Can We Predict The Future?

No. Time and time again when ever pundits try to predict the future they get it wrong. The longer the prediction the "wronger" it gets! This weekend in Environmental Studies class we looked at the beginning of the movie Soylent Green, made in the 1970's and plotted in the 2020's. New York in 2020 had 40 million people and all vegetation had disappear from the surface of the earth. As the class made comments about the way that the beginning of the picture was presented one underlying idea was in everybody's mind: the technology was in no way we see today and for sure nothing like we will see in a few years in 2020. Thinking that in the 70's there was nothing like we have today related to mobil electronics and communications it is difficult to imagine how they could have predicted what we have now. So if we can't predict the future how can we plan?

Planning has to be done based on the relationship between what we want and what we can accomplish. Based on principles and values of a society that allow investments that lead to a better future. Think of the time where people in the USA were optimistic and had a tendency to "think big" both in the public and private sector. Governments got involved in huge infrastructural projects like dams, highways/roads, levies, ports, and other related to communication including the space program. Private enterprise got into the military industry, aviation, and in general production of goods and supplies.

And then there was the mixed effort where cities like Portland OR were able to bring together the public and private sectors to set the parameters that would allow growth of the city while guaranteeing livability for its citizens. Nohad Toulan who passed away a few days ago due to a unfortunate car accident in South America is an example of leadership, you can read more about him here: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/10/nohad_toulan_and_a_planned_por.html

This is an interesting video:

Literature and the Environment

In the Oregonian today (10/20/2013) there is an article by David Thomas Sumner and Lisa M. Weidman (Linfield College) where the idea of naming an act of civil disobedience as "terrorisms" is very dangerous. This article uses the recent sentence of Rebecca Rubin who committed acts of sabotage where there were no dangers or threats to human life, to analyze how in recent times the idea of eco-terrorism has been used to attack those environmentalist that in their pursuit of inhibiting the damages caused by modern exploitation of natural resources and of the introduction of synthetic processes in the production of food have resorted to violent means. But in any case all these cases of violence have been against property and always carried out with the idea of not harming people at all.
Even if one doesn't get into the legal definition of eco-terrorism, one must understand that when we analyze our interaction with the environment language is very important and being not only clear and articulate about what is going on, we must also be accurate and precise in the wording of our arguments. It is frequent to find in the literature (more so in the newspapers) misconceptions about energy, power, efficiency, and other technical terminology mainly due to the prejudice that as these terms are so frequently used one must immediately recognize their significance and meaning.
We have witnessed when people in high office in government or industry pronounce statements that clearly confuse terms like energy and power and use what sounds like a clear statement to attack or support a political agenda but in close scrutiny these statement do not hold water!
The lack of scientific literacy in our country is dangerously leading us to an anarchic state of affairs and will soon produce deep conflicts in our society. But one must be optimistic as there are those who know the basic principles, natural laws, and theories that are active and leading a healthy fight so at the end the truth will be known. It is possible to block the sun with a finger but it can't be done for long; and of course that will not make the sun disappear.

 

Metropolis good for the environment

The old idea that cities are destroying the environment has been challenged now with new data and changing paradigm of what it means "a good life". More recently we used to think that the wilderness was not only beautiful and pristine but it was the objective of all human activity. That environmental restoration had the purpose of bringing back the conditions lost by human intervention and waste. Development of our society had produced a plethora of sub-products, second-hand, undesired effects caused by the "ignorance" of developers.
In particular the industrial revolution based on the control of powerful natural energies that brought a rapid increase on the productivity of good needed for our survival. It also brought a dramatic increase of efficiency in the way we do war and destruction. None of this could have happened if not for a better understanding of nature given by scientific advances in all areas. The physical sciences in particular where "energy" and "power" are daily studied, and new forms and mechanisms for their production, control, storage, distribution, and use are being developed. A case in point would be the production of electric power using wind turbines.
So in this context it was that cities were catalogued as necessary evils for the well being of society but people with economic means will tend to move to the outskirts of the city the so called suburbs where they would enjoy the pleasures of nature. Then the end of the twentieth century brought the fact that we could have livable cities and the concept of a "green metropolis" was developed. For more on this read David Owen's Green Metropolis (Why living smaller, living closer, and driving less are keys to sustainability).
In this book we read how New York is in many ways less harmful to the environment than any suburban area based on the fact that one of the most damaging effects caused by humans in modern society is the air pollution generated by our transportation.

Urban Resources and Sustainability

It has been the case since the beginning of humanity that modes and fashions come and go. Many times these fades are responding to trends and forces caused by new technologies, like when dads asking their little girls to show their new wrist-watches going to church sunday mornings. It was the response to a new thing, men then had pocket-watches so it became fashionable to walk with your left arm showing your watch.
About 30 years ago a new science was born: Environmental science. It became fashionable to look at the environment through the eyes of the scientific method even though many scientist before have been using "nature" to understand how things work and how reality is governed by laws that are independent of the observer, until Werner Heisenberg with his "uncertainty principle" in 1927 brought the idea of observer interference in the measurement of a phenomenon.
So now we are in the stage of investigating how we humans are affecting the environment and how nature is responding as well as how nature works in general. Fashionable environmental sciences appear all over and many colleges and universities instituted program to organize and structure courses around this theme. Times have changed and society has evolved. A few years ago the majority of humanity lives within the urban environment so we now have to focus on this new reality.
A few years ago I developed a new course at Warner Pacific College trying to address this issue. The class is labeled Urban Resources and Sustainability. Addressing the fact that urban environments are the main driving engines in the way we humans interact with nature.
At Warner Pacific College we are trying to start a new program, a new major to address the need for professionals capable of dealing with these issues and prepared to implement solutions in a sustainable manner.

Impacting The Future by Jaydra Perfetti

 Change for the Future

Jaydra Perfetti

PHS 100 – Environmental Studies

Warner Pacific College

December 1, 2012

Change for the Future

Technology is everywhere: at home, in the car, at the office, even sometimes inside the human body.  Technology has profoundly improved the quality of life for most people who use it, but it does have a dark side.  When the newest gadget comes out with the latest technology, people buy it.  That is good for the economy, but this constant upgrading generates tons of electronic garbage called e-waste.  Some of the e-waste is recycled, but frequently it ends up in developing countries, contaminating the environment and sickening the population.  Because e-waste is a growing problem, tech companies must create less toxic products and individuals must dispose of their unwanted devises properly.

In the U.S. more than 3 billion electronic devices have been sold since 1980, and half of those devices have been thrown away (Withgott & Bennan, 2011, p. 633).  The sale of electronic devices doubled from 1997 to 2009, largely “driven by a nine-fold increase in mobile device sales” (Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-Life Electronics).  Cell phones have become less expensive over time, which means more people can afford them.  In addition, many cell phone service providers offer free phones with the purchase of a calling plan.  Desktop computers and laptops have also gradually become more affordable, so today more than 75% of U.S. households have a computer (Office of Publications & Special Studies, 2010).  That means more and more people are upgrading, exchanging, and disposing of electronics every year.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2.37 million short tons of e-waste was generated in 2009 and about 25% was recycled.  38% of discarded computers, 17% of discarded televisions, and 8% of discarded mobile devices were recycled; the rest was disposed of in landfills or incinerated (Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-Life Electronics).  Even though it sounds like an enormous figure, EPA estimates e-waste only represents 1 - 2% of total municipal waste.  So why all the concern?

E-waste gets so much attention because electronics contain a myriad of heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and nickel (Frequent Questions: General Information on E-Waste).  In fact, e-waste is the “second-largest source of lead in U.S. landfills today, behind auto batteries” (Withgott & Bennan, 2011, p. 633).  Those toxic substances can leach into ground water from landfills, or pollute the air when incinerated (What To Do About E-Waste).

As bad as that may be here in America, an overwhelming amount of e-waste is actually shipped overseas to developing countries like China.  Consequently, people in poor, rural communities disassemble electronics without safety equipment to obtain the rare and valuable metals like gold contained within circuit boards and cell phones.  They live with mountains of e-waste constantly all around them, polluting their air and water, and damaging their health.  60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley followed one shipping container full of computer monitors from Colorado to Guiyu, Hong Kong.  There he discovered e-waste has turned the town into a toxic wasteland where “pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and … seven out of ten kids have too much lead in their blood.”  (CBS News, 2010).

Shipping e-waste from the U.S. to towns like Guiyu is illegal according to both U.S. law and Chinese law (CBS News, 2010).  Unfortunately, that does not stop unscrupulous companies from collecting Americans’ unwanted electronics under the guise of responsible recycling and sending them overseas by the container-full (CBS News, 2010).  This compounds the issue because people who try to be responsible and recycle their e-waste instead of throwing it away are duped into contributing to the problem.

Even though the problem of e-waste is immense and complicated, there are people and organizations working toward solutions.  Federal, state, and municipal governments have established regulations and guidelines for disposal of e-waste, and monitoring programs for landfills (Electronics Waste).  Beyond government, organizations like Natural Resources Defense Council offer information to individuals and businesses about the potential hazards of e-waste, as well as guidance for how to properly dispose of it (What To Do About E-Waste).  In addition, watchdog group Basil Action Network founder, Jim Puckett, operates a program that certifies e-waste recyclers to help people with unwanted electronics choose an ethically responsible recycling company (CBS News, 2010).

The proportion of discarded electronic devices that are being reused and recycled instead of being thrown away is steadily increasing, but there is still more to do before the problem is solved.  Tech companies can help by beginning their design process with the understanding that these devices have a short life-span, and will be eventually dissected for their valuable components after only a few years.  Hopefully, operating under that assumption will enable tech companies to innovate and find ways to make electronics out of less harmful ingredients.  If using less toxic components is not possible for today’s technology, manufacturers can at least design the products to be more easily and safely disassembled.

In addition, people can help solve the problem by getting informed and acting conscientiously.  If electronics are still in good working order, giving them to someone who can use them or selling them on Craigslist is the first, best option.  If those are not practical or possible, then people should recycle them through an e-Stewards Recycler who has been “independently verified to handle e-waste in the most globally responsible way – using safe technologies and careful protections for workers” (What To Do About E-Waste).  The most important thing is for people and businesses to find out where their e-waste is going after they dispose of it.  Raising awareness is the first step to making a positive change in e-waste for the future.

Solving the e-waste problem is a good idea for both people and the planet.  In addition to the positive environmental impact, proper disposal of e-waste could create jobs.  Of course, there is the potential for those added jobs here to be created at the cost of jobs for people in developing countries, which may worsen poverty.  Job creation aside, there is huge opportunity for tech companies to take advantage of the marketing potential created by “going green” and producing products that have a neutral environmental impact.

Technology is a vital part of modern life and it is here to stay for both businesses and individuals.  Unfortunately, there is also a growing amount of e-waste every year as new devices are released and people upgrade.  Tech companies need to design their products under the assumption that they will become obsolete in a short amount of time, and build these devices out of less harmful material.  Individuals need to take advantage of secondary markets to increase the number of devices that are reused.  When electronics finally reach the end of their useful life, people must dispose of them through a responsible and certified electronics recycler.  That will ensure that America’s e-waste does not end up polluting the environment in developing countries like China.  Responsible disposal and recycling of e-waste is good for the plant and all of its peoples.  As a wealthy and powerful nation, America has a moral responsibility to lead by example for the rest of the world.

References

CBS News.  (2010, January 8).  Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste. 60 Minutes. Retrieved November 30, 2012 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4579229.html

Electronics Waste.  (n.d.).  Retrieved November 30, 2012, from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality website: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/electronics.htm

Frequent Questions: General Information on E-Waste.  (2012, November 14).  Retrieved November 28, 2012, from US Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm

Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-Life Electronics. (2012, November 14). Retrieved November 29, 2012, from US Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm

Office of Publications & Special Studies.  (2010, May).  Consumer Expenditures.  Focus on Prices and Spending, 1(4), Retrieved November 29, 2012 from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website: http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume1_number4/cex_1_4.htm

Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2011).  Environment: the science behind the stories (4th ed.).  New York, NY.  Pearson Benjamin Cummings.  ISBN-13: 9780321715340.

What To Do About E-Waste.  (2011, August 22).  Retrieved November 30, 2012, from Natural Resources Defense Council website: http://www.nrdc.org/living/stuff/what-do-about-e-waste.asp

Stewardship and faith

Slowly in some areas of thinking religion is coming closer to science. One are in particular is climate science. In some places there is the believe that these two can't be joined as there is a political bias related to the vision of powerful interests. So it is important to strengthen the links between scientific knowledge and religious organization. In this respect one organization that has been a trail blazer is The Au Sable Institute; Dr. Cal DeWitt who was the executive director for about 25 years is one of the initiators of the Christian environmental movement. Today Au Sable continues to be a hub for learning and collaboration on environmental issues. Following this link you can read an interview with environmentalist Bill McKibben: http://ausable.org/news_and_resources/blog/interview_bill_mckibben#.ULVZk-TWLSd who is today one of the leaders on the american environmental movement. In this interview McKibben talks about his view of faith related organizations and about his book: "The Comforting Whirlwind".

   

Summer

This has been a normal summer on what we would say the new normal. Record high temperatures, record high drought, record floods, and here in Portland OR the nice 80s+ degree Fahrenheit! The forecast for tomorrow is in the 90s which is hot but this is August after all. So how can we talk about a topic that has now been put on the back burner in our society? How can we make a reference to a unsustainable system when we have grown to love instant gratification? The problems as we see them coming seam to be in the long run, or they seem to be falling on the lap of other people like those working in the flood insurance, or farm-crop insurance industries. Why we the normal everyday citizen should worry about these events. If we think about food prices going up next year, well that is next year! Why worry?
Then if we do worry, we face the fact that there is not much we can do now. Or is there something we can do? Well, let me see. Cooling off a bit one can sit by the shadow of a nice tree and with a glass of lemonade we can read about Global Warming, we can blog about it and we can learn more about it! So this is my share for today. Have a look at this website http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ from the Environmental Protection Agency and enjoy some data. Remember the EPA has a long history starting in the 1970s when it was created during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon, a republican!