Unseen problems in food systems

Food Systems refer to the entire food process.  One aspect I would particularly cover is the labor required to pick the food.  Before I can to the University of Illinois, I went to a small school called Rollins College in Orlando, FL.  As part of a class project for my Immigration and Poverty class, we had to go and glean and orange field.  Since we were all with our friends and leisurely picking oranges, it was not too bad for us, but the actual picking was not as easy as you would expect.  In addition to this, workers are paid very little and often by the basket, so they must work non-stop to attempt to make any money at all.  Not only illegal immigrants work these fields but many extremely poor migrant farmers make the trip from Florida up the east coast every year picking the various crops that need harvesting for extremely low sums of money.  Another problem is that many people do not believe that these jobs are as bad as they are and that there is an influx of American workers who would be willing to do this work.  Alabama is currently learning this is not as true as many believe.  Alabama has enacted several laws, one of which requires schools to check the immigration status of enrolling students and their parents before they can go to school.  Another allows police to check immigration status at routine traffic stops (Fitz).  Several of these laws have caused much of the illegal immigrant labor force out of Alabama creating crops like tomatoes that have no one to harvest them.   People do not realize that our food is so cheap because of not only subsidies, but also because people that are exploited harvest much of the food.  This can also be seen in the movie Food Inc., where the chickens are “caught” by illegal immigrants.  The meat packing companies look for people who would be unlikely to report the various horrors in the meat production industry (Kenner).  For a more information in a very enjoyable format, watch Stephen Colbert cover the Alabama problem http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/400778/october-26-2011/alabama-s-migrant-workers

Fitz, Marshall, and Angela M. Kelley. "The Nasty Ripple Effects of Alabama’s Immigration Law." Center for American Progress. 27 Oct. 2011. Web. 27 Oct. 2011. <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/alabama_immigration.html>.

Food, Inc. By Robert Kenner. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009. DVD.

Ryan Rudolf

Fracking in the Sunday NYTimes 10/30

Hey guys,

This was on the front page of the NYTimes this morning - it's an article discussing the ongoing debate on fracking in upstate New York. Very interesting and provides an up-to-date perspective on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/nyregion/in-cooperstowns-fight-over-gas-drilling-civility-is-fading.html?_r=1&hp

-EC

Food Production -Brittney Frazier

As we began discussing the production of food, I instantly began to recap the concerns in Upton Sinclair’s, “The Jungle”.  Sinclair exposed the horrendous working surroundings within the meat-packing industry during the beginning of the twentieth century. He described how the meat appeared to be rotten, and filthy. Sinclair expressed how employees would process lifeless, wounded, and sickly animals preceding regular hours once all meat inspectors were no longer in the factory (1). It is revealed that meat sales began to decrease once the public were knowledgeable of the acts which took place within the meat-packing plants (2).  Sinclair’s idea of the meat-packing industry in my opinion correlates with what we now refer to as corporate farms. Although, I am hopeful that the cruelty level has diminished, yet, how can one be sure? In a USA Today news article, it was revealed that some meat companies are now using Carbon Monoxide in order to make old meat appear to be more appealing to consumers. After reading this article, I realized that no, the meat packaging plants may not be processing  diseased meat as within “The Jungle” yet, they are continuously endangering consumers by using Carbon Monoxide which could possibly be as bad as using diseased meats. American’s are so greedy, that they are eager to do whatever it takes to make money.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIwx3nVIRsU&feature=related

"BRIA 24 1 B Upton Sinclairs The Jungle: Muckraking the Meat-Packing Industry." CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action. 2011. Web. <http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-1-b-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-muckraking-the-meat-packing-industry.html>.

"Meatpacking in America: Still a Jungle Out There? . NOW | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. 15 Dec. 2006. Web. <http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html>.

Schmit, Julie. "Carbon Monoxide Keeps Meat Red Longer; Is That Good? - USATODAY.com." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. Web. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-10-30-kalsec-meat-carbon-monoxide_N.htm

Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. New York: Bantam, 1981

Food Matters-Cara Caliendo

Since we have been looking at food systems and what we are really eating I thought of a book my roommate read this summer. This book had caused her to become a vegetarian and to be honest I kind of just thought it was silly. Really what could be in that book that could change someones eating habits so drastically. She had always been a healthy eater but being a vegetarian seemed extreme even for her. I naturally had no interest in reading the book at first. I just figured this was a phase she was going through to stay in better shape. However after looking at the clips from Food Inc and reading parts of "Fast Food Nation" I asked her if I could look at it. It seemed like it might go along with what we were discussing and I was kind of interested in learning more about all of this. The book is called "Food Matters" by Mark Bittman and it talks more about what our food really goes through. The book compares the fossil fuels that are used to produce food to the fossil fuels we use driving cars. One thing I found particularly interested was a statistic it gave that says the if every person in America were to cut back on the amount of meat equivalent to three cheeseburgers a week, we would cancel out all the carbon emissions that SUVs give off in a year (Bittman, 17). Along with the statistic he talks about how an average family of four eating a steak dinner is equivalent to driving around in an SUV for 3 hours. This is amazing to me! I never realized how much went into producing our food or what it was doing to the earth. For me food has always just been something I bought at the grocery store. I didn't put thought into buying organic or what I should eat to help the earth I just bought what I liked (or what was cheapest) and ate it. However the things that it says in this book really make me think twice about what I eat. The thought that just changing your diet to consume less meat can greatly help the amount of carbon emissions seems like a no brainer to me. Why wouldn't you?

Bittman doesn't suggest cutting meat out of diets all together, although does say that they are not essential to our bodies, but rather eating less of it and eating more things that are good for us. He suggests a higher grain diet and eating more organically. He says to cut back on processed foods which are processed so much they have virtually no nutritional value anymore (Bittman, 15). We consume so much energy from all the foods we eat where if we just switched to a simpler diet, we could reduce carbon emission. After reading this along with the things we looked at in class it has definitely made me rethink my food habits. I don't think I can radically change the way I eat but a few things, like eating less meat and eating more organically when I can, are things that are very manageable.

If you're ever in a mood to learn more I would suggest reading this book. It even offers meal plans and healthy recipes in the back of the book. It's a great way to learn more and try to eat smarter. If you're anything like me, it won't change how you eat completely but may help to give you more insight as to how to eat in order to do what you can to help reduce carbon emissions.

Bittman , Mark. Food Matters. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009.

Food Production: What's For Dinner? But Really.. - Katherine Heppard

As most people walk through the supermarket, they absentmindedly grab everything on their list, not giving a second thought to where it came from. The same can be said about taking a quick trip through the McDonald’s drive through. However, it might be beneficial to think again, to think about where the things you’re eating have really come from. I became interested in food systems about a year ago after reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, doing an extensive research project on factory farming and watching documentaries, like Food Inc. (2008), by Robert Kenner. The things I discovered in all of my research were far worse than I had ever imagined and drove my interest deeper and led me to share all of the information I had learned with my family and friends. I became an advocate for purchasing local and I do all I can to purchase what’s in season from orchards and farmer’s markets along with pushing for others to buy from local butchers, rather than the meat counter at the supermarket.

Purchasing locally not only puts your mind at ease about helping to keep local producers in business, but it’s also comforting to know where your food is coming from and what was used in it’s production.  When purchasing from local butchers, the animals used in the production of the product were not given steroids or hormones so that they grew larger as well as faster, unlike the animals produced by factory farms.

            Those steroids and hormones that factory farmers use to create larger animals have negative side effects on the animals, which are then passed on to the consumers of the animal products. There aren’t terrible consequences all of the time, but every now and then, consuming animal products can lead to death. In the clip below, taken from Food Inc. (2008), describes some of the negative effects from not only salmonella outbreaks, but also contaminated run off from factories that affect vegetable fields, leading to e coli outbreaks (Kenner). The problem stems from the large-scale production. The fast food industry demands large-scale production in order to supply what consumers’ demand, which leads to the consolidation of factories because of the need for uniformity in products. These large factories are breeding grounds for contaminants, as the Food Inc. (2008) clip states, “as processing plants have gotten bigger and bigger, it’s just perfect for taking bad pathogens and spreading them far and wide” (Kenner).

            I do keep in mind that purchasing local and fresh takes more time, effort and sometimes money than purchasing all of your groceries from a supermarket, but with all that goes on inside factory farms and slaughterhouses, the peace of mind that comes from knowing where your food comes can be rewarding.

            So the question I ask you guys is, what would it take for you to make a change in your consumption habits and start buying locally, rather than from a supermarket? Or, how many of you actually do already?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoRNnCoEx-k&feature=relmfu

Robert Kenner. 2008. Food Inc. [Motion Picture]. USA: Magnolia Pictures 

Environment/Pollution: The Issues of Climate Change By: Jordan Little

Environment/Pollution: The Issues of Climate Change

The climate changes today have been sped up due to the activities and action of humans.  There have been crucial changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere growing at a rapidly increasing rate.  The earth faces changes in its atmosphere due to natural causes such as volcanic eruptions, ocean current, the earth’s orbital changes and the processes of the solar system.  Mankind has only added to the natural changes of the Earth and in a negative manner. However, the rise of going green has entered our culture offering hope.  Sadly, the harm that human beings are doing to the Earth is only harming us in the long run and further hindering species who are unable to fend for themselves.

The effects caused on the Earth worsen the conditions of natural procedures taken by the Earth in order to sustain life; therefore causing damage to the Earth’s atmosphere and the environment.  Natural causes such as volcanic eruptions release gases into the atmosphere, the oceans play an important role in determining the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and plant life produces gases needed to survive, particularly Oxygen. And by use negatively adding to the natural process of the earth at such a rapid pace is only hindering the earth and significantly slowing down the earth’s natural process of rehabilitation.  We are producing more waste due to over population, more pollution due to excessive energy use, and we are promoting the hazardous trend of deforestation all over the world in order to develop cities and expand businesses, which will generate income for the economy.

 This however is tragic in the sense that we are damaging the atmosphere as well as our natural resources.  Natural climate change therefore takes on these hazardous effects, adds to what we produce, and causes even greater negative effects to the Earth.  Consequently, climate change limits the resources we have on Earth. 

Also, changes in ocean circulation may affect the climate through the movement of CO2 into or out of the atmosphere.  Changes in land use, deforestation, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities have all led to a rise in the emission of carbon dioxide.  Methane is another important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is released from animals such as dairy cows, goats, pigs, buffaloes, camels, horses and sheep.  Methane is also emitted during the process of oil drilling, coal mining, leaking gas pipelines, landfills and waste dumps.  “In order to provide better model simulations of our climate and the consequences of human behavior for climate, various specialist, ecologist, and researchers need to collaborate and merge their research and findings (Science Daily: European Space Agency).  Amazingly, there has been a recent introduction of a train of satellites named the A-Train, which are believed to help scientist further understand climate change. 

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. "NASA Explains Puzzling Impact Of Polluted Skies On Climate." ScienceDaily 14 July 2006. 23 October 2011 <http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2006/07/060714082130.htm>

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. "Introducing the 'A-Train': Satellites Help Scientists Understand Earth's Changing Climate." ScienceDaily 27 October 2010. 28 October 2011 <http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/10/101027111352.htm>.

European Space Agency. "Predicting Future Climate: Networking Initiative to Support Interdisciplinary Research." ScienceDaily 11 March 2010. 23 October 2011 <http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/03/100311092420.htm>.

Rooftop Solar Funding - Eric Shamberg

            With all that we have been reading on sustainability and the overuse of fossil fuels, I’ve been looking around for how the government and companies are looking for ways to improve on sustainability. I recently came across two articles (posted below) on energy companies and how they are looking to use solar energy to generate electricity rather than using fossil fuels. Two companies, OneRoof Energy and Clean Power Finance, have both began installing rooftop solar panels on people’s homes to make this happen. Most people would assume that this would make for an ugly roof and would cost more than one would want to pay for this, but on the contrary, these companies are installing the panels for little to nothing and have a variety of panels to match different styles of rooftops.

            By using solar energy to generate electricity, you are helping the environment through the sustainability of fossil fuels and saving the government money on renewable energy subsidies. According to the CNN article, renewable energy subsidies cost the government $12 billion last year. Another benefit of using rooftop solar panels is that in the summer, the solar panels act as a shade to cool your home and in the winter, the solar panels act as an insulator in order to heat the home. The green lodging news reports that these benefits will actually save you 5% on electricity.  

            In September, Google put $75 million into a fund that solar contractors and designers can draw on to finance solar systems for homeowners and has already started installing panels on houses in California in Colorado, with a plan to expand to the northeast over the next year. Hopefully, solar rooftop panels will continue to expand across the country, with companies finding ways to make this cheaper and homeowners saving energy and money in the process.

            On a similar note, inside the CNN article is a cool video on how the military is trying to implement solar energy into the Marines.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/27/technology/google_solar/index.htm?iid=EL#comments

http://energy.aol.com/2011/09/26/ca-company-promises-free-unnoticable-solar-panels/

Living with the Land – A Sustainability Strategy? By Liz Tippy

I spent last semester in Disney World doing a professional internship with the Labor Operations department. One of the perks that Disney offers its ‘cast members’ is free admission into the theme parks. Needless to say, I took full advantage of this practice and spent a good deal of time exploring each theme park. One attraction that I personally find fascinating, but is often overlooked by the tourist crowed, is Living with the Land in Epcot’s Land Pavilion. It is a slow moving boat ride through a greenhouse facility that details new and emerging research that the cast members in the land have been doing. While you might not expect to find plant biologists at Disney World, they actually have a number of doctors doing research in the facility.

I have always found this attraction interesting because it details newer methods of growing that I had never seen before. Along with impressive things like the world’s largest tomato tree, they also talk a lot about research they are doing on growing plants in dry and arid soil – or even without soil. They discuss how this could be used to help feed people who live in places where the soil is not good enough to grow things on its own. They also grow all of the plants organically, using a few strategically placed bugs to ward off pests. 

                        Dwarf Pepper Plants Growing in the Living with the Land Attraction

However, after taking this class I wonder if research like this could also be used to make for a more sustainable world. Could this technology be used not only to feed the millions of hungry people around the world, but also to make a world where we can support ourselves better without continually destroying our environment? Or are we just looking into another way to mass produce food without a thought for the effects it will have on our earth?  The name of the attraction certainly implies that its focus is on working with the land instead of destroying it, and the research is enough to make me at least hopeful, but what do you think?

"Living with the Land." Walt Disney World Resort. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/parks/epcot/attractions/living-with-the-land/>.

"Living with the Land." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 20 Oct. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_with_the_Land>.

Benefits of Organic Foods

My mom and her friends often times make a fuss about buying organic food and for the longest time I never gave it thought. I agreed that it tasted good and knew it was healthier for me but never understood why everybody didn’t buy it instead of artificial “food.” That was until I got to college and started shopping for myself and became appalled by prices on organic food. Why would I pay $5 on a small jar of peanut butter when I could pay $2.50 for twice as much?

It turns out there are lots of benefits to paying that extra buck. The food for the most part tastes the same (in my opinion) but studies have show that organic fruits and vegetables have high antioxidant levels. But did you know that purchasing organic foods also bring huge ecological benefits? There have been arguments claiming that there is not enough organic food to feed the world, but this Huffington Post article states that organic plots yielded 30% more than conventional plots. Furthermore, the process of farming organic crops is far more sustainable than conventional agriculture. Both methods need tractors and other equipment that run off of petroleum on conventional farms except 41% of the petroleum goes to nitrogen-based fertilizers which cannot be used in organic farming. The same study also showed that organic produce is cheaper to farm and are twice as profitable as conventional ones.

Take into consideration what we have read in class about a booming population and how much of a problem it will cause in the next years. Feeding the world is definitely one of those problems, especially when oil is necessary to get the farming done. If our population is to rise as Thom Hartmann predicted to 10 billion people by 2030 it will be hard to predict what problem will come first: the oil shortage or the food shortage. If food shortage comes first then it will surely be the conventional farming.

So my question to you all is, if you had the money, why wouldn’t you pay for organic foods?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/organic-agriculture-benefits_n_998214.html?ref=sustainability

Meeting with a member of congress- Taylor Zoll

Tonight I had the opportunity to sit in on a Q & A session with our congressmen Tim Johnson (represents Central Illinois).  Several questions were asked about our current economic environment.  He pretty much responded with the fact that our economic state is NOT getting any better, and nothing is really going on to do much about it, it seemed like.  His thoughts were that he would not see a significant change in his lifetime, but our generation would certainly see the negative result or impact of our current state.

I got the opportunity to ask a question and because of this class I asked something along the lines of, "Concerning the environment, we are very dependent on fossil fuels.  Why do you think our government pushes to continually depend on such resources and even resort to things like "fracking" which is potentially harming our citizens opposed to using technology to promote renewable energy?"

He responded with- I am only the only "Green" republican congressmen and this is very important to me  He said fracking was a great example, but then said he didn't really know too much about it. (Surprised?!).

I then explained to him that it was just on the news tonight and they were saying how great fracking is and it promotes jobs, and right at the end they say "oh and it potentially contaminates citizens water"

He just said I was right and it was concerning to him.  Either way, no matter your stance on government- after this presentation, it makes one pretty cynical! I was very surprised but then again not surprised on his answers.

What do you guys think this means for our future and specifically for our reliance on fossil fuels? Do you think we will ever see a change?

Alternative Energy

Over the past few weeks, we have been focusing on the amount and types of fossil fuels that we currently use as a society.  As we read the various articles by Kunstler, Hartmann, and Goodell, we came to notice that they all agree that we need to change the ways in which we are generating energy.  The fossil fuels of coal and oil that we are using are harming our environment.  These fossil fuels will not last us forever and something needs to be done immediately.  As a society we should be looking at incorporating more forms of alternative energy into our everyday lives.  Certain companies such as GM and Wal-Mart are starting to incorporate alternative energy into their products and stores.

Just this past Saturday, Millennium Reign Energy LLC, an alternative energy company, demonstrated to General Motors the ability to use hydrogen as a transportation fuel.  Over the past couple of years, this company has been working on a self-contained, fully automatic hydrogen generating station.  They hope that this generator will become standard in every home some day, instead of our houses being powered through coal and gas.  Through the process of retaining energy through solar panels and wind panels and combining it with water, hydrogen and oxygen are made.  This hydrogen is what will be used to run the future hydrogen powered fuel cell car.  This will increase efficiency as well as reduce cost and negative impacts on the environment.

Wal-Mart is also pursuing using forms of alternative energy.  Wal-Mart is starting to use solar energy as well as wind energy to power its stores.  The company is starting to put up wind turbines in the parking lot to help with Wal-Mart’s energy.  They will also be putting up solar panels on top of their roofs to collect energy.  These solar panels will be controlled by a device behind the store that will move them in the direction that the sun is currently facing.  It is estimated that the solar project may account for up to 70 percent of Wal-Mart’s energy.  This would greatly reduce the amount of fossil fuels that the company uses to power its stores around the country.  Wal-Mart and General Motors are great examples of large corporations moving towards more sustainable practices when it comes to energy.  Other large corporations should follow the practices of these companies and become more sustainable in their energy consumption.

http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/englewood-duo-demonstrates-hydrogen-as-fuel-alternative-to-gm-reps

http://barnegat.patch.com/articles/walmart-incorporates-solar-into-alternative-energy-plan

Drift in the Healthcare Debate

     In contrast to Michael’s blog post on healthcare, I am going to focus on drift.  Drift in the sense that that Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have consistently proposed health care policies which do little to alleviate the real problem, with the real problem being the rising number of Americans who do not have health insurance.
  
    First, I am going to define drift.  Drift, according to the unit one class notes, is defined as, “….to not take policy action in response to a social, political, economic change, resulting in policy limbo”.  Democrats have provided policy ideas which do little to reduce the total number of Americans who do not have health insurance.  The first example of drift I will discuss came during the heat of the 2004 presidential campaign between the Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and President George W Bush.  Kerry, instead of addressing the rising number of uninsured, he decided to just target his policy at people who were already insured.   His plan would have provided catastrophic illness plans as a supplement to people’s existing employer-based health insurance plans.  He chose to ignore the people who had no health insurance to focus on the people that at least had some insurance.  

     Second, President Barack Obama’s 2010 health care reform law does a meager job of addressing the problem of the rising number of uninsured Americans.  Currently, there are 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance.  President Obama’s plan would cover 32 million of these Americans.  However, this would still leave 23 million Americans without health insurance.  Why does a healthcare plan which is supposed to extend healthcare to all Americans leave 23 million Americans out in the cold?

     I am amazed me that people keep voting for democrat after democrat, each promising health care reform, but each failing to address the needs of the Americans who have no health insurance.   Why do people keep doing this?  The only conclusion I can draw is that people are ignorant of the history the Democratic Party actually has when it comes to healthcare.  

Connolly, C. (2004). Kerry plan could cut insurance premiums. The Washington Post. Retrieved
           from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16748-2004Jun4.html

Mertens, M. (2010). Health care for all leaves 23 million uninsured. National Public Radio.  
           Retrieved from  
           http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/health_care_for_all_minus_23_m.html

Wechsler, P. (2011). Americans without health insurance rise to 52 million on job loss, expense.

Bloomberg.  Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-16/americans-without-health-insurance-rose-to-52-million-on-job-loss-expense.html   

Chicago Parks - Michael Trajkovich

In class we discussed James Howard Kunstler’s book The Geography of Nowhere where he warns of the rise of a suburban pattern and the socioeconomic costs associated. After reading the excerpts from his book it is clear that this suburban pattern is not a sustainable habit but Kunstler’s work leaves more questions as to the state of large cities, where higher populations are concentrated in much smaller areas. Blair Kamin, an architecture critic and Pulitzer Prize winning writer for the Chicago Tribune, looks at the condition of parks in Chicago in his October 9, 2011 article “Cramped Chicago: Half of city’s 2.7 million people live in park-poor areas.”

Kamin raises some alarming statistics about Chicago parks. As part of then Mayor Richard M. Daley’s 1998 CitySpace plan, designed to expand open space in Chicago, the city set a standard that for every 1,000 people there should be two acres of open space. Chicago has not lived up to these modest standards, leaving Kamin to find it more appropriate to call Chicago’s parkland “park deserts.” Chicago today ranks 14^th among 19 densely populated U.S. cities in parkland per 1,000 residents according to a survey by The Trust for Public Land, a San Francisco-based advocacy group. Currently, 32 of Chicago’s 77 community areas do not meet the city’s 2-acres-per-1,000-people open space standard. This accounts for nearly 1.35 million people, half the city’s total.

The benefits of community parks are numerous; from playgrounds, sports fields and bicycle trails promoting exercising to picnic areas to encourage socializing with friends and neighbors and overall just providing a respite from the noise and clutter of the city. So how do we fix this problem?

The parks problem in Chicago may appear daunting but the Chicago Park District’s 2011-2015 capital improvement plan already foresees more than $306 million in projects to improve and add parks. In addition, many of Chicago’s communities fall into a tax-increment financing districts, which use anticipated gains in tax revenue to finance improvements to parks, amongst other things, and have already supported more than $75 million in park districts projects. However, as the article points out, communities not in these districts do not have these resources to improve. The biggest tool that has yet to be utilized is state grants and private contributions for parklands. Despite the economic situation currently facing Chicago, an increase in capital, whether it be financial or human ingenuity, would be essential to increasing the use and availability of Chicago parks, which truly are a social good to be utilized by all.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-openspace-problems-20111009,0,6802036.story 

Advanced Technologies in Architecture

As we read articles in class by James Howard Kunstler, we learned of the American landscapes and townscapes that are deteriorating. While Kunstler himself focused mainly on the suburban sprawl, we know that the lack of sustainable practices are not limited here. Look at any big city in the United States and you are likely to see a smog filled area where chugging smokestacks are not uncommon. Even as we just learned of our dependency on coal and the problems it brings us, the urgency to move towards a more sustainable future within our cities is ever more present.

I feel as we move towards the future, it is important to change how we erect our human habitats. We must put up cities and towns that our fitting for future generations to come. The way of thinking about our architecture must become creative and innovative; we must think outside the box.

This article, which I came across while on CNN.com, looks into just what was mentioned above. It discusses the possibility of an advanced technology in architecture which would be made of self-regulating building materials. Building materials that can absorb carbon emissions and make them into something useful. Building materials that act like a building's skin and remove the need for radiators and air conditioning. These buildings could be used all over our cities and would be programmed to extract carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The material would even be self-repairing.

Technology such as this, which seems too much like science fiction to be real, is real. However as with any significant change, the start up is very slow. Attitudes in investment and legislation will have to change in order to make this risky investment work. It is time to get creative and innovative and start thinking outside the box.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/living-buildings-carbon/?hpt=hp_c1

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/living-buildings-carbon/?hpt=hp_c1

America's growing anti-intellectualism -EC

In the growing frustration over how to fix our economy, the #occupyWallStreet movement has taken the media by storm. Protestors, most of them around our age, are taking to the streets around the country to protest the Wall Street crooks who have used their legislative wit to take control of our economy and gamble away our futures.

A lot has been written and published about the movement, citing the risky bankers, the failures of our government, the political party fallout, etc. But not much has been written about the protestors. I mean the people standing out day and night with signs and banners. Who are these people? We know what they are fighting for, but why them? Why not jobless autoworkers, or the laid off trash men, or the failing restaurant owners?

These protestors are us, the youth. The recent graduates who have worked and toiled for nearly two decades to finally enter the real world. The ones who studied for the ACTs, spent thousands of dollars in tuition, took the CPA, GMAT, and LSAT, and come into a world with NO JOBS. We are the ones protesting, and it’s important that we stand up and fight for the problems that exist, because if we don’t, we are doomed.

This article I am posting is an op-ed from Al-Jazeera that directly discusses the failures of our past, and why we as the bright young future need to take to the streets and fix the issue. It cites the political follies, the banking breakdowns, and the historical developments that have led to the economic failures we are witnessing today.

But it also cites hope, progress, and potential by pointing out the flaws. We can learn from our mistakes, but it will require intellect and patience. The older generations have failed to accept the changes in society as reality. As the future, it is our duty to no longer ignore the obvious. Global warming, economic espionage, and military malfunction can come to an end if you use our minds and act as intelligent rational people. Read this op-ed, and you will see how we can change our future. 

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011109112727162598.html

Air Pollution and Obesity

Everyone has heard that the United States is going through an epidemic with the number of cases of obesity and diabetes.  This is commonly attributed to the amount of unhealthy food we eat and the lack of exercise.  However, recent studies have shown that air pollution might have a bigger effect on our bodies then we might think.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently relaxed some of its policies on its cross-state pollution rule and it looks as if Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to delay new laws from going into affect.  While business do not want more regulations in a down economy, more and more studies have shown that the regulation of air pollution may be a public health issue.

New studies have shown that small particulate matter, which are the particles in the air from road traffic, coal power plants, industrial manufacturers, and wood fuel production, have a convincing correlation with obesity and diabetes.  Low income communities located closer to sources of particulate matter have a much higher rate of these diseases than those higher income people living farther away from the sources. 

No one is saying that this small particulate matter is the number one cause of obsesity and diabetes, “even after controlling for factors such as genetics, income levels, weight, diet, and exercise, Harvard researchers found a ‘consistent and significant’ relationship between Type II diabetes prevalence and exposure to ultrafine particulate matter in a recent study.”  Ohio State also did research on rats and discovered that early exposure to these fine particles led to more abdominal fat and insulin resistance even if they ate a normal diet.  The exposure levels were similar to those found in US cities.

I think this article from Forbes is very interesting because it connects two major problems that our nation is dealing with.  If in fact they were related, then there might be more favor of air pollution regulations.  While this might be a stretch, I think that we could solve a portion of the obesity problem while having cleaner air in our country.

Westervelt, Amy. "Two New Reasons to Worry about Air Pollution: Obesity and Diabetes - Forbes." Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. Forbes, 10 Oct. 2011. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2011/10/10/two-new-reasons-to-worry-about-air-pollution-obesity-and-diabetes/>.

Transportation and Sustainability - Sam Estes

Our nation, as is the case with numerous other countries around the world, is in the midst of a sustainability crisis. For many years the United States has been greedy with the abundance of natural resources at its disposable, and the problem has now come to fruition with our generation. Several variables come into play when discussing America’s desperate need to become more sustainable, but no area has caused more concern than the transportation sector.

According to a 2009 speech given by current U.S. Secretary of Transportation (and former U.S. Congressman from Illinois) Ray LaHood, “the transportation sector currently accounts for nearly one-third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, more than half of nitrogen-oxide emissions, and almost three-quarters of petroleum consumption.” To say that transportation in the U.S. is leaving a considerable sized carbon footprint would be an understatement.

The challenge that faces the U.S. government is reworking a massive, interwoven transportation system that has been at the very center of our culture for over a half century. President Obama, with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, has made clear the need to rebuild a faltering interstate highway system that is in need of considerable repair.

But the problem is more than just that of fixing speed bumps of I-57. As Secretary LaHood stated in his 2009 speech, “We need to keep our economy moving, and keep America growing and innovating, but we’ve got to find new ways of doing it. We need to make the changes and investments in our transportation infrastructure that will put us firmly in control of our destiny, especially when it comes to energy.” The goal should be not only to make American travel more efficient but also to effectively reduce the staggering amount of emissions we produce.

Some ideas that have been openly discussed by public officials include better public transportation, vehicles that produce less carbon emissions, high-speed railways, and more. High-speed rail, for example, would pay for itself by reducing our $700 billion oil purchases each year, and would be a major step in reducing the effect the U.S. has on global warming (this according to the U.S. High-Speed Rail Association’s website.) The use of a more sustainable form of transportation will not only help our deteriorating environment but can also help a financial system that remains in desperate need of repair.

No matter what the government decides to do, legislation affecting sustainable transportation will continue to be a critical issue in American public policy for years to come. As the Rockefeller Foundation has stated, “Transportation is a critical issue because it is woven into almost every aspect of our existence…In the United States at every level of government, too little attention is paid to getting a return on transportation investments or maintaining the infrastructure we already have so we can grow sustainably and affordably…We are at a tipping point for change in transportation policy in the United States.”

 Works Cited:

United States High-Speed Rail Association. “Numerous benefits with train systems.” 2011. Web. 10 October 2011.

<http://www.ushsr.com/benefits.html>.

The Rockefeller Center. “Promoting Equitable, Sustainable, Transportation.” 2011. Web. 10 October 2011. < http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/what-we-do/current-work/promoting-equitable-sustainable/>.