Turkey Talk

After a long and grueling “almost month” (first blog post since November 25^th) of making myself comfortable in my own haystack…I’m back--with the help of my 26 year-old brother, to bring you So I Sleep in a Haystack’s first collaborative entry—well it’s kind of bootleg because my brother is lazy. 

Getting into an argument with my older brother seems to occur on a daily basis.  I’d go as far to say that it’s routine.  From politics to athletics—he’s always pointing out the flaws in my arguments—the kid takes criticism to the next level.  Prime example (exaggerated a bit to convey the point):

If I were to say, “Hey Scott, I’ve been thinking about my political ideology and I think I’d consider myself fiscally conservative.  I don’t think it’s fair for the government to take money out of my hard earned paycheck to support unemployment programs—I shouldn’t be responsible for others downright laziness.”   

Scotty would not only shit a cow, but would start steaming from his ears.  Saying something like, “You’re an idiot.  You have neither grounds nor any reliable information to make a comment like that.  Unemployment benefits provide you and me with…blah blah blah.”  Point being--I get torn a new one every time I say some something. 

That being said, I sent my brother the assignment at hand (get in a faux fight with a loved one about an environmental issue) and he reluctantly agreed to email me a powerful statement that he felt contained validity.

(Quickly, one more thing—he knew I was writing a research paper on farming sustainably so I’m guessing he figured I had some knowledge on the topic).

Here is what he said:

Brett,

I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for but I’ll give it a go.

While the idea behind organics and organic farming seems to be a worthwhile and noble cause, industrial farmers maintain such a competitive edge on every aspect of the food industry, to compete with them is nearly impossible. 

Hope this helps.

Well big brother—unlike YOU-I can admit when someone makes a valid argument and I do feel that you’ve nailed the agricultural industry’s dilemma, here in the United States, right on the money.  We as American consumers have this preconceived notion that everything we do must be bigger, faster, better, stronger, and cheaper.  This mentality is no different when speaking on the topic of food producers.   For the most part, businesses across the country are concerned with turning a positive economic profit.  The farming industry has adopted practices such as spraying pesticides and fungicides that contain toxic chemicals on their plants to combat nature making it possible to grow crops in off-seasons.  These chemicals have caused humans to build immunities to certain antibiotics.  Also, farmers are able to pump out more animals and meat by feeding their animals hormones that make them grow faster and larger.  In doing so, the cost of raising an animal is exponentially cheaper.  With some of these practices taking place on a daily basis it is grounds for a lower quality of food--a risk and compromise most companies are willing to take.  The pay out is so large.  Organic farmers, who will not compromise the integrity of their food, are producing far less than these “factory farmers.”  By producing much less, these organic farmers must increase the price of their food to make up for their small quantity produced.  You do the math.  With most of this country being low/middle class it is much more economical to buy the cheaper industrial food.  The cycle goes in circles, making it nearly impossible for organic farmers to compete with the monstrous industrial farmers.  

 SIAH (Guess)

Questions for Mr. Scott Russell Sanders

1.  Who is the targeted audience for your book? Was it written for environmental activists, people interested in conservation and sustainability, or Cornucopians who feel it is their right to consume without consequence?      

2.  If we don’t start holding ourselves accountable for our heinous actions towards Mother Nature, how long before we start to see significant change? 
 
3.  Do you ever find yourself conforming to the American consumption craze?  

4.  How realistic do you think it is to ask people to change their daily lifestyles, even when it may translate into more money and time spent (examples: Kroger vs. BloomingFoods—Gap vs. Home-Made sweater)?

Research Paper Outline

FARMING SUSTAINABLY

Thesis: With agriculture being a source of revenue for the city of Bloomington, Indiana, I will examine a unique type of farmer: small family farmers (who grow and ship locally) and investigate how salient of an issue sustaining the Earth's resources is to them.

Introduction

1.  Industrial Farming

            A. Benefits

                        a.  Cheap Food

                        b.  Genetic Altering

                        c.  Productivity

            B.  Social Costs

                        a.  Run-off

                        b.  Toxic Chemicals

                        c.  Loss of Nutrients

2.  Organic Family Faming

            A. Benefits

                        a.  All-Natural

                        b.  Less energy use

                        c. Free-Range

            B.  Social Costs

                        a.  Competition w/ large farms

                        b.  More expensive

                        c. Time and labor

3.  Schacht Farms

            A.  Operations

            B.  Type of Farming

            C. Combat against big farms

            D.  Turn Profit

            E. Concerned with Environment?

4.  What to do?

            A.  Public Policy

                        a.  Tax Credit

                        b.  University Funding

                        c.  Commodity Price Systems

Conclusion

Silverstein's Society

Oh boy--this post is going to be painful for a select few, but I’m going to let the words flow and fly without any consideration for the bashing I could receive from my readers.  In this post I will attempt to construct my “picture perfect” utopian society.  I’ll be guiding you through my ideal government setup, my population’s personal values, and their attainable goals (if you will) within my fantastic society.  [Note that this is an environmental blog, so when I do speak of each of these topics within my utopian society they will be directly connected to the environment].

I’ll take a top down approach to the construct of my society, so let’s begin by discussing the backbone of my utopia: the government.  For me, a government should maintain an authoritative stature within a society.  Government is there for the sole purpose of protecting its citizens from physical harm.  They are to defend it’s population within times of war and they are to interfere when people’s well being is in jeopardy (mass sickness and crime).   People are going to say, “It’s impossible for American’s in this day and age to govern themselves without a set of rules.”  To that I say, my utopian society will take the constitution we have in place and directly abide by it.  Each and every amendment will be upheld and followed.  Pretty simple, right? 

As far as the environment is concerned, government is to stay out of almost all environmental affairs.   Citizens of my utopian society are allowed to use ALL natural resources permitting they own the land they want to use and in doing so they do not directly affect the physical well being of the current population.  Let me give you an example in case I’ve been a little unclear:  Let’s say that I’m a citizen of Silverstein’s Society and I own a factory that produces colored spray paint.  Factors of productions force me to pollute an immense amount of aerosol in order to produce my colored spray paint.  For five years, my business has flourished and the people living around the factory have maintained primo health until one day a resident of the neighborhood comes down with a fatal illness due to the aerosol in the air.  Because this pollution is directly affecting the health of people within my society, government would intervene and appropriate measures would be taken to shut down the factory until a “healthy” amount of pollution (assessed by government scientists) could be produced without harming the population. 

My population will model their feelings toward the environment very close to how a modern day cornucopian views the environment.  Unconcerned with the diminishing natural resource supply, people of my utopian society will use what their momma (Earth) gave them.  Each and every resource will be utilized.  Because their will be no limit to the amount of resources that can be used business will boom and industry will flourish.  Profits will be maximized and the “land of opportunity” will be taken to the next level.  I know that this ideology is on the extreme side, but this my time to be radical so leave me alone…at least for the length of this post.   

“Come and consume” will be the motto of my society.  We as American’s are obsessed with more of anything.  My society will be no different.  I think that sometimes we forget that it’s in a human’s nature to always want more.  Talk to any self-made millionaire—they’re never satisfied.  It’s that hunger that makes the world spin and allows for America to remain so prosperous.  

Based on the sole premise of economic prosperity, my population would not care about the well being other humans, so long as they haven’t broken any of the laws laid out by my government.   

I could go forever but I think you get where I'm going with this...

Quick recap: Government=constitution, flourishing industry, and profit maximization.  Sound good to you?

My work is done here.  I think I’m going to spend a night in the haystack…

As Real As They Come

As you all know (from previous blog entries) I come from the cornucopian school of thought where conservation doesn’t exist and resources are abundant.  At this point in my life I’m relatively uninterested in saving the Earth, as I believe a brighter youth will find ways to deal with our depleting natural resource supply.  

                                                             (Guess which one I am??)

With that said, let’s face the cold hard truth.  Had A Conservationist Manifesto (a book by Scott Russel Sanders) not been assigned as required reading for my political sustainability topics course you wouldn’t have caught me dead holding it let alone reading it. Why would a cornucopian like myself be interested in learning how humans are solely responsible for ruining the planet?  Do you really think I plan on making my own clothes?  Planting my own produce?  If there were money to be made at the cost of consuming resources, would I hold back?  Nonetheless, reading thus far has allowed me to remove myself from my beliefs and try to understand the “other side.” 

I have to give it to Sanders--his clear, insightful, and personal stories add a unique twist to his take on how to deal with the consumer consumption crisis.  The book begins with Sanders explaining an ever so common crisis in his hometown of Bloomington, Indiana. The events unfold like so: Businessman owns land.  Land is worth money.  Businessman sells land to developer.  Developer clears land and creates housing.  With opposition to this intelligent business transaction, local environmental activists begin to protest by camping out in the landowner’s trees refusing to let the developers develop.    Sanders commends their efforts pointing out that it is their responsibility to conserve and preserve the little undeveloped land in left in Bloomington.  This responsibility will be the preface for the entire book.  Sanders feels that we are all temporary members on an imaginary ark with the intelligence and knowledge to protect all living and non-living species.  

As the book progresses, he speaks of the immense amount of consumption American’s partake in.  It’s as if we have no regard for the past or future, Sanders says more eloquently.  We consume and consume.  All we care about are tangible items, no matter the expense it may have to our Earth.  One saying that I look to heart was when Sanders talks of advertisements and the messages they send to the consumer.  Stating, “Get more stuff. Grab, gulp, go!”—could be the mantra for our hectic, profligate civilization (Sanders 31).”  While pointing out the massive intake of resources the main focus of all of these “frightening stories” is to give advice on how “we” can stop all of this madness before it is too late.  Sanders proposes talking more pride in your local community.  Plant trees, walk places, ride a bike, buy local food.  Be active and don’t sit back for a free ride.  The choices we make, he says, will directly impact generations to come. 

As I have briefly begun to lay out the first 80some pages of the text, I think Sanders has a very clear objective.  We (Americans) are obsessed with materialistic items and money.  We do not care about the gift we have been given (Earth), and if we continue to abuse it, it WILL be gone.  He wants to educate “passengers of the ark” to be aware of this dilemma.  We must work cooperatively to solve these major issues.  Every act to stop the destruction of forests, every protest to stop polluting rivers, every conserved resource has a positive impact on the fight against exploiting our limited natural resource supply.  We must conserve and we must fight for as natural resources are a common wealth. 

Do I agree with his argument?  Can his objective be accomplished?  Let me break it down for you plain and simple.  I understand that we as a population are consuming resources at an unsustainable rate, but the bottom line is we, as a race, are greedy.  Money means power to vast majority of the population and for myself and most, if it comes at the cost of future generations…then let them figure it out.  Some may say—you’re being arrogant.  You haven’t created any offspring so how could you possibly care about future generations?  Maybe they’re right…Sanders does have a couple hundred more pages of convincing to do.  As of now, his objective isn’t going to come close to being accomplished.  I’m all about time efficiency and his proposals are anything but that.  Let me break it down again—I understand that when I buy a sweater from the GAP it is causing tons of pollution and creating lots of waste, but do you think I’m going to sit and knit a sweater for 3 hours?  Not even close.

Most definitely my harshest post-but I’m just being real people—go sleep in that haystack. 

CUT HIM SOME SLACK OR YOU'LL END UP IN THE STACK

Welcome back.  I know I’ve got at least one reader so I’m going to continue with my blog.  My third entry will attempt to assess President Obama’s work on environmental issues.  Has he stood by his “change” platform or conformed to the political paradox of unfulfilled promises?  Has he been in office long enough to make change?  Does he even have the power to really make a difference? 

I’d like to take a moment here to preface this entry by saying that President Obama’s election victory was one for the textbooks.  Not only did the man run a flawless campaign, he was able to capture the majority vote of many states that hadn’t gone blue in decades.  Also, we as a nation elected the first African-American President in the history of our country.  Such a huge step for mankind!  Now that I’ve gotten that little rant off my chest lets talk about the platform Obama ran on.  

With America in shambles because of a faltering economy and a drawn-out war effort people were ready for a change.  We had stood by President George W. Bush’s side for 8 long years and we were ready for something new: a change.  This change is exactly what President Barrack Obama promised if and when he got elected. 

If you talk to two different people and ask them what they think a promise is one might say, “promises are meant to be broken” while the other may say, “promises are meant to be kept.”   I believe that when any President is elected it is his duty to keep as many promises as he has made (or try to the best of his ability).  I am a realistic person and I do have reasonable expectations when it comes to fulfilling these promises so, Mr. President, I haven’t jumped ship just yet…I’m going to continue with my blog format in laying out three relevant environmental promises Obama has made and discuss why these particular promises have been kept.  First, let us talk about President Obama’s pledge to increase funding for national parks and forests.  This can be seen as an extremely salient issue because the preservation of these national parks and forests means less displaced animals and more natural resource conservation.  Obama was able to execute this promise by signing a bill to increase funding (sounds pretty simple—oh if only all legislation required the stroke of a pen).  Next, lets take a more complex promise such as encouraging water conservation in the west.  He was able to tackle this promise by including it in a 175 million dollar stimulus pledge that listed water conservation (specifically w. regard to western states) as a priority.  Lastly, President Obama told his supporters that he would push farmers to use more efficient and renewable resources when farming.  Obama stood by this pledge by proposing new energy initiatives and increasing funding for the hopeful creation of hydroelectric powered sources.  

Above, I’ve mentioned only three environmental issues that Obama pledged to change and successfully followed through on.  Not every promise is going to be executed and I’m ok with that.  When a baseball player goes up to the plate is he expected to hit a homerun each time?  When a student takes an examination will they get each question correct?  When a comedian tells a joke will the entire audience laugh?  I think, we as citizens of the United States have unrealistic expectations.  We must prioritize issues most salient to the nation and realize that the President only serves a four-year term.   Which leads me nicely into my next topic of discussion.  How much power does the President really have?

Every piece of legislation, especially large bills, takes time.  Its not just as though President Obama can say, “I think that there is too much pollution, therefore all companies must stop polluting,” and bam a law banning pollution is created.  There is order in the legislative branch.  Each bill must get approved in the house and the senate before making its way to the President’s desk, which can take years.  This time, limits the power the President has.  If a bill proposed by the President never makes it past the house, is he responsible for his promise not being kept?  He wrote the legislation, didn’t he? 

I’m going to go out on a limb and tell environmentalists to cut President Obama some slack. He entered office in an economic recession and has been dealing with removing our troops from the Middle-East.  He HAS gotten a decent chunk of legislation passed with regards to the environment and if re-elected I feel he will continue to fulfill his promises.  Just give him some time.  As I’ve said before legislation isn’t born overnight just as change takes more than a few years.  Environmentalists talk about not taking the quick fix when it comes to using the Earth’s resources—well guess what give the guy some damn time.  Maybe change over time should have been his motto—would have saved us all an ear, no?

Post was a little harsh? You guessed it---go sleep in a haystack.

REGULATORS

Hopefully you didn’t sleep in that haystack for too long and you’ve mustered up enough strength to join me for my second blog post.  Entry dos will include my thoughts and attitude towards government intervention as it pertains to the environment, along with some Interesting Insight on Instruments Implemented (check out that alliteration) to carry out these policies.  I don’t know about you, but my hands are getting hot touching my keyboard---if you know what I mean…echhem.

            There are American citizens who associate with particular political parties that pride themselves in an ideology where the government has no power to tell its population what it can and cannot do to the environment.  Their philosophy tends to mimic that of something a tween would say to another tween, “You can’t tell me what to do/I don’t have to listen to you.”  Lets take a step back from this ever-so-common adolescent exchange and think about all the times our “terrible” American government has told institutions or us what to do regarding environmental matters (and let me hint—it hasn’t turned out so badly).   

            We can look at the government from two different levels: federal and local.  First, on a federal level our government has established numerous environmental agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) whose mission is clearly stated as, “to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.”  The EPA has been solely responsible for creating policy such as the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which in laments terms, ensures safe drinking water for all Americans.  The act tests bodies of water for toxic substances and requires that all contaminants present in water must be made aware to the public.  I don’t know about you but when I fill a cup up with tap water, I take comfort in knowing I’m not going to croak because there are toxic chemicals in my aqua.  If government had not set these regulations your next sip could contain a hefty amount of lead—yum.  

Next, we take environmental regulation to the local level.  This can be seen in instances where local municipalities set aside plots of land for preservation—maybe through zoning ordinances? (local parks).  These local parks in turn can put money into town resident’s pockets by increasing property values.  Sounds nice now, ay?  

To sum up, I do feel that there are particular instances where the government should intervene with the environment.  Most environmental issues that present problems are not the direct result of one instance—they are the result of instances.  Rivers run through states, pollution crosses state lines.  There is a bigger picture here people.  Our government looks after it’s citizens and if that means laying down the law when it comes to environmental protection then I’m ok with it—well maybe sometimes….

Lets start a chant—market-based instruments, market-based instruments, market-based instruments.  I feel that if the government wants to implement environmental policy they must put market-based instruments into use.  One example of an MBI is a tradable permit to pollute.  To keep you interested, ill try to make this as simple as possible.  The government puts a cap on how much a certain company can pollute with potential fines for over-pollution.  Each company has a pollutant ration and after their ration runs out they must turn to other companies and buy their “unused pollution.”  What the government hopes this particular MBI will do is put a cap on the amount of pollution allowed and that the potential monetary fines will translate to less pollution.  If pollution is going to happen regardless why not monitor it? 

On the contrary some feel that these MBIs are just giving corporations a license to pollute and that we should rely more on traditional government regulation.  Yes, this seems like a good idea but don’t you think this stance seems to be a little TOO rigid.  With MBIs, the government is creating an artificial market for pollution. With government regulations, taxes come into play and the taxpayer winds up with the brunt of the burden. 

I think my preferred method of intervention correlates relatively closely with my political ideology.  I tend to think along the lines of an economist and that the market will balance all issues out.  These MBIs that I speak about, create the market needed to sustain our environments well being.  Frequent updating would be required but I do feel optimistic that this is our best shot at realistic regulation. 

Sorry for this post’s dryness…if you don’t like it go sleep in haystack.  

Check Me Out!

Before I begin with my ever-so exciting first post I must throw in a little disclaimer so you can't say I didn't warn you...this is my first blog so bear with me people...

Being"half" a Political Science major I feel as though I am constantly being nudged to answer the following questions, "which party do you identify most with and why?" and "what are your social and economic beliefs?"  Time and time again I find myself trying to identify more with one party to make my life a little easier, but life just aint' that easy.  If only it were as simple as two choices...sigh

I would however have to say that after living almost 22 years of my life in a relatively liberal household, my family has heavily influenced my political ideologies just as textbooks say they should.

As far as most social issues are concerned I would say I have a liberal mentality.  A "liberal mentality"--you may ask yourself what kind of nonsense is he talking about?  Let's take three heated social issues and discuss.  Education, abortion, and same-sex marriage.  Growing up in a rather affluent town, education was always top-notch.  My public school system spared no expense. When it came to adopting the newest technologies and hiring the most qualified mind molders, taxpayers were more than happy to cough up the dough.  All of this seemed pretty peachy to me until I reached my later years in high school and started to think about the unfair advantages I had compared to those growing up in an inner-city.  Why should my education be better?  Aren't we all equal?  Why should income and personal wealth determine the quality of education?  I feel that every American should have access to the same education no matter their economic standing.  Next up: ABORTION.  I'm Pro-Choice--extenuating circumstances (rape) or not, I feel a woman should be able to decide: end of debate!  Same-sex marriage anyone?  I'm an advocate of same-sex marriage.  The government is not decide what constitutes as a marriage.  If two PEOPLE are in love that's good enough for me.  Man marries man; man marries woman--is there a difference--not for this guy.

My economic stance tends to be a tad more conservative so I'll try to make this section as boring as possible--kidding...  I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth and feel that money earned is money that should be kept.  Why should I give my hard earned cash to the unemployed (harsh)?  Also, I'm a firm believer in profit maximization.  If outsourcing makes your company more profitable then so be it--why should our government give incentives (tax that I pay) to corporations that stay on American soil.  I'm a firm believer in every corporation for themselves. Don't forget I'm still MORE liberal--some food for thought--economically conservative individuals talk a lot about limiting government regulation...what happened when the major banks failed and the car corporations went bankrupt?

Cornucopians.  Say it three times fast.

After reading Layzer's text I would most definitely consider myself a Cornucopian.  I tend to think that economic growth and prosperity have no limit and if the global population continues to create new technologies we will figure out ways to curb shortages and create new resources.  While this approach seems rather optimistic, I do deem it to be true.  I am also a huge proponent of individual freedom--who is anyone to say what natural resources we can and cannot use.  The Earth gave them to us-- so let's use em'!


Shying away from a more environmentally philosophical approach I do find myself living in the present.  I don't always think about the negative effects my actions have. How much easier is it to get in a car than to walk somewhere?  Why carry groceries when you can put them in a plastic bag?  At this point in my life if something is more time efficient, it's for me.


If you've got a problem with my post...........go sleep in a haystack!