Food and the Environmental Impact

In this day and age there are several criteria that we consider before eating a meal, snack, or simply desert. We tend to eat what “we like” and “tastes good” when there is a choice. Yet, one must always eat healthy to keep up with their nutrition intake. So what do I consider when making my food choices? My priority is the number of calories in the food and the nutrition in the food. I like to keep up with my calorie intake and not over consume calories. Second of all, I consider the price. If you can find a sub for $3 and $6, who wouldn’t choose the cheaper one? This debate actually came up during my health and nutrition class. Although very unhealthy, so many people purchase and consume McDonalds. Their price is appealing; if you can buy a “healthy” meal for $10 and a McDonalds meal for $5, of course people will pick cheap over expensive. This is specifically comparing the nutritional content and the price. Now, going into the environmental considerations, I personally do not take these specific criteria into consideration. This would probably eliminate most animal products. From my knowledge and research (through my health and nutrition class) I have learned that one can consume enough protein per day without consuming any animal products. In fact, currently Americans tend to over consume protein (as so many people favor meat over vegetables etc). Hence, one may assume that becoming vegetarian or vegan will decrease the protein intake. To conclude the first answer to the first question, I do not consider any environmental factors when making my food choice. I eat what I like and what is good for my health.

Considering what I had in the past few days, I can think of the noodle soup that I had at the Vietnamese restaurant. It was their traditional egg noodle soup and included pork and shrimp. According to the readings there are much more calculation that must be considered when calculating the environmental impact not just the food itself, but the “opportunity cost” in economics term. Having said this, animal products have the biggest environmental impact and I conclude that this noodle soup with pork and shrimp had the biggest environmental impact. Not to mention I have been trying to eat healthy for the past couple of days so this was one of the rare times I consumed animal products.

This brings up the last topic I would like to discuss. This relates back to the environmental impact from various foods we consume. From our readings we can say that the animal products have one of the biggest environmental impacts hence there are many people who are vegetarian or vegan for that reason. However, there are so many cultures that have cultural traditional foods (such as the Vietnamese noodle soup I mentioned) and many of these foods include animal products. If we are going to eliminate animal products or prevent too much consuming of animal products, where are these cultural and traditional foods go? Make them disappear and lose part of their culture? I think this is an interesting topic that did not come up in the readings. It is true that so many of these dishes are available in vegetarian versions. However, this lacks in the originality and loses the value of the traditional food. I think we should continue this discussion as this course is an international environmental politics class and is relevant to our discussion. What will happen to the various cultures?

Lessening My Impact, One Hamburger At a Time...

As a lactose-intolerant vegetarian, my food choices are what many would classify as picky. I don’t eat any meat or fish and eat only a limited amount of dairy products (mostly just cheese). My decision to become a vegetarian was not environmentally motived (it all began with a severely undercooked hamburger), but my conscious decision to stay one has been influenced by my lessened environmental impact. My choice even pushed my family, who have always been big meat eaters, to cut back on their consumption (you’re welcome dad!). Many of the food choices I now make are influenced by the way I ate as a child though. I may have cut out the meat, but I still gravitate towards fresh organic produce. With a farmer for a brother and a childhood of memories of weeding our backyard garden, I think much of the way I eat now is a learned habit. I instinctively hear my brother’s voice lecturing on the difficulty of ever getting all the pesticides off of strawberries every time I’m tempted by my favorite fruit in the non- organic section of the supermarket.

Now while I love to gloat that my vegetarian lifestyle is lower impact than my meat eating counterparts, not all of my food choices are so stellar. I supplement the vegetables and fruits I buy at the farmers’ market with things like grapefruit. I know they’re sprayed with damaging pesticides and certainly not grown anywhere near here, but I find myself waiting in the line at Giant with a bag of grapefruits on a weekly basis regardless of the season. Avoiding all processed food, while environmentally the better choice, still alludes me as well. My love of fried potato products and chocolate cookies continually seems to trump my concern for the environment (or my health for that matter). So while I try and be good about my food choices-local, organic and in season when possible- I haven’t mastered it yet.

Green Enough?

I have to agree with my fellow bloggers that technology has the potential to help us, but I don’t think it alone will save us. Those who think that technology will pull us out of the mess subscribe to the belief that innovation will become more environmentally friendly and even reverse the environmental degradation. It’s easy to get behind green innovations like hybrid cars and alternative forms of energy. In these solutions we see a chance to alter our lifestyles a little, but continue to live mostly as we are used to doing. Priuses (or Prii), for example, are often touted as an example of green technology. And while these hybrid cars are certainly impressive, the parts are shipped from all over to manufacture the cars and the batteries used are harmful. Advertising this technology as the solution to our environmental problems is just irresponsible. Fully putting our faith in these technologies without considering the other effects is misdirected. I think this demonstrates the larger point that, while technology can help, it can also be unintentionally harmful. It is important to consider all of the effects of “green” technology and make these effects widely known so that informed decisions can be made.

Convenient Technology

I also agree with Yumi’s assertion that technology has become an integral part of our lives, and just as Carolyn has also stated an essential part of “Western Society”.  Technology has become embedded in our day to day interactions that we rely on it as form of convenience.  We come up with new technological innovations all the time, not only that, but we improve on the ones we have now to make them more efficient and convenient for us. In a sense our society has become dependent on technology to a point that we believe anything can be fixed by these new innovations.

With this said, most people would believe that technology especially green technology would save us by solving our environmental problems. And green technology could play an important role in alleviating concerns we have with our environment, but relying on new innovations isn’t enough and will more than likely contribute to the issues than actually solve them. This would just add to problems because of the effects these technologies would have on the environment or the process it would take to create such technology would probably contribute more to the issues than solve them.

 I agree with Carolyn’s notion that because we live in a society that is so technologically innovated we’ve fooled ourselves into thinking that we can manage these environmental concerns with technology. So why worry about these issues when we could just control what happens to our planet with new innovations?

Rather than resolve this issue relying on green technology would just mass the actual problem; we would be using these innovations to make our lives suitable to live in a changing environment. This is after all how our society acts, using technology to improve and adapt to our current living situation. Unless we step back and assess these issues from a different viewpoint, I think only then can we understand the true impact of environmental problems and find better ways to tackle these concerns.

Technology can help

I believe that technology can only help us towards our goal of saving the environment. We currently do not have close to the technology to save us. Technology can help us get closer to our goal but we need to do things individually to also reach our goal. Changing to green energy can dramatically help us. If we move markets to green energy greater technologies will emerge from it. Right now money is in oil and other dirty power sources so technology is increasing greater in that realm. If we move away from these dirty energy sources we have a much brighter future. Not only do we have to worry about our country but we also have to think about the developing nations coming into the picture. China and India are starting to make large strides in the world and with these strides their carbon footprint is becoming larger. In this aspect technology can either save us or destroy us. Much of our future depends on what type of technology we use. If China and India continue to use cheap and dirty fuel our future does not look bright but if they use greener alternatives we can hold on longer. Most of the ideas of technology that can help change our global climate back to normal are ridiculous. For example the idea of shooting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to fix the depletion that we have created. The problem however is that this creates acid rain among other things and destroy our environment even greater.

Not Clever

The United States is going through a lot of problems with the current financial situation we are in right now. Instead of looking to the distant future we are looking for the quick fix. We decided to bailout the corrupt instead of investing in the future of green technology. There were many other options to move forward in our country we could have invested our money in creation of green energy and green technologies. The move to a society where we actually create things again would have dramatically helped our country. More importantly this would also take a lot of the strain off the environment. If we moved to an infrastructure similar to Germany we would have more jobs and a cleaner environment. We need to work together as a country and move forward and bite the bullet right now and move towards a society with green jobs and a green infrastructure. If China can organize and implement these things then it is possible for us to do it as well. Republicans need to swallow their pride and realize that there is really global climate change. Without this it will be very difficult for us to move forward because so much power is given to the minority political party. It is very frustrating that we can not move forward because some politicians put their political party ahead of the American people.

Technology

I believe that technology cannot be categorized as a positive or negative force in our lives, but it has become a part of our lives. In this day and age, technology is inevitable, although there are still many places out in the world that does not have access to technology. So in a sense, arguing that technology is a part of our lives may sound too absurd. However, just as we are completing this assignment, we are using technology—computers and laptops—and technology is expected in our everyday lives.

Will technology save us? There are so many dimensions to consider when approaching this question. Short answer is yes, but with certain assumptions and understanding. First of all, in this week’s reading in the Green Planet Blues, it argued that many of the donations (for environmental issues) tend to go to places that need minimal support. In other words, places where the donors can see a change happen. Therefore, countries that really need help do not receive enough funds because the donors are impatient and demand the result right away. I think this is a similar concept when discussing technology. Where technology is accessible and already have its foundations, technology seemed to progress rigorously rather than introducing new technology in the developing areas where people must explain, teach, and start from scratch. This process takes too much time so rather than giving equal technology access to people all over the world, technology improvement tend to focus in places that already have the necessary understanding. So, I argue that technology can save us in these places where technology keeps innovating with new devices and programs. But in areas that technology is uncommon, will technology save us…hard question.

What does this mean in environmental terms? Well again, this is a complicated issue. Technology is included in the I=PAT equation that we have discussed in the past. Clearly, it is a huge sector of the environmental impact. What can we do with technology, how can we make use of this huge chunk of sector has infinitive hope, and of course the downside as well. In the Environmental Politics and Sacrifice panel discussion I attended, the panel speakers have repeatedly brought up, “where do you end up in the future?” I feel that this fits into the discussion of technology and the environmental terms. The question will then be, where do we end up in the future with technology? A mode of economical improvement and profits? Or a technique for environmental sustainability? As also brought up in the discussion, in terms of the climate change issues, the United States cannot move out and work for it due to the economy. The priority focus is economic improvement and people give less attention to one of the most essential aspect of our lives. There must be a change in this notion itself, especially in the United States.