Sophya D. Limantara
Prof. Tom Fink
Should I continue to buy and consume those delicious looking burgers and French fries? That is the most important decision. The fast food industry will continue to prosper along with its defective practices if we don’t strive for a change. In order to prevent child exploitation, corrupted labor, and a deadly fast food epidemic, organized campaigns are needed to pressure this corrupted industry. These organizations would have the power to enforce solutions such as: banning children-directed advertisements on unhealthful meals, giving fast food workers more rights and better working conditions, and improving food safety laws.
Advertisements on fast food that targets kids should not be allowed, for it promotes poor eating habits. Most children watch TV a majority of their day, therefore they give their ultimate attention to what ever plays on the screen, including detrimental ads. Schlosser wrote:
Congress should immediately ban all advertisements aimed at children that promotes foods high in fat and sugar…A ban on advertising unhealthy foods to children would discourage eating habits that are not only hard to break, but potentially life-threatening. Moreover, such a ban would encourage fast food chains to alter the recipes for their children’s meals. (262)
Banning these advertisements is definitely a good first step in making a difference in children’s lives. Putting an end to this dangerous exposure will not only help prevent children from becoming regular fast food customers throughout their lifetime, but actually encourage them to eat more healthfully and grow up stronger.
This will have a good impact on the fast food restaurants, because they would want to make their food more desirable to meet customer’s demands. Not wanting to risk losing their precious customers, they would most likely change their menu to be more healthful. The first place that should improve their meals are school cafeterias, who serves mainly children:
As for the food now served at school cafeterias, it should be safer to eat than what is sold at fast food restaurants, not less safe. The USDA should insist upon the highest possible food safety standards from every company that supplies ground beef to the school lunch program – or it should stop purchasing ground beef. American taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for food that might endanger their children. (Schlosser 263)
School meals should definitely be safer than fast food restaurants because most children will eat in school when they are hungry, and school food should be the most reliable and the more healthful food. It is cheaper than most fast food restaurants, and many children get free school meals.
For this reason, New York City public schools are taking action in changing their school meals. They are concerned about the rising epidemic in childhood obesity, in which fast food is a major factor, and hope to stop it, thus creating the “Nutritional Quality of School Food Meals” policy that requires public schools to:
Restrict the fat content of meals as follows:
- Total fat will be limited to 30 percent of the total calories over the course of the week.
- Saturated fat will be limited to 10 percent of the total calories over the course of the week.
- Partially hydrogenated oils will be limited in accordance with current dietary guidelines.
Provide limited amounts of sodium and cholesterol.
Provide restricted amounts of high fructose corn syrup, with a goal of eliminating high fructose corn syrup from all products.
Offer and promote the consumption of fresh fruit and a variety of vegetables daily.
Offer and promote the inclusion of plant-based entrees.
Offer three varieties of reduced-fat milk:
- Low-fat (1%),
- Fat-free, and
- Fat-free chocolate milk.
Exception: Some special populations (i.e. special education) may receive whole milk. (The New York City Department of Education Wellness Policies on Physical Activity and Nutrition)
This will promote children eating more healthfully in school by providing a variety of choices. They did not offer these many vegetables and fruits before, nor were they serious enough about creating efficient nutrition guidelines. It is now safer to eat school food than before, and definitely more healthful than fast food restaurants. As a result of enforcing this policy, children will have better eating habits throughout their lives:
Our broad-based approach to wellness includes commonsense strategies, such as making healthful foods available in our schools while increasing opportunities for students to be physically active. Through these efforts, we aim to help students to make healthier choices today and to develop healthful habits that will last a lifetime. We encourage all school community members to review these policies and begin a serious consideration of how wellness can be integrated into daily teaching and learning, as well as extending to students’ lives outside school. (The New York City Department of Education Wellness Policies on Physical Activity and Nutrition)
Furthermore, it takes people in the community to help promote healthful eating habits. Teach your children about the importance of consuming safe meals, instead of dangerous ones that you see on television. Spread this information so our future generation can live their life happily and be healthy.
Moreover, Michelle Obama recently launched a campaign called “Let’s Move”, with the goal to end childhood obesity in one generation. The first lady realized that the childhood obesity epidemic is rising, and becoming a major health issue, and plans to stop it: “’We all know the numbers, I mean one in three kids are overweight and obese, and we’re spending $150 billion a year treating obesity-related illnesses. So we know this is a problem, and there’s a lot at stake” (Qtd in Ferran). Obama is focusing on providing children nutritious school meals, where they are getting a majority of their calories, “President Obama also plans to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, the first lady said, and is proposing a $10 billion budget increase-- $1 billion a year for ten years—to help provide nutritious school lunches to those who qualify” (Ferran). Better yet, the First Lady wants to make it easier for the people to read nutrition labels on food products including fast food so that we can choose healthful food much easier, “to help parents, the first lady said she’s working with the Food and Drug Administration and major food manufacturers and retailers to make it easier for parents to identify healthier foods by placing nutrition labeling on the front of the package” (Ferran). The First Lady is taking major action toward good changes; hopefully this will happen within one generation.
Another crucial area for improvement is protecting and improving working conditions for fast food workers. Employees of the fast food industry should be appreciated and treated better, as potential employees that will help improve and grow with the company, not as self-operated machines that are expected to do their job without proper training:
Job training schemes subsidized by the federal government should insist that companies employ workers for at least a year – and actually provide some training. Strict enforcement of minimum wage, overtime, and child labor laws would improve lives of fast food workers, as would OSHA regulations on workplace violence at restaurants. Passing new laws to facilitate union organizing might not lead to picket lines in front of every McDonald’s, but it would encourage the fast food industry to treat workers better and listen to their complaints… And if the nation is genuinely interested in their future, it will adequately fund their education, instead of inviting advertisers into the schools. (Schlosser 262)
It is actually a good idea to give employees the chance to express their opinions. Since they are the ones working there, they know best what areas the fast food restaurant is lacking in terms of giving customers and employees the best satisfaction and how they should improve their service. Listening to their comments and/or complaints would help the fast food restaurant better their service and be more prosperous.
Not only is the working condition important for fast food employees, but for the workers at the meatpacking firms also. These meatpacking employees should be protected by the food safety laws. The meatpacking industry is a corrupted industry that does not want to be responsible for protecting its workers, violating labor laws. They know their workers get injured continually, yet they do not plan to take any precautionary actions to prevent future injuries:
Almost any workplace injury, viewed in isolation, can be described as an “accident”. Workers are routinely made to feel responsible for their own injuries, and many do indeed make mistakes. But when at least one-third of the meatpacking workers are injured every year, when the causes of those injuries are well known, when the means to prevent those injuries are readily available and yet not applied, there is nothing accidental about the lacerations, amputations, cumulative traumas, and deaths in the meat packing industry. These injuries do not stem from individual mistakes. They are systematic, and they are caused by greed. (Schlosser 265)
The owners who run these meatpacking plants are not the least bit concerned about their worker’s injuries that they claimed as accidents. All they care about is making as much profit in the shortest time possible, which is the reason why workers are getting hurt. They take advantage of the fact that their workers can’t protect themselves, since many of them are illegal immigrants that have little power to protect their legal rights. This industry should be stopped from employing any more illegal immigrants and taking advantage of vulnerable people:
But the absence of unions can permit corporations to behave like continuing criminal enterprises, to violate labor laws with impunity. If the meat packing industry is allowed to continue its recruitment of poor, illiterate, often illegal immigrants, many other industries will soon follow its example. (Schlosser 265)
Hence, preventing the meatpacking industry from hiring disadvantaged people of society will stop other industries from attempting to do the same thing.
Furthermore, another important matter is to create a food safety agency that is more reliable and efficient in protecting the public health:
Congress should create a single food safety agency that has sufficient authority to protect the public health. The two main tasks currently assigned to the USDA—to promote American Agriculture and police it—are incompatible. The nation’s other leading food safety agency, the FDA, spends too much of its budget regulating prescription drugs. An American food processor can expect a visit from an FDA inspector, on average, once every ten years. (Schlosser 264)
Since the USDA and FDA are both not that reliable and precise in protecting the public health, the government should create another food safety agency that specializes in tracking the production of food, like where it came from and it is safely produced. They should also inspect meat packing industries more often and at random so the food industries will be more cautious and sanitary in packing their meat, “The new food safety agency should be given the power to track commodities throughout the production cycle, from their origins on ranches and farms, to their sale at restaurants and supermarkets” (Schlosser 264). This way the public health will be improved greatly, and we would not have to worry about fast food illnesses from becoming another future epidemic.
Schlosser’s ideas on the solutions to the fast food industry issue will be very effective and useful, but it is not something that can be changed quickly. Banning fast food advertisements directed at children seems like a good place to start, but I doubt it can be stopped completely. Fast food restaurants such as McDonalds have the money from investors and profits and the connections with people in the government who will help protect them. The realistic thing is that these advertisements can be reduced. The difficult solution to accomplish is improving the working conditions of the fast food workers and meat packers. Until today, disadvantaged people of society are still working in fast food restaurants and meat packing firms, because they need the job and the restaurants and firms want cheap labor. Since the “new food agency” that Schlosser mentioned does not exist yet, fast food restaurants and meat packing firms are still “free” to do what they want, continuing to violate labor laws. Schlosser’s plan would succeed if it was put into action completely, but since it isn’t, it would require time especially in this recession where many people need jobs in the United States. When his plan is effective: fast food restaurants will lose many customers which will force them to make their food more healthful, working condition of fast food employees and meatpackers will moderately improve, there will be less food contamination, and violation of the labor laws will be reduced.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Electric Cars and Hydrogen Cars
By Qiyan Chen
Prof. Tom Fink
More and more emphasis is put upon environmental health in modern times. While we are driving vehicles emitting gases that contribute to ozone layer damage and global warming, why not think about choosing a vehicle powered by pure electricity or hydrogen? Including not only the bright spots but also their respective drawbacks, we will make comparisons between the two recent innovations: electric and hydrogen cars.
Actually, the electric car is not a brand new innovation, but "dates back to 1881 when Gustav Trouve showcased his tri-pod, or three-wheeled vehicle...in Paris"(Ferrel). Due to some technical and practical setbacks, once electric cars had been kept in the garage. Thanks to fast developing technology, electric cars come back again. Instead of consuming gasoline, an electric car is powered by an electric motor which gets green energy from a mounted-in battery. The battery is rechargeable from your own house or any electric powered stations.
To most customers, the obvious benefit is that electricity is cheaper than petroleum, and comes from renewable resources such as solar and wind power. In most gas stations in New York City, you will find the average #87 gasoline is $3.15 per gallon including tax. According to the U.S Department of Transportation, the average MPG(miles per gallon) of gasoline cars in 2009 is 32.6(DOT). That's approximately one dime per mile. When it comes to electric cars, it is not easy to estimate the exact cost per mile since the capacity of the battery will be lowered each time it is recharged. However, compared to regular cars, "it costs about one to five cents per mile"(CMP Will). Based on that calculation, you will probably save one nickel every mile on the road. In the long term, it pays you back.
Electric cars can save money since electricity is cheaper than petroleum, and we customers can afford the eco-friendly car. Through many year's progress of technology, the price of electric cars is finally brought down to an acceptable level. For example, Nissan's all-electric Leaf's retail price is $32,780, "but that figure can be reduced by a federal tax credit (up to $7,500) plus state and local incentives"(Boyle). The final price is $25,280 just like an gasoline consuming vehicle. Moreover, electric cars can reach the same speed as standard vehicles, but they have less noise. For instance, Nissan's Leaf "is so quiet that....has faint synthetic whine installed to warm the pedestrian when the car is approaching"(Boyle). The price is reasonable and we can feel probably the same as regular vehicles while driving.
The major disadvantage of electric cars is that their batteries fail to last long. They only hold a charge for a short periods of time. As for Nissan's Leaf, " it has an estimated range of 80 to 100 miles per charge-up"(Boyle). For example, the battery may be running out on the road. Then, we have to think about of recharging the car on the road since there are not so many electric stations.
Nevertheless, eco-friendly electric cars turn out not to be environment-friendly enough. The electricity that charges electric cars is not necessarily from a renewable resource. According to the source of Energy Information Administration:
Renewable-energy sources, such as wind and solar power, account for nearly twenty percent of the world's electricity but only ten percent of U.S. Power. Most of America's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels and nuclear energy. (Quoted in Cooper)
Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. Also, carbon dioxide adds to the greenhouse effect.
While electric cars sound great and are put into use, there is another new product catching people's attention. This environment friendly innovation is hydrogen cars which use hydrogen as a fuel for its engine to work, as its definition indicates: "The fuel cell stack converts hydrogen gas stored onboard with oxygen from the air into electricity to drive the electric motor that propels the vehicle"(Fueleconomy).
To begin with, hydrogen cars are eco-friendly and cause little harm to the environment: "A suggested benefit of large-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles is that it could lead to decreased emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors"(Schultz). The byproduct of producing hydrogen will cause greenhouse effect, but hydrogen is progress compared to petroleum. According to the United States Department of Energy, "Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to vehicles using gasoline....[they] reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%” (DOE).
Besides, people are worrying about the world runing out of petroleum since fossil fuels are limited and non renewable, but hydrogen is available and abundant. We do not need to be concerned about its depletion. "electrolysis uses electric current to split molecules of water into hydrogen and oxygen....the gases bubble up through the water tank, the hydrogen can be captured and stored"(Cooper). And we know water is a clean and copious resource.
However, there seem to be many disadvantages. One of them is its onboard storage: "the onboard hydrogen storage systems do not yet meet size, wieght, and cost goals for commercialization....making it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to go as far as gasoline vehicles"("FuelCell"). In additon, the weather condition will be a barrier. Like some places in United States, such as Alaska, it will be jeopardized for hydrogen cars to run on the road: "the temperature goes below the freezing point, there are chances that the water in the fuel cells may freeze. Frozen solid, especially before start up, they would not be able to begin working"("FuelCell"). Under this circumstance, we have to dial 311 to have the vehicle towed, leaving ourselves trembling in the cold weather.
One practical disadvantage for customers is the cost. First, The cost incurred in preparing the hydrogen cells for such cars is quite high: "As of October 2009, Fortune magazine estimated the cost of producing the Honda Clarity at $300,000 per car"(Michael). Thus, more research has to be done to produce inexpensive hydrogen cells. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly. But the platinum is very expensive. The recent twenty-four hour price of Platinum is $1,600 per oz(platinumprice). In case of damage, the cost for the repairs and replacement of the fuel cells is also high, which therefore makes the maintenance of these cars an expensive deal.
Indeed, the two kinds of cars are designed to cause less environmental damage. But the hydrogen cars seem to require a very strict requirement to run on the road and the price is impractically high for most of our customers. Thus, for hydrogen cars, they still need technique improvements to reduce the cost. Though electric cars can save money for customers in the long term and are affordable, they are not environmentally friendly enough. From my point of view, a car in the future should balance the environment and customers. Like electric cars, more research is needed to improve the durability of their batteries. Also, new technology is required to make the majority of the electricity out of renewable resources such as solar power and wind.
Works Cited
Boyle, Alan. "Nissan's All-electric Leaf Sparks Quest for Plug-in Power." Msnbc. 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Ferrel, B David. "History of the Electric Car: 1828 - 1912, from Trouve to Morrison." Factoidz. Sept. 1996. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Cooper, Mary H. "Alternative Fuels." CQ Researcher 15.8 (2005): 173-196. CQ Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"CPM Will Soon Become the Standard." Costpermile. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Fuel Cell Vehicles: Challenges." Fuel Economy. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Michael, Copeland V. "The Hydrogen Car Fights Back." CNN.13 Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Natural Gas Reforming." U.S Department of Energy. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Platinum Price. 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Schultz, M. G. "Air Pollution and Climate-Forcing Impacts of a Global Hydrogen Economy." Science 302.5645 (2003): 624-27. Sciencemag. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Summary of Fuel Economy Performance." U.S Department of Transportation. 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Prof. Tom Fink
More and more emphasis is put upon environmental health in modern times. While we are driving vehicles emitting gases that contribute to ozone layer damage and global warming, why not think about choosing a vehicle powered by pure electricity or hydrogen? Including not only the bright spots but also their respective drawbacks, we will make comparisons between the two recent innovations: electric and hydrogen cars.
Actually, the electric car is not a brand new innovation, but "dates back to 1881 when Gustav Trouve showcased his tri-pod, or three-wheeled vehicle...in Paris"(Ferrel). Due to some technical and practical setbacks, once electric cars had been kept in the garage. Thanks to fast developing technology, electric cars come back again. Instead of consuming gasoline, an electric car is powered by an electric motor which gets green energy from a mounted-in battery. The battery is rechargeable from your own house or any electric powered stations.
To most customers, the obvious benefit is that electricity is cheaper than petroleum, and comes from renewable resources such as solar and wind power. In most gas stations in New York City, you will find the average #87 gasoline is $3.15 per gallon including tax. According to the U.S Department of Transportation, the average MPG(miles per gallon) of gasoline cars in 2009 is 32.6(DOT). That's approximately one dime per mile. When it comes to electric cars, it is not easy to estimate the exact cost per mile since the capacity of the battery will be lowered each time it is recharged. However, compared to regular cars, "it costs about one to five cents per mile"(CMP Will). Based on that calculation, you will probably save one nickel every mile on the road. In the long term, it pays you back.
Electric cars can save money since electricity is cheaper than petroleum, and we customers can afford the eco-friendly car. Through many year's progress of technology, the price of electric cars is finally brought down to an acceptable level. For example, Nissan's all-electric Leaf's retail price is $32,780, "but that figure can be reduced by a federal tax credit (up to $7,500) plus state and local incentives"(Boyle). The final price is $25,280 just like an gasoline consuming vehicle. Moreover, electric cars can reach the same speed as standard vehicles, but they have less noise. For instance, Nissan's Leaf "is so quiet that....has faint synthetic whine installed to warm the pedestrian when the car is approaching"(Boyle). The price is reasonable and we can feel probably the same as regular vehicles while driving.
The major disadvantage of electric cars is that their batteries fail to last long. They only hold a charge for a short periods of time. As for Nissan's Leaf, " it has an estimated range of 80 to 100 miles per charge-up"(Boyle). For example, the battery may be running out on the road. Then, we have to think about of recharging the car on the road since there are not so many electric stations.
Nevertheless, eco-friendly electric cars turn out not to be environment-friendly enough. The electricity that charges electric cars is not necessarily from a renewable resource. According to the source of Energy Information Administration:
Renewable-energy sources, such as wind and solar power, account for nearly twenty percent of the world's electricity but only ten percent of U.S. Power. Most of America's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels and nuclear energy. (Quoted in Cooper)
Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. Also, carbon dioxide adds to the greenhouse effect.
While electric cars sound great and are put into use, there is another new product catching people's attention. This environment friendly innovation is hydrogen cars which use hydrogen as a fuel for its engine to work, as its definition indicates: "The fuel cell stack converts hydrogen gas stored onboard with oxygen from the air into electricity to drive the electric motor that propels the vehicle"(Fueleconomy).
To begin with, hydrogen cars are eco-friendly and cause little harm to the environment: "A suggested benefit of large-scale deployment of hydrogen vehicles is that it could lead to decreased emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone precursors"(Schultz). The byproduct of producing hydrogen will cause greenhouse effect, but hydrogen is progress compared to petroleum. According to the United States Department of Energy, "Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to vehicles using gasoline....[they] reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%” (DOE).
Besides, people are worrying about the world runing out of petroleum since fossil fuels are limited and non renewable, but hydrogen is available and abundant. We do not need to be concerned about its depletion. "electrolysis uses electric current to split molecules of water into hydrogen and oxygen....the gases bubble up through the water tank, the hydrogen can be captured and stored"(Cooper). And we know water is a clean and copious resource.
However, there seem to be many disadvantages. One of them is its onboard storage: "the onboard hydrogen storage systems do not yet meet size, wieght, and cost goals for commercialization....making it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to go as far as gasoline vehicles"("FuelCell"). In additon, the weather condition will be a barrier. Like some places in United States, such as Alaska, it will be jeopardized for hydrogen cars to run on the road: "the temperature goes below the freezing point, there are chances that the water in the fuel cells may freeze. Frozen solid, especially before start up, they would not be able to begin working"("FuelCell"). Under this circumstance, we have to dial 311 to have the vehicle towed, leaving ourselves trembling in the cold weather.
One practical disadvantage for customers is the cost. First, The cost incurred in preparing the hydrogen cells for such cars is quite high: "As of October 2009, Fortune magazine estimated the cost of producing the Honda Clarity at $300,000 per car"(Michael). Thus, more research has to be done to produce inexpensive hydrogen cells. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly. But the platinum is very expensive. The recent twenty-four hour price of Platinum is $1,600 per oz(platinumprice). In case of damage, the cost for the repairs and replacement of the fuel cells is also high, which therefore makes the maintenance of these cars an expensive deal.
Indeed, the two kinds of cars are designed to cause less environmental damage. But the hydrogen cars seem to require a very strict requirement to run on the road and the price is impractically high for most of our customers. Thus, for hydrogen cars, they still need technique improvements to reduce the cost. Though electric cars can save money for customers in the long term and are affordable, they are not environmentally friendly enough. From my point of view, a car in the future should balance the environment and customers. Like electric cars, more research is needed to improve the durability of their batteries. Also, new technology is required to make the majority of the electricity out of renewable resources such as solar power and wind.
Works Cited
Boyle, Alan. "Nissan's All-electric Leaf Sparks Quest for Plug-in Power." Msnbc. 15 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Ferrel, B David. "History of the Electric Car: 1828 - 1912, from Trouve to Morrison." Factoidz. Sept. 1996. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Cooper, Mary H. "Alternative Fuels." CQ Researcher 15.8 (2005): 173-196. CQ Researcher. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"CPM Will Soon Become the Standard." Costpermile. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Fuel Cell Vehicles: Challenges." Fuel Economy. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Michael, Copeland V. "The Hydrogen Car Fights Back." CNN.13 Oct. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Natural Gas Reforming." U.S Department of Energy. n.d.Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Platinum Price. 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Schultz, M. G. "Air Pollution and Climate-Forcing Impacts of a Global Hydrogen Economy." Science 302.5645 (2003): 624-27. Sciencemag. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
"Summary of Fuel Economy Performance." U.S Department of Transportation. 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2010.
Comparative Analysis
By Mankamal Osahan
As we conclude the first decade of the twenty-first century and begin the second, we need to become more aware of the widening chasm between natural and human ecosystems. Currently, there are some important differences between the two. Three of these differences are: the interdependence of the environment and its species, the cyclical flow of energy and matter throughout the environment, and the level of partnership and cooperation in the environment.
To begin with, the ecological principle of interdependence between the environment and its species is completely inherent in natural ecosystems. In the words of Fritjof Capra, the species of a natural ecosystem “derive their essential properties and, in fact, their very existence from their relationships to other things” (82). The species of a natural ecosystem help each other out and help make the natural environment sustainable. In this way, the environment and its species all benefit from each other. As Ted Mosquin wrote, “the presence of a species and the things that it can do have a powerful bearing on shaping the environment of all. Organisms help to make the world and then it makes them.” However, such a level of interdependence is not inherent in many human ecosystems. For example, in many human ecosystems, there are corporations who try to deceive people, rip people off, and do anything they can to gain the maximum amount of private profit, in complete disregard for the damage that they do to the relationships between themselves and the general public, and any damage that they do to the environment, human or natural. The corporations have also made a big business out of everything, infiltrating every nook and cranny of human civilization. Fritjof Capra was again absolutely right when he said, “private profits are being made at public costs in the deterioration of the environment and the general quality of life… basic ecological literacy tells us that such a system is not sustainable” (83). Without interdependence, there is no relationship, no cooperation, no partnership, and therefore no sustainability.
Another important and major difference between natural ecosystems and human ecosystems is the cyclical flow of matter and energy throughout the environment. In natural ecosystems, there is not really any waste produced because what is waste for one species is food for another, and the flow of energy and matter in every food chain goes around in a full cycle. However, this cyclical flow is not prevalent in the many of the industrial systems of the world. Many industries pollute the environment by emitting toxic chemicals into the air. The power plants also emit radioactive waste. The uranium that nuclear power plants use is radioactive, and could emit gamma rays into the environment, damaging everyone’s DNA. And hundreds of millions of gallons of fossil fuels are being burnt every day in order to keep cities running. The consequences of all this are lethal. Ted Mosquin writes, “the Earth is witnessing the consequences – rising sea levels, major expansions of deserts with losses of crops and livestock, violent storms, melting of polar ice… in the next decade, more global warming will cause major crop failures that will lead to serious global food shortages.” These industrial systems are completely linear, and not at all cyclical, and sooner or later, when the damage gets inflicted to human communities, the corporate leaders will probably realize that such a system is definitely not sustainable.
A third difference between natural ecosystems and human ecosystems is the principles of partnership and cooperation. In natural ecosystems, every species cooperates and works with one another to sustain the environment and keep it in balance. They never discriminate against each other by cooperating with some species and rejecting others. Every species works together, and they do extremely well with each other. On the other hand, in the case of many human ecosystems, and in some ways throughout the entire human world, there is a lot of aggressive economic expansion, financial domination, and cutthroat competition taking place. For example, in the stock market, Wall Street businessmen shoot up tobacco every morning to engage in cutthroat competition and rip all of their stock market adversaries off. Discrimination takes place in human ecosystems as well. In America, in at least some jobs, women get paid about 84% of what men get paid. There are some American communities that are segregated into a number of different racial groups. Even with a little bit of ecological literacy, you can tell that this system, which has such a big lack of cooperation, cannot be sustainable.
So, in conclusion, as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, we need to become more aware of the differences in sustainability and peacefulness of natural ecosystems and human ecosystems. By becoming more aware of these differences, we can become much better informed about our obligations toward the natural environment, and our own human environment.
Works Cited
Capra, Fritjof. “Ecological Literacy.” Saving Place Ed.
Sidney I. Dobrin. Boston: McGraw Hill 2005, 81-86.
Mosquin, Ted. “Sensing the Inherent Value of Natural
Ecosystems.”
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/
MosqSensInher.html
2009
Mosquin, Ted. “Kyoto, Biodiversity, and the Hypocrisy
of World Leaders.”
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/KYOTO.htm 2009
As we conclude the first decade of the twenty-first century and begin the second, we need to become more aware of the widening chasm between natural and human ecosystems. Currently, there are some important differences between the two. Three of these differences are: the interdependence of the environment and its species, the cyclical flow of energy and matter throughout the environment, and the level of partnership and cooperation in the environment.
To begin with, the ecological principle of interdependence between the environment and its species is completely inherent in natural ecosystems. In the words of Fritjof Capra, the species of a natural ecosystem “derive their essential properties and, in fact, their very existence from their relationships to other things” (82). The species of a natural ecosystem help each other out and help make the natural environment sustainable. In this way, the environment and its species all benefit from each other. As Ted Mosquin wrote, “the presence of a species and the things that it can do have a powerful bearing on shaping the environment of all. Organisms help to make the world and then it makes them.” However, such a level of interdependence is not inherent in many human ecosystems. For example, in many human ecosystems, there are corporations who try to deceive people, rip people off, and do anything they can to gain the maximum amount of private profit, in complete disregard for the damage that they do to the relationships between themselves and the general public, and any damage that they do to the environment, human or natural. The corporations have also made a big business out of everything, infiltrating every nook and cranny of human civilization. Fritjof Capra was again absolutely right when he said, “private profits are being made at public costs in the deterioration of the environment and the general quality of life… basic ecological literacy tells us that such a system is not sustainable” (83). Without interdependence, there is no relationship, no cooperation, no partnership, and therefore no sustainability.
Another important and major difference between natural ecosystems and human ecosystems is the cyclical flow of matter and energy throughout the environment. In natural ecosystems, there is not really any waste produced because what is waste for one species is food for another, and the flow of energy and matter in every food chain goes around in a full cycle. However, this cyclical flow is not prevalent in the many of the industrial systems of the world. Many industries pollute the environment by emitting toxic chemicals into the air. The power plants also emit radioactive waste. The uranium that nuclear power plants use is radioactive, and could emit gamma rays into the environment, damaging everyone’s DNA. And hundreds of millions of gallons of fossil fuels are being burnt every day in order to keep cities running. The consequences of all this are lethal. Ted Mosquin writes, “the Earth is witnessing the consequences – rising sea levels, major expansions of deserts with losses of crops and livestock, violent storms, melting of polar ice… in the next decade, more global warming will cause major crop failures that will lead to serious global food shortages.” These industrial systems are completely linear, and not at all cyclical, and sooner or later, when the damage gets inflicted to human communities, the corporate leaders will probably realize that such a system is definitely not sustainable.
A third difference between natural ecosystems and human ecosystems is the principles of partnership and cooperation. In natural ecosystems, every species cooperates and works with one another to sustain the environment and keep it in balance. They never discriminate against each other by cooperating with some species and rejecting others. Every species works together, and they do extremely well with each other. On the other hand, in the case of many human ecosystems, and in some ways throughout the entire human world, there is a lot of aggressive economic expansion, financial domination, and cutthroat competition taking place. For example, in the stock market, Wall Street businessmen shoot up tobacco every morning to engage in cutthroat competition and rip all of their stock market adversaries off. Discrimination takes place in human ecosystems as well. In America, in at least some jobs, women get paid about 84% of what men get paid. There are some American communities that are segregated into a number of different racial groups. Even with a little bit of ecological literacy, you can tell that this system, which has such a big lack of cooperation, cannot be sustainable.
So, in conclusion, as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, we need to become more aware of the differences in sustainability and peacefulness of natural ecosystems and human ecosystems. By becoming more aware of these differences, we can become much better informed about our obligations toward the natural environment, and our own human environment.
Works Cited
Capra, Fritjof. “Ecological Literacy.” Saving Place Ed.
Sidney I. Dobrin. Boston: McGraw Hill 2005, 81-86.
Mosquin, Ted. “Sensing the Inherent Value of Natural
Ecosystems.”
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/
MosqSensInher.html
2009
Mosquin, Ted. “Kyoto, Biodiversity, and the Hypocrisy
of World Leaders.”
http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/KYOTO.htm 2009
A Human and a Natural Ecosystem
By Anonymous
Even thought a natural ecosystem’s history outdistances a human, they have strong correlation. In the epilogue to “From the Web of Life” by Fritjof Capra, an Austrian-born American physicist, systems theorist, he quotes “a conceptual framework for the link between ecological communities and human communities. Both are living systems that exhibit the same basic principles of organization” (82). There are many similarities between two complete different systems, such as interdependence, elimination and diversity.
Interdependence exists in the natural ecosystem and the human community. Capra points out that: All members of an ecological community are interconnected in a vast and intricate network of relationships… They derive their essential properties and, in fact, their very existence from their relationships to other things, Interdependent-the mutual dependence of all life processes on one another-is the nature of all ecological relationships (82). For example, plants and animals must coexist to survive. They depend upon each other because each provides something for the other. Trees give shade which animals can live, also leaves and fruit are food for them. Animals spread seeds and help to pollinate for the trees. In the same way as a human society, people and firms depend on the government because they need it provides a stable and flourishing social environment for business and living. In like manner, the government relies on those people and companies since they pay taxes which are source of fund. Whether which system, each member of the community plays an important role and it is interdependence.
“Survival of the fittest” is appropriate for the natural ecosystem and the human community. For example, in the natural ecosystem, some cheetahs can run faster than others and they therefore more easily catch their prey. In the same way, those prey are caught by the cheetah, they always are old or weak. Similarly, the human community is full of competition. From kindergarten to college, we pass different exams to get a seat expand. Also, we have to defeat our opponents to get a job. Frankly speaking, those top positions belong to final winners. Likewise, companies and companies, schools and schools, cities and cities, even countries and countries, they have various competitions. Only those who lack competitiveness are to be eliminated from the contest. In a like manner, Capra reminds us These considerations lead to the important realization that managing a social system-a company, a city, or an economy-mean finding the optimal values for the system’s variables. If one tries to maximize any single variable instead of optimizing it, this will invariable lead to the destruction of the system as a whole (85). Survival of the fittest does influence humans’ and animals’ way of life.
Diversity plays the same role in the human and the natural system. Diversity helps the economy by providing many different relationships to solve the same problem. There are air, water, lands, plants and animals to combine the natural system. They are interdependent and to keep the whole ecosystem going. In the same way, we have various nations, races, and cultures in a social system. Especially we tend to a global economy today; human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. As a result, Capra states “A diverse community is a resilient community, capable of adapting to changing situations” (86).
Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems, including seafood, game animals, and timber. These goods represent important and familiar parts of the economy. People have important relationship with the natural ecosystems because we have the same basic principles,include interdependence, elimination and diversity. As a result, we should learn how to become ecologically literate-“…means understanding the principles of organization of ecological communities (ecosystems) and using those principles for creating sustainable human communities” (81).
Works Cited
Capra, Fritjof. “Ecological Literacy.” Saving Place Ed.
Sidney I. Dobrin. Boston: McGraw Hill 2005, 81-86.
Even thought a natural ecosystem’s history outdistances a human, they have strong correlation. In the epilogue to “From the Web of Life” by Fritjof Capra, an Austrian-born American physicist, systems theorist, he quotes “a conceptual framework for the link between ecological communities and human communities. Both are living systems that exhibit the same basic principles of organization” (82). There are many similarities between two complete different systems, such as interdependence, elimination and diversity.
Interdependence exists in the natural ecosystem and the human community. Capra points out that: All members of an ecological community are interconnected in a vast and intricate network of relationships… They derive their essential properties and, in fact, their very existence from their relationships to other things, Interdependent-the mutual dependence of all life processes on one another-is the nature of all ecological relationships (82). For example, plants and animals must coexist to survive. They depend upon each other because each provides something for the other. Trees give shade which animals can live, also leaves and fruit are food for them. Animals spread seeds and help to pollinate for the trees. In the same way as a human society, people and firms depend on the government because they need it provides a stable and flourishing social environment for business and living. In like manner, the government relies on those people and companies since they pay taxes which are source of fund. Whether which system, each member of the community plays an important role and it is interdependence.
“Survival of the fittest” is appropriate for the natural ecosystem and the human community. For example, in the natural ecosystem, some cheetahs can run faster than others and they therefore more easily catch their prey. In the same way, those prey are caught by the cheetah, they always are old or weak. Similarly, the human community is full of competition. From kindergarten to college, we pass different exams to get a seat expand. Also, we have to defeat our opponents to get a job. Frankly speaking, those top positions belong to final winners. Likewise, companies and companies, schools and schools, cities and cities, even countries and countries, they have various competitions. Only those who lack competitiveness are to be eliminated from the contest. In a like manner, Capra reminds us These considerations lead to the important realization that managing a social system-a company, a city, or an economy-mean finding the optimal values for the system’s variables. If one tries to maximize any single variable instead of optimizing it, this will invariable lead to the destruction of the system as a whole (85). Survival of the fittest does influence humans’ and animals’ way of life.
Diversity plays the same role in the human and the natural system. Diversity helps the economy by providing many different relationships to solve the same problem. There are air, water, lands, plants and animals to combine the natural system. They are interdependent and to keep the whole ecosystem going. In the same way, we have various nations, races, and cultures in a social system. Especially we tend to a global economy today; human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. As a result, Capra states “A diverse community is a resilient community, capable of adapting to changing situations” (86).
Human societies derive many essential goods from natural ecosystems, including seafood, game animals, and timber. These goods represent important and familiar parts of the economy. People have important relationship with the natural ecosystems because we have the same basic principles,include interdependence, elimination and diversity. As a result, we should learn how to become ecologically literate-“…means understanding the principles of organization of ecological communities (ecosystems) and using those principles for creating sustainable human communities” (81).
Works Cited
Capra, Fritjof. “Ecological Literacy.” Saving Place Ed.
Sidney I. Dobrin. Boston: McGraw Hill 2005, 81-86.
ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ECOLOGICAL INITIATIVES
By Agnieszka Polec
Composition I, Professor Tom Fink
All people live in a very interesting and fast developing world, but at the same time in a world where air and water pollution is enormous. The cars, power plants and factories let out plenty of harmful gases which are one of the causes of global warming. Damaged tankers and drilling rigs poison oceans with oil, killing oceanic flora and fauna, but there are people who would like to change it. One of them is the USA President Barack Obama. He is the leader of the third largest country in the world in terms of population, the country that produces and consumes plenty of energy using for it foreign oil and fossil fuels. In Obama’s opinion, this situation is very dangerous economically and not favorable for the USA. Because of these threats the President of the United States and his administration decided to focus on these problems during Obama’s presidency.
One of Obama’s projects in terms of environment and economy is clean energy. In the Recovery Act Obama presents how is he going to use clean energy, how it will help the USA be independent in terms of oil and how it will help America economically now and in the future. The US President is also scared about the amount of money that the USA has to spend for buying fuels from other countries, because this “dependence on foreign oil threatens national security” (Energy & Environment). According to Obama “The nation that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will be the nation that leads the 21st century” (“Energy & Environment”). In my opinion Obama’s innovative initiatives are important for such a big country as the USA especially right now when the world is changing environmentally and economically. I also think that the President sees a great chance for the USA in renewable energy sources.
The earth gives us a lot of energy sources to use like hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind power, wave power and geothermal power, and the US President sees in them solutions for environmental threats. I think that Obama’s projects are very interesting, clear and easy to bring into effect, because the USA is the country with a lot of winds, sun and rivers ready to be used. Unfortunately most of the projects are stalled caused by “what they call ‘Not in my Back Yard’ activism, a broken permitting process, and a system that allows for never-ending lawsuits” (Carey). An example of stalling the plans for clean energy is the Sun Power California Valley Solar Ranch:
It is stalled because local residents haven’t warmed to the idea of the proliferation of solar projects in their area. The project has also had to wait because the site is home to 13 different species the federal government has deemed endangered, which means the impact on the local environment has to be assessed by biologists. (Carey)
I think that Obama’s projects in terms of clean energy are great but some people do not understand the importance of it. I am convinced that the businessmen making profits from selling coal or people that are making profits from fuel business block all Obama’s clean energy projects and try to beguile citizens or mislead them, in showing only scary scenarios in terms of renewable sources of energy.
I also agree with the President’s idea of “joint fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks from May 2009”, and also for “medium- and heavy-duty cars and trucks from May 2010” (“Energy & Environment”). Both of the plans will be made for the first time in the history of the USA and will allow people to save money, and keep our environment clean:
The new standards, covering model years 2012-2016, and ultimately requiring an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016, are projected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program with a fuel economy gain averaging more than 5 percent per year and a reduction of approximately 900 million metric tons in greenhouse gas emissions. (“President Obama announces…”)
It is very important for us to know that the cars driving around could be safe for the environment it means that they will not emit as much harmful gases as they used to do. New efficiency standards will help “American motorists save money at the pump while putting less pollution in the air” and “will encourage new and emerging technologies” (Qtd in Eilperin). I think it is a very promising future because the technology will not threaten the society, as it used to be, but finally will help in keeping our country safe and clean.
The US President also wants to encourage citizens to buy new electric or hybrid cars even though they are much more expensive than regular cars, and because of this, Obama and his administration decided to “change the existing $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles into a rebate available to consumers immediately at the point of sale” (Goode). I think that car rebate is very tempting and will attract plenty of clients to electric car showrooms. Right now on the street we can see more and more electric or hybrid cars and even New York’s taxis are having a lot of them which is a very good sign for Obama’s political strategy and of course for our environment. In my opinion Obama’s efficiency standards and new technologies are one of the best choices in terms of environmental safety, and what is also important it will not clash with citizens’ home budgets.
President Obama also wants to protect our oceans, lakes and rivers from pollution, harmful poisons and ecological disasters. His “Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is the largest investment in the Great Lakes in two decades” (“Energy & Environment”) and dedicated to this purpose. After the BP Deepwater Oil Spill in 2010 the US President also decided to set up a “new National Ocean Council (NOC) to strengthen the ocean governance and coordination” (“The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force”). NOC will be made up of federal agencies, state and regional groups working together on current issues in terms of Oceans and Great Lakes Policy. I think that this joint cooperation will be successful and will help to keep the USA waters safe. “For the first time in this country’s history, we will have a national policy that aligns the great promise of our oceans with the great responsibility for managing them in coordinated, thoughtful and sustainable fashion”(Qtd in Clayton). This cooperation will help to prevent such a disasters like BP Deepwater Oil Spill, “where the Management Minerals Service was doing things and other agencies were not fully engaged in raising warning flags”(Qtd. in Clayton). In my opinion NOC will help in better communication between government agencies, oil companies and fishermen, which will prevent and predict ecological catastrophes or ocean overusing.
All Obama’s Initiatives that I wrote about are very important for us, for our future, for our country and the world as well. I hope that environmentalists, businessmen and politicians will help the USA President to achieve his goals and realize his plans. Despite many obstacles caused by people with different points of view, with greedy nature or not understanding our ecological situation, I hope that most of Obama’s project will finally be put in place.
Works Cited
Carey, Amanda. “New Report Shows Even Clean Energy Projects Are Dying in Regulatory Nightmares.” The Daily Caller. 11 Mar. 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2011.
Clayton, Mark. “How Obama Wants to Protect Oceans: White House Unveils New Plan.” The Christian Science Monitor. 19 Jul. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2011.
Goode, Darren. “Budget Touts Clean Energy.” Politico. 14 Feb. 2011. Web. 21 Mar.2011.
Eilperin, Juliet. “Emissions Limits, Greater Fuel Efficiency for Cars, Light Trucks Made Official.” The Washington Post. 2 Apr. 2010. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.
“Energy & Environment.” White House. Issues. Web.13 Mar.2011.
“President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy.” White house, Office of Press Secretary. 19 May 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
“The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force.” White House. Council on Environment Quality. Web. 18 Mar.2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)