Response to Postel Discussion

I enjoyed hearing all of the opinions on Postel's water article. However, it seemed in class that everyone pretty much agreed with Postel, and nobody challenged what she wrote. Our class as a whole agreed that we needed to be more water conservative. Also, I think most of our class was as surprised as I was that water was even an issue. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWiabqZ1isE Dr. Peter Evans  speaks about the importance of renewable energy. About halfway through the video, Dan Walter, General manager of Food and Beverage Energy Solutions at GE speaks about the importance of water conservation, more specifically. I am more interested to hear Mr. Walter's advice and opinions on the subject, which he did not elaborate on due to it being such a short video. I am astonished at how much water it takes to make food and beverage, and would love to know more details on that subject.

In the featured Patagonia story, the speaker is desperate and disappointed and hoping that the river gets bigger and better than it used to be. In the following clip, the character named Fred falls into the well. He is desperate and nervous that he will not be rescued. At 16:41 in this video, he is rescued and has a sense of relief and happiness, just like the speaker felt relief and happiness when he saw the gorgeous river.

http://www.fastpasstv.ms/watch/?url=3uXn46ChlNzr7Z%2Fh4tzT0tTqpNTi4JXozsnZ5aDs1ODn3t6r2emq2d%2FU

“Water: Adapting to a New Normal”

Summary and Response

In her article, Sandra Postel explains the impact that water (or lack there of) has in our environment. She explains that we are currently using more water than we should, and if we keep on the track that we are on then we will eventually run out of water. Postel does not give one solid answer for how to solve the problem; however, she gives multiple answers on a smaller scale that she argues will fix the water and energy problems. As a whole, Postel identifies various water problems, gives examples, and analyzes each issue by finding a solution to fixing the problem.

There are multiple problems that our world has that focuses on water. In the past few decades, there have been fatal floods, storms, droughts, dams break, and famines. Though one could maybe make an excuse about one or two of these natural disasters, because all of these are happening, it is not just a coincidence. Postel points out that many American may think that these events only happen in far away, third world countries. She argues that is not the case, and mentions many devastating floods that have happened in American in the past few years. After reading the first couple pages of Postel’s article, it is obvious that there is a water problem on our earth.

Next, Postel explains how important it is that we reverse the water problem. She connects energy and water, and argues that we need one to have another. Therefore, she says that lawmakers are in fact harmful when they try to protect either energy or water, because it makes the other worse. Though I won’t go into detail of how Postel explains we can solve these problems, all in all Postel would like farmers to use a drip irrigation system to avoid waste, for everyone to eat at least half of the meat they are currently eating, and create laws in order for these to go into effect. 

I found Postel’s article extremely intriguing. Call me ignorant, but I had no clue that water was an issue in the slightest. Since we see rain all the time, it seems like it is readily available to us. Not only rain, but when we go to the grocery store, there are shelves of water bottles that seem to be readily available. I can get up out of my bed and turn on the faucet within a matter of thirty seconds. Once again, readily available. I think that many people in the United States, as well as other industrialized countries do not realize there is a water problem because water seems to be so readily available. Maybe the way to solve the problem involves making the public aware of the problem. Everyone knows how the saying goes: “don’t fix something that isn’t broken.” If not enough people view the lack of water as a problem, then there will not be enough effort to actually fix the problem. This is the way multiple environmental problems are. It’s sad, but true. In my opinion, the first key to saving the environment is somehow coming together to educate the public on this water problem in order to take a step in the right direction. 

I agree with Postel on the subsidies. It makes so much sense to try and encourage farmers protect the environment. Sometimes it seems like we can do all the begging we want, but in the end it is the money that matters. This is why lawmakers need to figure out a way to financially support farmers who strive to protect the environment from erosion, runoff, etc.  I do believe that if farmers were given an incentive, then they would be able to improve this problem we are having, as well as others. I remember learning about hog “factory farms” in my sociology class last semester. In North Carolina, we went from thousands of small hog farms to only twenty-five large farm factories. This resulted in an extreme excess of hog poop. Who would have thought of that? The farmers had so much hog poop that they didn’t know what to do with it, so they started dumping it in these huge holes in the ground. Eventually, the poop did much more “harm” than the hogs did “good”. This is yet another reason why lawmakers need to make serious laws that prohibit farmers from pollution and waste. Not only farmers, but factory owners and companies should be part of the law as well. In my opinion, the second key to saving the environment is making and enforcing new (and perhaps) extreme laws. 

One might say that this plan of educating the public, and then creating laws is too simple, and that it wouldn’t work because it would only affect the amount of impact the United States has on the environment rather than all the countries of the world. This is my third key to success: I think we need to find a way to bond with other countries in order to make a lasting impact. I’m not sure the best way to do this because I’m sure many have had this idea. However, we should not give up until we succeed! If I tell you to breathe, will you “try” to breathe? NO! You will  breathe! This is why we should come together as nations of the world, not just “try” to come together as nations of the world and give up when it is harder than it seemed. Of course it is difficult, but it is worth saving our planet. So, the three keys to success are: 1) educate the public; 2) make laws; 3) bond with other countries in order to achieve success!

A major environmental issue that would call for an island civilization in the future is mammal extinction. This is a bigger deal than a lot of people think because all of the animals are interconnected and if one species becomes extinct, it has a bigger effect than one might think. Here is a link to a scholarly article that explains in detail the issue.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5247304803m6535/

"Island Civilization" Summary & Review

     This article by Nash is extremely interesting and thought provoking. Nash is extremely concerned about the future of our planet and well being. In his mind, there is proof that humans can not continue the growing trend that they are on. Humans are reproducing too often, soaking up too many resources, stealing wilderness from other species, and not caring about the sustainability (or lack their of) of their environment and/or planet. Nash thinks that there are four possibilities for what is going to happen to our planet in the fourth millennium. The first possibility is a wasteland in which every bit of “goodness” is used up and humans are left with a wasteland for a planet. The second possibility is what Nash calls the garden scenario in which humans have found a way to modify every part of the planet without biodiversity or any other species. The third possibility is one where technological advances were no where to be found and technology was completely abandoned. The last scenario (Nash’s proposal) is titled Island Civilization. This is an idea in which humans have various islands on the planet and are completely sustainable within their islands. Outside of the islands, animals have completely dominance over the wilderness. If humans choose to go outside of their island and into the wilderness. it must live within the wilderness rather than take over the wilderness by building a house, etc. Nash firmly believes that this is the best option for the future and believes it is possible in its entirety, but humans are currently lacking motivation.

While Nash’s idea of island civilization seems to me to be appealing, I think it is completely bogus. Yes, it is obvious to all that something needs to be done about the environment. Yes, it is obvious to all that we cannot live the way we are currently living forever. Yes, it is obvious humans do not care much about the existence of other species. However, I am a believe that everything happens for a reason. I am confident in the human race that we will be able to figure this out without going to drastic measures and completely reorganizing the entire planet, as Nash wants us to do. I do believe that it is the government’s responsibility to step forward and write legislation that supports the environment because humans will not change their ways on their own, rather they will only change their ways when punishment is threatened. This is why the government needs to get involved. 

Another reason that I do not approve of Nash’s island civilization model is because what if we never make it to the fourth millennium to begin with? What if God comes back before the millennium and saves the Christians and sends everybody else to hell? Then we have done an extreme amount of work reorganizing the planet, but were not able to reap the benefits before God came back. What if God knows that humans were going to suck all of the resources out of the planet and was planning to come back to save them before humans ruined everything completely? God knows exactly where we are headed and I am not fearful that we will have to live in a wasteland.