News: Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly?

January 24, 2018

Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption

Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 43, Issue 4, 1 December 2016, Pages 567–582,
Published: 04 August 2016
search: eco-friendly feminine
search: eco-friendly masculine

Current Event: Daniel Delatte

November 15, 2017

Current Event:

The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs might not have been so destructive had it landed elsewhere. The location that it hit had rocks loaded with hydrocarbon. The release of these rocks unleashed 100 trillion tons of TNT. If it were to have landed on some  of the 87% of land elsewhere, they might still be walking today.


What we think about-Niemeyer

November 13, 2017


I thought this book was interesting and gave a good look at the psychological view of acceptance of an idea from different perspectives.  I am a big proponent of looking at an argument from all sides and understanding where the other person is coming from, I am also a big proponent of having people understand scientific findings and believing in the scientific process, so I think that this book does a good job of showing why we should understand all sides and why it’s hard to convince people of climate change.

There were a lot of good points brought up about climate science, like that it is alarming, and therefore hard to take, but is also presented in a non-urgent manner, because it is presented as 25 years+ in the future, that it’s going to affect things that aren’t necessarily directly us, like the ocean, rural desert areas in other countries, et cetera, we don’t directly see or feel it happening, and there are often comparisons of temperature and weather as opposed to climate when non-scientists discuss climate change, and the studies and information given are presented in scientific terminology that the general public doesn’t understand and therefore questions.  This is something I see in everyday life, I know a lot of people who don’t really care about climate change or don’t believe it’s real, and they don’t care to listen to me explain it, or look up more information, or vote based on environmental causes, because they have heard what the media has said, that it isn’t a big or immediate problem, that there is large debate as to whether climate change is real, and that it’s not just hippies trying to change their ways.

Another interesting thought is that people see that the science and models are changing over time, and instead of the general public grasping that this is just in terms of numbers, and not the overall conclusions, and that this is a progression of science, not proving that the previous conclusions were wrong, but rather adapting them based on the most recent information, and the belief that because of these changes climate change is just an exaggerated media story, not something to really consider in everyday life. This hits home a bit, because many of my relatives watch the news 3 times a day on the same channel, with the same information being spit at them, and I can specifically remember my dad and brothers having an argument about the number of scientists (97%) who are in consensus about the existence of climate change and human impacts on climate change, and my dad consistently repeating, “I’d have to see that number” or “I haven’t heard that number, I’ve heard more like 30%”, which is what he’s heard from his news sources, and therefore it is true, so I understand how hard it is to try to explain to someone who isn’t “in the science world” and how polarizing the different sides are.

I also thought it was interesting that the book described how it is difficult culturally to show that you care about something like climate change when it isn’t the cool thing to be doing and you are the only one and you have to explain your views to everyone and most of the time they don’t want you to have a good answer so they don’t have to question their ethics and idea base.  This is something I have come across since deciding to be vegetarian, there are a certain group of people who just don’t question it, a certain group of people who try to avoid it like it’s a big deal and that I’m trying to shove it down their throats, so even if they asked about it I would automatically be wrong, and then there are a few people who are genuinely curious, despite not necessarily understanding my point of view, or not thinking it will change anything.  I come across the same sort of responses from the same people when I try to talk about recycling, driving cars, wasting food and I can definitely see how it can be hard to be the first one in your group of peers or family to care about the environment when it isn’t cool.


Environmental News:


For the first time in 3 years global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels and industry are projected to rise by 2% by the end of 2017.  This is after 3 years of relatively flat emissions.

Curent Envio Event–Daniel Delatte

November 8, 2017

Time Travel is possible. Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev basically lives in the future. After spending 804 days in space and returning back to earth he has put himself in the future. That phenomenon is created by time dilation. This makes it possible when one travels faster than the speed of light. He is now living .02 seconds in the future.

Also, that last article that was posted had octopuses spelled “octopuses.”

Placing Animals Response and News-Niemeyer

November 7, 2017


I didn’t really find this book to be all that interesting or to have anything particularly new or different from what we have already read.  Generally, I thought the idea that humans have separated ourselves from nature but we rely on nature and it relies on us, as well as the idea that different geographical areas treat different animals and interactions and practices differently were beaten to death.

There were a couple of points brought up that caught my attention however.  The first was during one of the topics about biomedical research on animals and our view of animals as enough like humans to test our medicines on, but different enough from humans to fall outside of human ethics and not have rights.  This is something that I have wondered a lot about, I don’t really support animal testing, I think it’s cruel, but this doesn’t mean that it hasn’t brought about a lot of extremely beneficial research and medicines.  I think it’s even worse that we specifically are required to take emotions out of it and pretend like they aren’t living things that feel pain, and are taught that it is for the greater good, when really its completely selfish.

I thought also the idea of power geometry was interesting, and entirely true, animals in the zoo have been removed of their power, so we feel like we can get close to them, despite that if we were to get that close in the wild, they could seriously harm us, and this provides us with a sense of power over zoo animals, allowing us to dominate them.  I also thought the idea of us keeping pets historically being a subconscious show of dominance was interesting.


Congressman Rob Bishop of Utah, and chairperson of the Natural Resources Committee is trying to invalidate the Endangered Species Act.  His bills would force the government to consider the economic impact of saving a species rather than just the scientific impacts, consider the data collected by the state as the best data available, rather than looking at other research, take away funding for citizens or conservation groups to file claims against the government when they think protections fall short.  He claims that the ESA is being used as front for land control rather than for species rehabilitation.

Current Event–Daniel Delatte

November 1, 2017

Octopuses were caught walking on video in Wales. I guess a little strange because octopuses aren’t usually known for walking. It is also strange since biologists don’t know if it has to do with the unusual amount of octopuses in the area this year. It is, however, usual that some deep living octopuses come to the surface to mate for the season.

Freaking Walking Octopuses

Niemeyer-environment and society

October 31, 2017

The second half of Environment and Society was less interesting to me than the first, I liked that it tried to look at the different individual problems that we face in environmental policy and practices from the different viewpoints described in the first half, however, the subjects were mostly repetitive of subjects or examples that have constantly been examples in other classes and readings that I have done.

I think it is interesting to look at the social and political justice side of environmental problems, the book constantly brought up different problems with the limits and undemocratic implications that come with environmental problems.  One of the major problems being that the people that are most effected by issues like climate change tend to be those with the fewest resources to combat such problems.  This is something that is often not discussed when we talk about our duty and initiative to change, but it’s extremely important when we think about solutions to environmental issues.  I’m constantly amazed by how little people care about being sustainable, but every time this is because they don’t see the change, they don’t see that they are making a difference, so to them there is no purpose to the extra effort.

Something that surprised me was the stats on nuclear power being used as frequently as hydropower and this being theoretically cleaner than natural gas.  This is something I generally think of as a dirty energy source, and it is, in terms of the waste it produces and the unsustainable management we have of it, but it would be interesting to see how we could change this if we put effort and resources into making it cleaner like we do other fuel sources.

Something that I thought was weird was the discussion of dead dolphins in relation to tuna fishing.  The book talked about the issues as if it was a problem of the past, and this may true in relation to certain tuna fishing, but this is a really big current issue with the global fish industry, especially with long line fishing for shrimp, where 95% of catch is bycatch, which is killed and then thrown back into the ocean.  I did enjoy the idea of consumer advocacy, but this only works when people have other incentive to buy sustainable products, and it also leads to shady advertising by companies that are only interested in their bottom line.

I also thought it was interesting to think that bottled water was commoditized and therefore privatized due to the belief that it was safer than tap water, which was more accessible, cheaper, and more sustainable.  I grew up drinking well water out of the tap, and have had many people visit my house and be unwilling to drink it because of the possibility that it might not be clean.  This has always been ludicrous to me, but it is definitely an idea that has spread, and it would be interesting to see how we could change this view or how this will change as water becomes less available in different areas.

There have been multiple instances of aquaculture fish being accidently released into the rivers of Africa, including crayfish and tilapia.  These are outcompeting native species of the rivers, causing them to be endangered.