first thought is that it will be an attempt to get us as students to gain awareness as to how our everyday actions affect the world in which we live. I hope I can gain a better understanding as to how little things that I do relate to sustainability as a whole and hopefully I will learn things that make me look at the world, and my place in it, in a different light. I think most of us like to think that we care, but I know that in my everyday life, I am more concerned with convenience than I am the environment. I constantly waste resources and buy disposable products. In fact, cleaning for me means “throw it away and buy a new one”. I just bought a house and the first thing I did was clear out all the trees in my lawn. I guess what I am saying is that my current attitude is that I am all for sustainability and the environment as long as I don’t have to go out of my way. I am just being honest with myself, and I have a feeling that most people have the same attitude as I do, whether they want to admit it or not. Just look at the world around us and tell me I am wrong. Anyways, as far as my career goes, I am in college to eventually get my P.H.D. in Physical Therapy. How does this relate to sustainability? The main job of a Physical Therapist is to help people recover from injuries and diseases that affect a person’s mobility. The best answer I can give is that without physical therapy, a person could lose mobility and not be able to work or contribute as a productive member of society. That person would simply use up resources while giving nothing back to society. Now if we want to go deep into this we could say that this could be good or bad. A disabled organic farmer versus a disabled toxic waste dumper would be an example. I think that might be overthinking it a bit but you can see my point.