Blog Entry #11: What kinds of emotions does the word “downtown” evoke? How has their stature in communities changed over time? Why is downtown Ft. Myers experiencing something of a renaissance? What are some of the prominent architectural features? How (and why) are they designed to rekindle the “pedestrian” spirit? Discuss some other “nods to history” that we saw on our tour. How has the economy of Ft. Myers evolved from past to present? How does all of this relate to sustainability?
Dowtown to me can bring two different emotions. When i think of smaller cities, like fort myers, downtown is gross. Its usually where the poor, crackheads live. Its not maintained very well, and full of broke down, abandoned buildings. However, when i think of downtown in big cities, like Chicago, i think of art, music, skyscrapers, museums, trains, the pier. Downtown chicago is gorgeous and full of culture. Downtown fort myers, ugly and broke down. However, downtown fort myers "river district" is trying to revive the city and bring some life back into it. They have art walk, and music walk every month, and are working on fixing up some of the roads and whatnot. It is pedestrian friendly, but not like Chicago. When i walk through chicago i feel safe and like i can be myself and have a great day. When i walk through downtown fort myers, im scared, i feel like some crackhead is gonna bust out of an alley and attack me. Fort myers used to be full of great minds like Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Harvey Firestone, now.... not so much. We have been hit so bad by the recession that theyre are so many homeless, and jobless people who dont really care anymore about trying to do anything with their lives. The history of fort myers was so ambitious and insightful and now its this big dump.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Blog Entry #10
Blog Entry #10: Calculate your ecofootprint at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/. How did you fare? Print out your final report and bring to class. Click the explore scenarios button. What behaviors could you modify (be reasonable now!) to reduce your footprint? What is the resulting value? Assume the average American ecofootprint is 4.6 (earths). If everyone lived like you do, what is the maximum population that earth could sustain (according to this calculator)?
My ecological footprint is 4.9 planet earths. It takes 21.8 global acres to support my lifestyle. If i reduced the amount of animal products i ate by half ( i currently eat meat a few times a week) it would reduce to 4.5 earths. If i used products with less packaging, or 100% recycled material, it would reduce to 4.2, with both of these new decisions it would also reduce my global acres to 18.8. Doesnt seem like much of a difference with just one person, but if everyone tries to reduce their ecological footprints in similar ways, it would make a big difference. If the average american is 4.6, with everyone living like i do at 4.9, we would only need to reduce the population by a few, however if we all changed to the 4.2, we would be able to provide leftover resources to those in other countries that need them.
My ecological footprint is 4.9 planet earths. It takes 21.8 global acres to support my lifestyle. If i reduced the amount of animal products i ate by half ( i currently eat meat a few times a week) it would reduce to 4.5 earths. If i used products with less packaging, or 100% recycled material, it would reduce to 4.2, with both of these new decisions it would also reduce my global acres to 18.8. Doesnt seem like much of a difference with just one person, but if everyone tries to reduce their ecological footprints in similar ways, it would make a big difference. If the average american is 4.6, with everyone living like i do at 4.9, we would only need to reduce the population by a few, however if we all changed to the 4.2, we would be able to provide leftover resources to those in other countries that need them.
Blog Entry #9
Blog Entry #9: Is energy too cheap? Is conservation a dirty word? What would you say to “Jimmy Cardigan”? With regards to alternative energy sources (renewables) are you a "free-marketeer" or proponent of government intervention to steer us away from fossil fuels? In your opinion, what type of renewable energy has the most upside potential? What steps can you take 1) tomorrow and 2) within the next five years to reduce your energy footprint?
Energy can be cheap in certain situations. For instance, on campus, electric is included in your housing cost. Which means whether you use 50 dollars a month or 400 dollars a month in electric, it is all costing the student nothing. In this situation, it is too cheap. How are we to determine how much energy is going to be used and put it in a base cost? I believe students should have to pay their own electric bills, for two reasons. One, so that FGCU doesnt get screwed when some people use way too much energy and can use the money for other more important things. Two, so that students understand just how much they are using, and try to change their lifestyles to use less. Is conservation a dirty word? Umm, no.. I dont think so? I think that some people dont use it correctly and can make it seem less important, but i dont think its "dirty". When it come to alternative energy, i believe the government should have some regulation, so we dont choose something more harmful than what we already use. But in retrospect, the company or scientists or whoever is coming up with the new "source", it should mainly be all on their hands. Im no scientist so i dont know what is the best way to go, but in my opinion, i think biofuel is a good way to go. I dont think solar power, wind power are good ideas because they rely on the weather, and are super expensive to put up. In regards to what i can do to reduce my own energy consumption, tomorrow, would be the usual, recycle, reduce, reuse. In the coming years, i may be able to do more with more knowledge.
Energy can be cheap in certain situations. For instance, on campus, electric is included in your housing cost. Which means whether you use 50 dollars a month or 400 dollars a month in electric, it is all costing the student nothing. In this situation, it is too cheap. How are we to determine how much energy is going to be used and put it in a base cost? I believe students should have to pay their own electric bills, for two reasons. One, so that FGCU doesnt get screwed when some people use way too much energy and can use the money for other more important things. Two, so that students understand just how much they are using, and try to change their lifestyles to use less. Is conservation a dirty word? Umm, no.. I dont think so? I think that some people dont use it correctly and can make it seem less important, but i dont think its "dirty". When it come to alternative energy, i believe the government should have some regulation, so we dont choose something more harmful than what we already use. But in retrospect, the company or scientists or whoever is coming up with the new "source", it should mainly be all on their hands. Im no scientist so i dont know what is the best way to go, but in my opinion, i think biofuel is a good way to go. I dont think solar power, wind power are good ideas because they rely on the weather, and are super expensive to put up. In regards to what i can do to reduce my own energy consumption, tomorrow, would be the usual, recycle, reduce, reuse. In the coming years, i may be able to do more with more knowledge.
Blog entry #8
Blog Entry #8: In your view, is climate change anthropogenic (manmade), "natural", or some combination of the two? What (or who) would you consider reputable sources for climate change information? How is climate change portrayed in the media? Does this portrayal make you more or less likely to alter your lifestyle? What do you think the effects of climate change will be on your children and grandchildren?
In my opinion, climate change is both natural and man-made. There have always been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are what keeps the heat and makes it liveable on earth. Without them, the earth would be one giant ice age. However, since industry kicked off, man has been putting more and more gases into the air, which has made an impact on the natural order of things. Man has made it a bit hotter, but not much. However, if we dont start to pay attention and control what we are doing, we may push ourselves into a situation that we cant get out of. Perhaps another ice age, or a catastrophic series of natural disasters, or an intensely hot burnout. Climate change is portrayed in the media as a very bad thing, its all mans fault. Im not going to change my lifestyle because of it. I have been raised to live at certain standards of living and i sure as hell am not going to go back to prehistoric lifestyles. However, i do believe we should try to find alternate ways of doing things so we can perhaps lower the amount of gases being spewed into the atmosphere. I believe for my children and grandchildren it wont be much different then it is now, i think the overall effects of what is going on now, wont take place for a few hundred years. Then again, im no scientist so who really knows.
In my opinion, climate change is both natural and man-made. There have always been greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are what keeps the heat and makes it liveable on earth. Without them, the earth would be one giant ice age. However, since industry kicked off, man has been putting more and more gases into the air, which has made an impact on the natural order of things. Man has made it a bit hotter, but not much. However, if we dont start to pay attention and control what we are doing, we may push ourselves into a situation that we cant get out of. Perhaps another ice age, or a catastrophic series of natural disasters, or an intensely hot burnout. Climate change is portrayed in the media as a very bad thing, its all mans fault. Im not going to change my lifestyle because of it. I have been raised to live at certain standards of living and i sure as hell am not going to go back to prehistoric lifestyles. However, i do believe we should try to find alternate ways of doing things so we can perhaps lower the amount of gases being spewed into the atmosphere. I believe for my children and grandchildren it wont be much different then it is now, i think the overall effects of what is going on now, wont take place for a few hundred years. Then again, im no scientist so who really knows.
Blog entry #7
Blog Entry #7: Hypothetical scenario – ArborGen (a biotech company) has expressed a desire to plant test plots of genetically modified eucalyptus here at FGCU! This GM eucalyptus has been engineered with enhanced cold tolerance. This allows it to grow not only in Southwest Florida, but potentially as far north as South Carolina. As an eco-aware citizen, the USDA has subpoenaed you to testify on the merits and pitfalls of this plan. Do some research on the web and prepare a brief statement to the USDA addressing the following questions:
· What is known about the ecology of the eucalyptus tree in general?
· What are the benefits of this technology?
· What are some of the potential intrinsic concerns?
· What are some of the potential extrinsic concerns?
· Can reasonable and cost-effective steps be taken to mitigate these risks?
· Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter in regards to planting the genetically modified eucalyptus trees on Florida Gulf Coast University's campus. There are a few benefits to the Australian native tree, including firewood, tissue papers, oils, honey, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that this tree is not native. We already have many invasive species in Florida, wildlife and plantlife. The potential harms that this tree could cause should be considered as well. Some things to consider would be that the tree absorbs so much water. It has been used to bring down water levels in some areas because of its vast absorbing qualities. Southwest Florida is a wetland area, we cannot plant trees that can potentially change the entire environment around the area. This would cause harm to all the other native species that rely on wetlands to survive. Another big concern is the fire hazard associated with these trees. "Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable (ignited trees have been known to explode) and bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns" (wikipedia) This not only causes concern towards all the wildlife and plantlife around the trees, but also mankind. Forest fires can travel fast and can be very hard to put out, and the risk of these trees causing a fire at FGCU is too much. For one, it is a conservation area, there are many parts of the campus that are strictly conservation and if something were to happen to them because of this invasive species, that would be terrible. Also, all the students that are on campus all throughout the day, and those who live on campus could be caught in the middle of a brushfire with this highly flammable species. As a concerned citizen, and a student of FGCU, I do not think it would be a good idea to bring these trees into the area. The potential risks outweigh the potential benefits, and should be taken into consideration when making this decision.
Sincerely,
Lydia Mayernick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)