Ah, the second part of this book really uncovered some “puzzles”!
Not really goign to go much into the Carbon dioxide chapter, because it is pretty much everything we already know. Co2 is a byproduct of our massive consumption and addiction to fossil fuels. Unfortunately, don’t expect much to be done until there is a larger DEMAND for clean fuels. The moral implication of creating policies on limiting emissions of this pollution, is just that. It limits production. How can a country like the US tell other countries, “yes, we used this to get ahead…but you can’t.” Also, we don’t call tunnels in Pittsburgh “tubes”.
People need trees, and trees need people. We are a somewhat symbiotic relationship. We need trees to absorb some of the C02 we use, and we most certainly need the oxygen the trees give us…or we die. This is such simple concept, yet the way people have treated trees in history, is not very tree-centric. We cut them down, burn them (which releases more CO2), deforest to the max, we treat them like they are useless!! But we KNOW they are not useless since they are so critical to our survival!! And society scoffs at the people chaining themselves to the trees, making them seem crazy (which okay sometimes its crazy). But what if we just cut down all trees, and no one cared…we would probably die.
When wolves were reintroduced the Yellowstone in 1995, it seemed like a huge step for environmentalist. But at a deeper look, it can be just as anthropocentric as eradicating them in the first place. Realizing the ecological importance wolves have (that cater to humans), there was talk to reintroduce. Also upon researching wolves, people began to see resemblance to humans, the way they divide up powers. If wolves didn’t provide ecological services, or displayed “human-like” qualities…would we still care?
In the chapter on Tuna really shows the implications to tuna fishing. Comparing fishing to Blood Diamond, really helped paint a better yet vicious, violent, terrible, and terrifying picture in my head. I added terrifying mostly because I have ichthyophobia–a fear of fish. Some people are scared of spiders, and I am scared of fish. Weird. But what seems to be the problem with tuna fishing, is how commercialized fishing has become. This is true for the meat industry as well. My problem with meat/fish consumption is not necessarily the animal rights aspect, but the inefficient and energy wastefull-ness of it all. It is unsustainable. Commercial anything is usually going to cause a problem. It all goes back to the tragedy of the commons, when things are up for grabs, humans have a tendency to take more than is needed. But my critically thinking behind all this is, there are so much talk on saving the dolphins, yet it seems the KILLING of the fish are completely brushed aside? Do we humans give certain animals more worth and value?
Okay, seriously…WHAT IS THE POINT OF BOTTLED WATER?! I have contemplated this forever. And cannot even come up with a logical reason for the consumption of bottled water in the United States (and any developed country that has access to clean fresh water). Its ridiculous, millions of people are without clean water, yet people feel the need to pay a ridiculous amount to get the same water that comes out of the faucet! I cannot even fathom the idea that we pay 60 times more money for bottled water than that in Mexico. Its outrageous. My parents really really hate this part of my liberal-ness. They are pretty liberal themselves, but they get so tired of me kvetching about bottled water. They don’t care. This is definitely a market that invented needs and desires for consumers, because as stated in the chapter, there are no health benefits of bottled water!! Here is NRDC’s test to prove it!! Yet many believe that there are, its crazy. Buy a water bottle, fill it up, reuse, wash it. Its great. I promise.
The analogy to using ‘french fries” as a way to describe homogeneity and globalization, was a way authors could related something so American as fries, to the global issue. Ever wonder why no matter where you go, McDonalds fries look and taste the same (this is from memory I can’t eat their fires anymore!). Well it is no coincidence. It is all perfectly thought out down to the way the potato is grown to the factories to the deep fryers. So much goes into consideration, yet NO ONE CONSIDERS the ecological implications of french fries. You first must grow it the certain way and that takes a lot of energy and water, then ship the potatoes to factories THEN tot he restaurant where they are deep fried. We all know fries are bad for you, yet special interest groups are always finding new things that are “most” bad for you. What will it be next? Will people finally be like uh FRIES ARE BAD IN GENERAL? Nope. (I do like them, I will admit but not the golden arches, they still use beef tallow in production YUCKA!)