“What Can I Do About Reducing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Money at the Same Time?”

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities, while other greenhouse gases are created and emitted solely through human activities. In order to reduce our personal greenhouse gas emissions, we must understand how the gases are produced and how they enter the atmosphere. The main greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere due to human activity are Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Fluorinated Gases. Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere though the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, and tree products, and also from chemical reactions in manufacturing processes. Methane is emitted from livestock and agricultural practices, the decay of organic waste in solid waste landfills, and during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Nitrous Oxide is also emitted from agricultural and industrial practices, as well as from combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. Lastly, fluorinated gases are emitted from various industrial processes and are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. [1]

Many greenhouse gases are emitted by individual’s daily activities both directly and indirectly. Per person emissions will vary depending on location, habits, and personal choices; but we can all find ways to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and save money at the same time. “Reduce, reuse, recycle”[2] are a few of the major steps in helping to conserve energy, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emission, and to save money.

To reduce methane generation, individuals can increase their level of recycling within their home or workplace so less organic waste decays in landfills. Recycling cans and bottles may give you a refund depending on your location, and composting organic waste leaves you with free fertilizer to use in an at home garden, or to donate or sell to members of the gardening community.

Fuel efficient and electric cars are a great way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in contrast to the use of a standard vehicle, however more money can be saved if individuals use car-pooling, mass transportation, bicycles, or walk to various locations.[3] The choice to bicycle or walk in turn emits no greenhouse gases and saves the individual a lot of money because they do not need to pay for gas, car insurance, or transport fares. With an increased level of daily exercise due to walking or bicycling, the individual may also save money by no longer needing a gym membership, dropping the use of diet pills or prepackaged diet foods, and from fewer doctor visits because of improved health. In some countries, you can also get a reduction in tax and congestion charges when using energy efficient transportation. If walking or bicycling is not a viable option, there are ways of also driving more efficiently. Observing the speed limit, moderate acceleration and braking, removing excess weight, avoiding idling, using cruise control, and using overdrive gears will also increase the fuel efficiency of your car; saving gas, reducing engine wear, and ultimately emitting less greenhouse gases and saving the user money. [4]

An individual’s change in diet and consumption habits can also greatly decrease their personal greenhouse gas emissions and save money simultaneously. It takes about 10 times as much fossil fuel to produce animal protein compared to plant protein. Switching from a meat based diet to a plant based vegetarian or vegan diet will contribute 1.5 fewer tons of carbon dioxide or its equivalent into the atmosphere than the average North American diet. [5] Studies have also consistently shown great health improvements in individuals who have adopted a plant based diet instead of the typical meat based diet. In relation to diets, it is also important that individuals buy sustainable, organic, and locally produced foods. Doing so will decrease the amount of all greenhouse gases involved with agricultural, processing, and transportation food procedures. Growing your own food is also energy efficient, decreases emissions, and saves you money by replacing items you would normally buy at the grocery store.

Buying and using energy efficient appliances require less energy to do their job, meaning lower expense bills and less fossil fuel use.[6] Running appliances when they are full, and hang drying clothing rather than putting in in the dryer will use less energy and thus save you money, and hang drying also makes your clothes last longer, so money is saved there too! Greenhouse gas emissions will also be reduced if you weather proof your home. By caulking and weather stripping doorways and windows and adding insulation can cut heating and cooling costs dramatically, meaning you save energy and money as well.[7] The same goes for unplugging unused appliances and electronics, turning off lights when not in use, replacing old light bulbs with energy saving fluorescent bulbs that last 12 times longer, and reducing use of refrigerants, air conditioners, and heaters.

Lastly, individuals should push for community involvement in recycling program and educational programs and classes focused on sustainability, energy use, and consumption. With increased awareness, individuals and small community groups can stress owners of local buildings to adopt energy efficient practices. “America’s buildings consume more than 40 percent of our total energy, which amounts to almost 10 percent of all the energy used in the world. Much of this energy is wasted due to inadequate insulation, inefficient heating and cooling systems, and poor construction techniques.” If individuals can change their personal habits and inform others about how they can do the same, hopefully larger corporations and organizations will follow. Every individual and the choices they make matter. We can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing energy consumption, directly putting more money back into our pockets.

Works Cited

"At Home | What You Can Do | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. 20 May 2010. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

"Energy Efficient Buildings Would save Money, Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Environment Rhode Island." Home - Environment Rhode Island. The Examiner, 2 Apr. 2010. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

"Gas Mileage Tips - Driving More Efficiently." Fuel Economy. U.S. Department of Energy, 6 Apr. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

Home : ENERGY STAR. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

Knudsen, Elizabeth. "How to Reduce Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions - WikiHow." WikiHow - The How-to Manual That You Can Edit. 31 Mar. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

"On the Road | What You Can Do | Climate Change | U.S. EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. 20 May 2010. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. .

---

[1] U.S. EPA

[2] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

[3] U.S. EPA

[4] Fueleconomy.gov

[5] Wikihow

[6] Energystar

[7] U.S. EPA

Dam Project

New Melones Dam, California

Situated between Calaveras and Tuolumne County, California in the Sierra Nevada foothills sits the New Melones Dam. It is an earth and rock filled dam, containing 15,700,000 cubic yards of material.[1] It lies across the Stanislaus River, creating New Melones Lake. The Stanislaus River is a major tributary of the San Joaquin River. The Stanislaus River Basin has three major tributaries; the North, South, and Middle Forks, with an annual average flow of almost 1,000,000 acre feet.[2] When completed, the New Melones Dam was the second largest earthfill dam in California and the fourth tallest dam in the United States.

New Melones Dam is part of the Central Valley Project (CVP), a United States Bureau of Reclamation federal water project in the state of California. The CVP was established in 1933 through funds provided by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 in order to provide the water-poor San Joaquin Valley and its surrounding environments with irrigation and municipal water through a series of aqueducts, canals, and pump plants. The system produces several thousand megawatts of hydroelectric power, promotes flood control, and provides recreation areas. [3]

The New Melones dam is part of a project area in the lower Sierra Nevada foothills, an area underlain by metamorphic and igneous rocks. The metamorphic rocks are mainly meta-volcanics and slates, accompanied by meta-sandstone, serpentine, and marble. The igneous rocks are mostly granitic. Rocks within the dam foundation show two stages of metamorphism. [4]This project area also lays between two large fault systems- the Bear Mountain system to the west and the Melones System on the east. The dam foundation itself contains two faults, the IF-83 and the Powerhouse. The dam’s canyon is steep and narrow, trending southwestward. The southeast canyon wall forms the northern end of 1865 foot tall Peoria Mountain and the left abutment of New Melones Dam. The right abutment of the dam is formed by the northwest canyon wall and the southern end of Bostick Mountain. Both canyon sides slope towards the Stanislaus River at an average of 38 degrees from horizontal. [5]

The New Melones dam system was completed in 1979, replacing the old Melones Dam. Its primary purpose is to provide water for irrigation, with operations overseen by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The dam stores water during dry periods and releases water downstream into the northern San Joaquin Valley according to water demand. [6]

The dam is 625 feet high and 1,560 feet long. The drainage area is about 980 square miles on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. There are two emergency release conduits embedded within the concrete lining of a 3,774 foot long, 23 foot diameter multipurpose tunnel that branches into two 8-foot diameter pipes. The flows are controlled by ring follower gates, fixed cone valves, and sliding gates. The spillway is an uncontrolled concrete crest, with the cut 5,945 feet long and 200 feet wide. New Melones Lake, when filled to capacity, holds nearly 2,400,000 acre feet of water, with a surface area of 12,500 aces, and the water level at 1,088 feet above sea level.[7] Of this capacity, 450,000 acre feet are reserved for flood control, and the remaining is used for satisfaction of preexisting water rights, fishery enhancement, water quality improvement, and electrical generation. The New Melones Dam has three vertical Francis turbines contained within its conventional, above ground, hydroelectric plant. Operating as a peaking facility, it operates mostly during times of peak electricity demand and has a peak capacity of 300,000kW. At capacity, New Melones would satisfy the needs of 200,000 people.

Prior to the construction of the New Melones project, the area showed evidence of human inhabitants as old at 9,600 years. The Upper Sonoran Life Zone comprised mostly of oak woodlands favored year round occupancy. Prior to the arrival of early settlers, miners, and non-Indian missionaries, the people of the region were known at Me-Wuk Indians. The Me-Wuk were sophisticated hunter-gatherers, practicing advanced harvesting, management, and cultivation techniques such as digging, thinning, pruning, sowing, weeding, managed burning, transplanting, and selective harvesting. [8]

During the 1890 Gold Rush, settlers started to divert water from the rivers throughout the foothills. In 1902, the United States Congress passed the Reclamation Act, creating what is now the Bureau of Reclamation. Simultaneously, local irrigation districts were established in the foothills. The Oakdale and South San Joaquin Irrigation Districts constructed the 211 foot old Melones Dam and Power plant in 1926 for agricultural water. [9]

In 1944, Congress approved the construction of the New Melones dam and new power plant through the Flood Control Act of December to prevent injury to downstream agricultural land and the communities of Oakdale, Riverbank, and Ripon from flood damages caused by rain and snowmelt. This authorization was modified by Congress through the 1962 Flood Control Act to include irrigation, water quality, power, recreation, and wildlife and fishery enhancement as reasons for construction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began the construction of the New Melones Dam in 1966.

The initial work consisted of building access and haul roads, intake structure for outlet works, construction of the administration building, parking lot, visitor overlook, clearing the dam site, and excavating and grouting the foundation. The diversion tunnel was constructed between 1966 and 1973. Relocation of roads and construction of bridges were carried out by the California Department of Transportation, Roy E. Ladd, Inc., and the S. J. Groves and Sons Company as a cost of almost $28,000,000.[10] In 1972, the Corps of Engineers released the Final Environmental Statement. The Environmental Defense Fund also filed suit, EDF vs. Armstrong, in federal court in hopes to delay further dam construction.

The development of the New Melones Dam was heavily opposed by environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, and by individuals who valued the canyon of the Stanislaus River beyond its designation as a reservoir. Mark Dubois, director of Friends of the River, a group opposing the project, chained himself to a rock in the reservoir area with supporters joining him at the water’s edge.[11] Though they did not succeed in halting the fill of the lake, the Corps of Engineers were forced to make releases from the dam to prevent the protestors from being consumed by rising waters.

Major controversies about the dam encompassed the loss of a popular stretch of recreational white water, the flooding of the West’s deepest limestone canyon, and the barrage of archeological sites. Another primary controversy centered on the amount of water that would be allowed to accumulate behind the dam. The California State Water Resources Control Board issued Decision 1422 which granted Reclamation permits to store only enough water at New Melones to meet pre-existing water rights, and obligations for water quality and wildlife enhancement.[12] Problems circled for over a decade before the decision to continue construction was made, complete with provisions for irrigation water, flood control, and power generation.

The New Melones Dam was one of the last built dams in California. Met with much public disagreement, the dam was completed in 1978 and the spillway and powerhouse were finished in 1979. In 1979, the Corps transferred the dam project to the Bureau of Reclamation, which has managed the reservoir ever since. The archeological preservation work was transferred to the Park Service with a $2.2 million Corps contract and $560,000 in unexpended funds. [13]

In 1982, heavy rains filled the New Melones Lake to its full capacity and flooded areas upstream from the dam. In 1983, all restrictions on filling the lake were lifted by the Water Resources Control Board. After these wet years, California entered a drought period. The EIS had established minimum releases for meeting water quality criteria and fishery sustainability. Water released from the dam would improve water in the lower San Joaquin River by limiting total dissolved solids to 500ppm while also benefitting downstream fisheries by maintain a dissolved oxygen concentration of 5ppm.[14] These standards were not met and problems started occurring when the temperature of water began to increase. Because of habitat downstream for spawning fish, the water temperate must be kept below 57 degrees or the new hatchlings will die. The old dam still in place prevented cold water at the bottom of the lake from reaching the outlet of the new dam. While there are some solutions to this problem, oftentimes power operations must be suspended all together. In 1994, the estimated loss from power suspension was over $200,000.

In 1987, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the United States Bureau of Reclamation made an agreement about the instream flows and fishery studies to be completed. Appropriate water flows would be provided until the habitat requirements for fish could be better defined through biological studies and long term needs. The study plan to be implemented was divided between Reclamation, CDFG, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Marine Fisheries Service became involved in the long term operating plan as well when the Central Valley steelhead was listed as threatened in 1997. [15]

The problems of water flow and availability for the New Melones Project stem from incorrect uses of historical data. When New Melones was studied, models used data from 1922 through 1978 which implied larger amounts of available water. When data from 1979 through 1992 were used instead, Reclamation found that previous drought and demand estimates were off significantly.[16] These issues were heightened with the passage of the Central Valley Improvement Act in 1992. This made environmental, water, and wildlife enhancement priorities equal to water use priorities, resulting in less water available to meet preexisting obligations to water users. It is now believed that New Melones does not have a sustainable water supply sufficient to meet all existing obligations for wildlife enhancement, water quality improvement, and irrigation. However, even with said problems, the New Melones Dam has been able to provide for its original function as flood control. Through its initial establishment to 1993, the dam has prevented a cumulative total of $128,500,000 in flood damage.[17] Damages avoided include agricultural damage, flood fighting, emergency repair costs, and business losses.

Since the dam was built, farmers have shifted to higher value crops downstream. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued two orders to lower reservoir levels.[18] Supervising geologists argued that crops should be protected with flows of 1,250 cfs. This suggests benefit to commercial rafters as well who argued that flows of 1,500 cfs are excessive and unsafe for float trips.

In 1997, Reclamation issued an Interim Plan of Operation for New Melones. Precise regulatory requirements are still uncertain, but the plan will be affected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s hydropower relicensing of the Stanislaus River, the listing of species on the Endangered Species Act, water allocation for fish and wildlife under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A long term operating plan is also needed to extend water supply contracts with the Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District and Stockton East Water District. [19]

Recreational use of the Stanislaus River also became problematic. The filling of the New Melones Reservoir would ruin whitewater rafting stretches, but the federal government planned to develop several recreation areas for public use on the artificial lake. However, lack of development as planned and more visitors than expected caused problems of overuse. On the brighter side, today New Melones Lake offers year round camping at Glory Hole Recreation Area and Tuttletown Recreation Area. Wildlife such as deer, osprey, squirrels, ticks, rattlesnakes, and mountain lions can be seen in the area.[20] Still however, many recreation areas are undeveloped and unfunded.

Finally, with all the problems facing the New Melones dam, it seems very unlikely that it will ever reach its full intended potential as a multi-use unit. There is no current overall plan for operations that takes all the project purposes and the needs of all stakeholders into account. [21]Issues that were unresolved when the project was built are still unresolved. Discrepancies about those responsible for regulating the reservoir and flood flows and those responsible for acquiring the easements contribute to the issues.[22] New Melones is increasingly becoming a case study that shows all that can go wrong with a large water project.

Works Cited

"Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region." Bureau of Reclamation Homepage. Web. 05 May 2011. .

.

< http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New%20Melones%20Unit%20Project>

< http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New Melones Unit Project&pageType=ProjectHistoryPage>

< http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New Melones Unit Project&pageType=ProjectDataPage>

< http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central+Valley+Project>

"California State Water Project-Central Valley Project." California Department of Water Resources. California Government, 2011. Web. 04 May 2011. .

"Friends of the River: History." Friends of the River: Home Preserve Restore Sustain California Rivers. Web. 05 May 2011. .

"History, New Melones." Bureau of Reclamation Homepage. Web. 05 May 2011. .

McAfee, Kimra. "Post-Audit of New Melones Dam, Central Valley Project, Stanislaus River, California." San Francisco State University, May 2000. Web. May 2011. .

"Photo Gallery, New Melones, CCAO." Bureau of Reclamation Homepage. Web. 05 May 2011. .

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives: Archeological Studies At New Melones Dam In California. Rep. no. 122392. U.S. General Accounting Office, 1983. Print.

Stanislaus Stakeholders. Undated. Stanislaus Stakeholders Website, Meeting Notes. <http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/cgi-bin/STANLAUS/toc.pl?Dir=/background/meeting_notes.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit. 1982a. United States of America v. State of California, et al. Order Nos. 81-4189 and 81-4309 filed 2 February 1982.

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit. 1982b. United States of America v. State of California, et al. Order Nos. 81-4189X and 81-4309X filed 10 March 1982.

---

[1] USBR

[2] USBR

[3] California Department of Water Resources

[4] USBR

[5] USBR

[6] Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office

[7] USBR

[8] USBR

[9] McAfee

[10] McAfee

[11] Friends of the River

[12] McAfee

[13] Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office

[14] McAfee

[15] McAfee

[16] McAfee

[17] USBR

[18] U.S. Court of Appeals

[19] McAfee

[20] USBR

[21] Stanislaus Stakeholders

[22] McAfee

Final Yoga Journal

Journal Entry #12

Time Began: 7:08 pm

Personal Development

1. Physical aches from weekend partyingà move towards calmer, healthier, and more rewarding weekend adventures

2. Sinus congestionà yoga, especially breathing exercises, allowed me to help clear my sinuses, or in the least, forget about them.

3. Extreme worry about healthà I ended up seeing a doctor and found that I had terribly low levels of vitamin B12 and vitamin D. I now take multivitamins and B12 vitamins. Yoga made me more aware about the specific locations of aches and pains in my body as well. I am better able to identify what muscles in my back are hurting, and stretch accordingly today than I was a few months ago.

4. Increased energy- yoga definitely increased my energy. The various positions and movements get the blood flowing, released endorphins I imagine, and make me want to be wholly more active. I find myself doing a little yoga everyday just because it feels right. Now instead of aching in pain, I ache in desire to do certain yoga positions. Productive ache is definitely better than painful aches.

5. Increased lower back strength—my lower back is generally quite troublesome due to a pinched nerve in my lower back. However, the increase in my daily stretching due to yoga has definitely strengthened my lower back and assisting parts, making it stronger, less susceptible to injury, and definitely decreased pain.

6. Change in diet- because of my extreme vitamin deficiency, I also changed my diet to try and incorporate foods that would reflect my dietary needs. I started to drink more soy/almond milk, eat multigrain and vitamin enriched cereal, buy fresh rather than frozen vegetables. I also make sure to stay fed and energized all day. I do not eat heavy things before exercising, and I try to stay away from processed foods and drinks. I am also becoming more aware about what specific fruits and vegetables I should consume and why.

7. Better concentration—I can definitely focus better now that I practice yoga than I could before. I have learned to fully engulf myself in whatever I am doing, freeing my mind of any burdens and unrelated thoughts.

8. Improved balance—due to improved concentration, flexibility, and ability to sense energy flow in my body and mind.

Review and Reflect

Surprises

I am surprised by how relaxed I am able to become after doing yoga. I am usually very hyper, and my thoughts are all over the place, often causing anxiety. When I became very stressed out this semester, just doing a few yoga positions helped me regain concentration and cleanse my mind of troublesome thoughts. I am also surprised that I didn’t get bored at all. I am happy that our class routines varied each time, so there was no repetitive nature to grow tired of. I learned many more positions than I thought I would, which is also quite beneficial because I can stay occupied for longer periods of time. I am surprised with my increased flexibility and ability to balance as well. Even though I knew this would be part of the practice, I can get my body into positions I never thought to really be possible, let alone ever attempt to do. I am much more flexible, and my increased concentration has definitely helped me balance better. This balance, while outwardly physical, also resonates internally as well. Throughout the semester, writing in this journal really helped me. It was good for me to see where my downfalls were and what caused them, so I could adjust my lifestyle to a more health and rewarding one. I am definitely surprised about how much I can complain about little things, but how I generally remain unaffected. I think I will try to keep writing in a journal so I can master my thoughts in the most efficient way possible. It is nice to see a record of my own emotion.

Interest in furthering practice

I will definitely further my yoga practice after his semester. I am really happy I took this course, because it reminded me of how much I used to enjoy yoga, and how truly beneficial it is to my life. With a less buy schedule next semester, I hope to do yoga at least three times a week and also become an active member in the yoga club. Many of my roommates expressed interest in also joining the yoga club, so I look forward to continuing my studies, certainly.

I think I am most likely to follow the ethical practices of the Yama. I am working mostly on Aparigraha, or non possessiveness. I am trying to reduce my personal positions, so that I carry less baggage both physically and mentally. I am working on getting rid of some clothes through donations and planning of a garage sale. I do not want to have anything in excess; I just want to have what I need. No one needs a dozen pairs of jeans at one time. I can have a few pairs, and sew them if they tear instead of buying new ones, or I can buy new ones when it is absolutely necessary. By getting rid of some of my tangible possessions, I have declutterd my living space, and thus decluttered my mind. Without excess of things, everything I own has its own particular place, and I can value it there. I hope at some point to have close sentimental value to the few things I keep, and let go of everything that does not resonate with my soul.

Yama & Niyama

Stated just before, Aparigraha definitely became more evident and useful in my life as my yoga practices continued. Staya, or truth, was a little puzzling at first, but its benefits are very clear to me now. At first, I did not think I would be able to see an inherent good in everyone as not everyone is a good person. However, I see that everyone is useful, even if their mindsets clash with mine, because I can learn from them and that is inherently good. Learning to be silent is also learning to listen better. Because I talk too much, and oftentimes talk over people without realizing, choosing to be silent made me aware of what I might be missing out on if I don’t pause and listen more frequently. It is very rewarding to me, and definitely to others, to actively listen and learn attentively.

The last niyama, Ishvara Pranidhan, is still somewhat mysterious to me. I tend to steer away from all master, all devotional practices, and anything that resembles a structural religious sort of content. While I do understand the heightened significance of allowing a higher force to take control and hold power, I have not yet reached that point nor found a symbolic figure to devote myself to. Right now, I find self reflection, self worship, and self help to be the most rewarding. Perhaps once I find myself at my highest stage of activity, awareness, and peacefulness, I will be able to devote myself to something else.

“What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity devoid of troubling or depressing subject matter. Rather, like a good armchair that provides relaxation from physical fatigue”

Land Ethic Essay 2010

Land Ethic Essay 2010

Humanity is a work in progress, and like every progression, we must take the time to observe what we see over time and understand that we do not definitively know what outcome lies in the future. We as individuals must become better stewards of the land, not only for earth’s sake, but for the better being of the entire human population. Many people live in this world caring only about the lifestyle they know and value, but we must recognize that our perception is not the same worldwide, and many suffer as a direct result of our existence. Our earth can no longer sustain our economy, and ecology is feeling the pain. “Modern society will find no solution to the ecological problem unless it takes a serious look at its lifestyles”[1]. We need to reevaluate our ideologies, especially in the Western world, moving away from consumerism and immediate gratification, and towards sustainability and long term planning. We cannot wait for “when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught [that] we will realize we cannot eat money”. [2]We need intense global environmental education to allow people to become aware about how their lifestyles affect the rest of the world, to allow perceptions to shift, to allow ideologies to change, and to allow the human species to coexist and cohabitate not only with the natural environment, but with other animal species, and other humans as well. “The hope seems to be that once we know how to value ecosystem services, we’ll know how to manage ourselves in relation to them”. [3]

So now, all that follows after this point is a direct result of my environmental education and my perception of the world around me. I truly believe that humans have a chance and a responsibility to keep the Earth’s biodiversity as an integral and stabile part of life, allowing all persons, plants, and animals the right to a good “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

As I’ve learned throughout my education, Native Americans valued the land they lived on highly, respecting and coexisting as equals to all of its resources and all of its plants and wildlife. The tribes were grounded, “they [knew] how to live where they live [and] that’s the lore worth learning”. [4]The Indians valued their food supply, most notably salmon in high regard, and made constant efforts to prohibit any waste of it and to ensure that the salmon runs would be sustained for generations to come. The assumption that the earth’s land is capable of providing for entire new masses of people and that its resources will remain constant and plentiful, is a mistake on modern society’s part that is ultimately ruining the sustainable lifestyle of Indigenous people and the sustainable resilience of the land, while also burdening the third world with problems that some Westerners will never see nor understand. We should not catch more than we can chew if we plan to have leftovers for our family lineage. As Westerners, we need to remember the values of the people whom we drove out, the native people who strived toward connectivity to the land, and lived lifestyles of rewarding sustainability and productivity.

We also need to reevaluate our management processes of ecosystems and put environmental health first, rather than human desire. The first ecosystem that requires discussion is the forest. Right now, forest policy is running counterproductive to social and economic interests. The problems occurring within forest management constantly stem from excessive harvesting, resulting in long term damage for short term benefits. Making a drastic reduction in the cutting of trees as required by law could work toward balancing sustainable levels to support all general interests, without having to enact complex and expensive regulatory systems. Obviously logging will continue for various reasons and benefits, but the rates at which it is happening must be rapidly reduced. Forest land should be devoted to its most productive use for the good of the people and for the environment long term. The purpose of a forest is not to be most productive with a large crop output, but to serve as recreation for humans, provide homes for wildlife, maintain sustainable water flow and natural vegetative growth, and to provide lumber only so much that its removal does not disrupt all the other factors. Forests can no longer be looked at only as trees for timber. If forest land is too overharvested and cannot produce more trees to log, than many people will be out of jobs, homes, recreation, and food supply, not to mention the loss of habitat for a magnitude of wildlife. All the natural resources, wildlife, and natural beauty within the forest ecosystem must be recognized and become an integral part of perception and forest management. All timber cuts need to be performed in such a way that water and soil conditions, and fish and wildlife habitat will not be adversely affected, and harvested lands can be restored. Reducing the amount of cut trees and focusing on better management and conservation would produce monetary benefits because it costs more to cut down a tract of forest than it does to manage it for recreation.

However, it is also important to note that designating parcels of land for national parks does not make a forest ecosystem sustainable, as wildlife and plant growth depend on forest habitat and natural resources that extend beyond designated boundaries. We must direct our vision towards a forest’s value within its natural state, and enforce conservation and protection to keep it in that state before we endanger the personal, social, and economic gains we take for granted when cutting a forest down.

The second ecosystems demanding attention are the grasslands. Most of the western range has experienced drastic desertification, salinization of surface water, loss of native vegetation, and loss of topsoil through wind and erosion due to the poor management of livestock by human beings. When farmers allow their cattle an extended stay in a location with lush vegetation and sufficient water supply, the animals exhaust the available resources, destroy vegetation, and pommel stream banks until they are forced to move on. Benefits of grazing can only be seen if the animals are present in the right numbers and if they are continually kept moving. “If we do not permit the earth to produce beauty and joy, it will in the end not produce food either”. [5]So, if we wish to continue to have the luxury of meat and dairy products, we had better start managing the ecosystems that allow for such extravagance in a much more sustainable fashion. Perhaps if grazing was done on a forced, rotational basis ordered by federal law, there would be means for comparison between different plots of lands as to what works and what doesn’t, and no land would be used to its demise because the forced movement of animals would allow for regrowth and replenishment. The government definitely needs to have more regulations regarding grasslands, as well as more funding for enforcement of such regulations to keep public land sustainable and productive for many generations to come. The government must also take responsibility for unregulated livestock doing damage to the ecosystem, as perhaps only the farmer is gathering benefits while the rest of society in that area is suffering.

And as touched on in the previous paragraph, meat is a luxury. Westerners and those in developed nations are blind sighted to this because of fast food chains and local grocery availability. Many nations do not even hold meat as a staple in their diet because its means of production and consumption is too expensive for most to have. “The living things we kill will, in the end, take revenge; for in exploiting their presence we are diminishing our future”. [6]The Western population needs to greatly decrease their animal product intake because it ultimately leads to excessive and unnecessary waste of food, land, and resources. Livestock waste is almost 100 times that of human waste, and most of our grain products are consumed by livestock animals rather than by humans. If we eliminated the perception that meat is necessary in our everyday diet, especially the idea that it should be the main component of every meal, than we would be overworking a lot less land, releasing many less chemicals from waste, lessening the suffering of animals for our consumption, and directly increasing the amount of grain products for human consumption.

Another luxury that most people in developed nations often overlook is the comfort of constant electricity. We have halted our insight on the effects of electronics on the environment while continuing to expand the motorized and electronic industry. Many people are completely unaware that in this moment, electricity is produced from the conversion of heat generated from the burning of coal in power plants. Coal is collected through mining processes, which in turn contaminate water and soil from acid mine draining, heavy metals, arsenic, and mercury that expose wildlife and humans to significant and widespread hazards. Even with the vast social and economic benefits from electricity, the major health ailments caused directly from mining pollution should play a much larger role in the minds of individuals in support of massive mining. Instead of coal powered systems, the world’s human population should direct their attention towards nuclear power. Nuclear waste is much smaller in size than coal waste generated from electricity production; it loses toxicity overtime whereas coal waste cannot be eliminated; and nuclear waste does not cause global warming, where coal waste is the leading cause. We need to stop pondering over the “what-ifs” of nuclear power and get the ball rolling on its development before we continue to dig ourselves into a hole of coal burning damage. “A third of all Swedes have toured a nuclear plant, which helps to explain why 80 percent of the population supports their continued use”. This again goes to show why we need better education to promote awareness and acceptance of processes for the greater good of the global community.

A third luxury that many of us living in developed nations take for granted is the availability of water. Although the earth’s surface is mostly covered by water, only a small percentage is fit for human consumption or applicable for agriculture. There are so many people worldwide dying at the hands of others due to lack of resources, especially due to minimal water supply, that leads me to discuss the necessary acceptance of genetically modified foods. For the amount of prescription drugs we ingest regularly and the amount of preservatives, food coloring, and chemicals we accept in our daily food sources in the developed world, there is no reason to rule out crop modification for those people who genuinely have no other choice but to starve or accept genetically modified food. Developing nations should definitely be allowed the option to grow genetically modified foods if it prevents them from starving as a nation, even if it affects developed nations import of goods or long term agriculture. It is only fair to meet developing nations needs short term in response to food supply, as we dump all of our wastes and hazardous substances onto them without giving them an opt out option. While there could be negative long term effects of genetically modified foods, there are long term negative effects of everything else we have supported in developing our economy through the burning of coal, creation of plastic, water irrigation, habitat destruction, and etcetera. We also need to make more people in developed nations aware that developing nations are suffering right now, and the damage is only getting worse. We must help developing nations now, before time runs out and human subspecies begin to deteriorate.

And just as human species decline, “just about every [other] living creature on earth now contains in its body traces of agricultural and industrial chemicals- many of which are known or suspected carcinogens or mutagens”. We need to pay attention not only to human suffering, but to wildlife and ecosystem suffering regardless of scale as well. It is necessary to equate animal life and environmental elements as co-equal partners with human development, consumption, and production. It is necessary to see life outside of humans as equally important, so that their protection is as valuable as the benefits we reap from that protection. We need to increase our security and enhancement efforts for life outside of humans for the greater good of the people, the animals, and the environment, so all can be mutually beneficial to one another. We need to stop being scared, against, or careless about things we know little about; especially the plant and wildlife kingdom, as they may affect us more than we are currently aware of. To create the equality between humans and other species, and have it valued in the minds of people worldwide, there must be education about the wonders of the animal kingdom and the magnificence of the plant world. We need “to build knowledge about where [we] live in order to take better responsibility for where [we] live”. [7] We need to let native flora and fauna be part of the normal everyday environment of all citizens.

If we destroy the environment, we will not have a society. If we wish to maintain our human culture as a whole, then we need to maintain earth’s culture as well- that of harmony between all species (including humans), natural resources, and ecosystems. Our life depends on the earth that we live on, and if we wish to sustain ourselves, then we must sustain our home. “Real education should educate us out of self and into a selflessness which links us with all humanity”.[8] Inventions or processes that do not benefit the entire global community should not be implemented. We cannot favor ourselves over the rest of the earth’s living things; we are equals to the biotic community, and must adjust our ideologies and lifestyles to reflect just that.

---

[1] Pope John Paul II

[2] Cree Proverb

[3] Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Discipline

[4] Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Discipline

[5] Joseph Wood Krutch

[6] Marya Mannes

[7] Stewart Brand in Whole Earth Discipline

[8] Nancy Astor

Food system globalization, eating transformations, and nutrition transition

Globalization, in the context of food systems, refers “to reduction in barriers to the cross-border movement of goods, services, and capital; an increased flow of commodities, technologies, information, financial capital, modes of distribution and marketing; and, to a certain extent, migration or peoples and labor.”[1] Globalization is a result of political decisions that place international trade as top priority, based on the assumption that increased trade is beneficial. However, the world has grown enough food to feed everyone, yet it doesn’t reach those who need it most. Production levels have greatly increased while food dependency in developing countries has simultaneously grown. [2]

The universality of food makes it an enormous indicator of cultural differences and historical change. Because all societies must produce, distribute, and consume food; necessity, taste, opportunity, social distinctions, and values all intertwine around the dinner table. Diets can gauge economic development as the production of food is fundamentally integrated with labor systems, property arrangement, and available technology.[3] Advancements in food science and agriculture have changed the way people eat; the processes through which food is produced; and the dynamics of public, private, domestic, and international policy. Connections between food and the environment, social organization, systems of agriculture, food preservation, and transportation are constantly being reconfigured in accordance to new knowledge about nutrition principles, biological needs, and changing socio-economic statuses.[4] Through examining the changes in production, trade, distribution and consumption of various foodstuffs, the forces of globalization on economic, political, social, and cultural systems can become quite obvious.

As the world becomes a more globalized community, individuals gain increased awareness of others around them. This greater consciousness allows individual’s access to beliefs and lifestyles dissimilar from their own and thus changes traditional identities through increased freedom of choice. Corporate capital, through globalization, now has the capacity to create demand and domesticate imported products worldwide, shifting the balance between exotic and local cuisine.

Globalization, propelled by new technologies and capitalist mechanisms, seems that it would only bring progress to the universal food market. While it allows global societies to become more closely intertwined through increasing cultural interaction, diversity of diets, and wider ranges of available food, there are also major negative complications. Globalization has put the development of multinational corporate agribusinesses into the forefront; undermining family farm production while forcing rural inhabitants into cities and destroying social relations, subverting local customs, and destabilizing cultural food availability. Rapid advancements in food technology disrupt the natural cycles of food production, pollute the environment to alarming degrees, and cause massive shifts in supply and demand curves in the global food market.

The food and nutrition systems of societies are dependent on the inner workings of producers, consumers, and nutritional values. Food sheds once comprised of local regional products have now expanded to attain goods from global areas as a result of cheaper, faster transportation and improved preservation techniques. This has transformed eating habits, nutrient transitions, and world health issues. With local and global products on the dinner table, what people eat and under what circumstances is directly linked to the forces of globalization.

The increase of global trade has extended the spread of plant and animal varieties, diversifying the food available in wealthier societies, while strengthening broad networks of distribution and processing. However, as distinctly ethnic foods become available worldwide to an ever increasing global population, food supply chains are changing drastically to the benefit of few and to the detriment of many. The variety of available foods in developing countries has been reduced as international agribusinesses push them to produce single crops for international markets that often favor high yield grains with reduced nutrition. The World Bank advised developing countries to develop specialized export areas, but more frequently than not, this hurt peasant economies and had detrimental environmental effects. Varieties of local species were also diminished, forcing ecological, economic, and social losses. When these highly valued, single product exports were developed simultaneously under World Bank guidance in numerous countries, prices collapsed.[5] Consequently, this made regions that were once self-sufficient dependent on importing products and exporting goods with minimal financial gain.

In Mexico, for example, many people making a living from growing maize while supporting a domestic milling industry. The industry sought out the cheapest source of maize and lobbied for the import of U.S. maize, also known as yellow corn, replacing the nutritionally superior Mexican white maize. As a result, the millers, some owned by American grain companies, reaped huge benefits, while the Mexican farmers lost their markets to sell.

Coupled with corporate consolidation and redistribution of profits, farmers are reduced to a marginal role in food supply chains. Despite internet opportunities for web based marketing, cooperative initiatives, and production forecasts, farmers are finding they have less economic power in the global market, have very limited access to buy or sell in local supermarkets, and are being squeezed by huge input suppliers and grain companies. Large corporations use agrochemicals, hybrid plants, and genetically modified plants to produce food in uniform quality, size, and shape.[6] These products suited for name brands flood the marketplace and push small scale farmers out of business. Global patent laws restrict technical and knowledge exchanges, giving firms with access to patent courts more advantages. The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights gives monopoly power to firms that patent life forms, supporting corporations such as Monsanto in their ownership of over 90 percent of genetically engineered seed in global commercial use. [7] Articles of agreement within the new World Trade Organization will give unrestricted freedom to food corporations to enter seed markets and establish plant breeder rights and intellectual property rights, forcing smaller farmers to purchase input supplies through large corporations.

Globalization has strengthened the power of the private sector and weakened the public space available for debate on how food and agricultural systems can be best managed. Even with government subsidies, money is removed from small farms and placed into input supplies, land cost, and payment of debt.[8] With advancements in refrigeration, transportation, and preservation of perishable goods, supply chains are growing longer and more concentrated. Globalization, tied with capitalist distribution, has made access to specific foods a matter of means. “Changes in trade and investment laws under the auspices of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization have made it easier to import and export foods, making legally possible what technology is making physically possibly”.[9]

Ethnic and regional identities of foods have become codified, losing some of their cultural symbolism. Markets advertise available foods at predictable prices to expecting customers at specialized restaurants and marketplaces with predefined cuisines. Consumer taste in certain aspects has actually fragmented the global market, with shifts from mass produced products such as coffee to specialty beans from small, flexible suppliers.[10] For example, the success of Bolivia’s native crop quinoa has boosted farmer’s incomes but hurt local consumers. The soaring demand for quinoa in rich, health conscious countries has tripled its price, allowing local farmers to earn more but making it unaffordable for many Bolivians to consume. Locals now embrace cheaper, processed foods with no nutritional rewards.[11]

The alteration of diets to incorporate more processed foods stem negatively out of dietary convergence and dietary adaptation, two phenomena distinct to globalization.[12] Income and price of food leads to dietary convergence, as increased reliance is placed on a narrow base of staple grains; increased meat and dairy consumption; increased brand name processed and store bought food; and increased appeal to foods with greater amounts of fat, oil, sugars, and sweeteners. Supply and availability of these foods determines dietary convergence, pushing consumption of foods readily available at cheap prices. Often times both dietary convergence and dietary adaptation is supported by global marketing and advertising schemes put in place by supermarkets and multinational fast food chains.

Foreign investment has contributed to the rise of fast food restaurants and western style grocery stores, influencing consumer food choices. The increased global consumption of fast food products is already showing detrimental effects. Local culture and food traditions are disappearing, crop bases are narrowing, biodiversity is decreasing, and environmental degradation is increasing. Although developing nations are able to increase their caloric intake and reduce under nutrition, diet related chronic diseases and obesity rates are growing rapidly. Some studies suggest that the adverse shifts in dietary consumption are “taking place at a much higher speed than potentially beneficial changes”[13], promoting excessive energy intakes, and undoubtedly contributing to the adverse health risks observed throughout the developing world. The rapid speed of this change is concerning because individuals with very poor nutrition earlier in life can be at greater risk for adverse health consequences such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or weight gain. For example, in Kenya in 1930 there were no incidences of diabetes, but a study in the late 1970s showed it had become quite common.[14]Because of this, “the human and economic toll could be dramatic and, for many, the exit from food poverty may be associated with a straight entry into health poverty”.

Lastly, in the age of globalization, man has also created hunger. Food aid is sold by governments on local markets below domestic market prices.[15] Cheap foreign supplies destabilize local markets, hinder the production and consumption of essential food staples, and impoverish farmers. The IMF World Bank structural adjustment program undermines all economic activity that does not directly serve the interests of the global market system. As domestic food supplies diminish, tariff barriers are lifted, more people are pushed into poverty, politics begin to deteriorate, and civil society collapses. [16]The removal of tariff barriers allows northern countries to capture third world markets through subsidized commodities that undermine local food production. Globalization is forcing people in the poorest parts of the world, namely Africa, Asia, and Latin America to sell more food than they consume. [17]

In the future, to keep effective markets and supply chains functioning, countries will need to consider the health of their material flow and trading practices. The regulation of food supply will need to reestablish partnerships between national, regional, and international trade relationships. Political bodies will need to rework the distribution of foodstuffs, health assistance, and infrastructure development. As the world population continues to grow, remaining tightly interconnected, we must reevaluate the true costs and benefits of globalization.[18] With deepening food and resources crises and political and national conflicts, the global community cannot continue business as usual.

Bibliography

Chossudovsky, Michel. "Peace Magazine V12n3p14: The Causes Of Global Hunger." Peace Magazine: Welcome. 1995. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. <http://www.peacemagazine.org/archive/v12n3p14.htm>.

Chossudovsky, Michel. "Global Famine." GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization. Global Research, 02 May 2008. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877>.

Fajardo, Luis. "Impact of globalization on food consumption, health and nutrition in urban areas of Colombia." FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 83 (2004). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Web. May 2011.

Grew, Raymond. The History of Food and Global History. Vol. 1. Print.

Hartarska, V.. "Global Supply Chains, Standards and the Poor: How the Globalization of FoodSystems and Standards Affects Rural Development and Poverty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91.4 (2009): 1154. Research Library, ProQuest. Web. 8 Mar. 2011. < http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1876766831&Fmt=18&clientId=10792&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Kennedy, Gina. "Globalization of Food Systems in Developing Countries: a Synthesis of Country Case Studies." FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 83 (2004). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Web. May 2011.

Kinabo, Joyce. "Impact of Globalization on Food Consumption, Health and Nutrition in Urban Areas: a Case Study of Dar Es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania." FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 83 (2004). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004. Web. May 2011.

Lee, Robert, and Terry Marsden. "The Globalization and Re-localization of Material Flows: Four Phases of Food Regulation." Journal of Law and Society 36.1 (2009): 129-44. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1651671771&Fmt=18&clientId=10792&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Mendez, Michelle, and Barry Popkin. "Globalization, Urbanization and Nutritional Change in the Developing World." FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 83 (2004). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Web. May 2011.

Murphy, Sophia. “The global food basket”. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy. Knoxville:Summer 2001. Vol. 16, Iss. 2, p. 36-42 (7 pp.)

Murphy, Sophia. "Globalization and Corporate Concentration in the Food and Agriculture Sector." ProQuest. Palgrace Macmillion, Dec. 2008. Web. 1 May 2011. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1625013311&Fmt=3&clientId=10792&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Romero, Simon, and Sara Shahriari. "Quinoa's Global Success Creates Quandry at Home." The New York Times 19 Mar. 2011. Print.

Stokes, Bruce. "Food Is Different - Sunday, January 30, 2011." NationalJournal.com. 07 June 2008. Web. 04 May 2011. <http://nationaljournal.com/magazine/food-is-different-20080607?print=true>.

---

[1] Luis Fajardo

[2] Gina Kennedy

[3] Raymond Grew

[4] Raymond Grew

[5] Michel Chossudovsky

[6] Gina Kennedy

[7] Sophia Murphy

[8] Hartarska

[9] Sophia Murphy

[10] Sophia Murphy

[11] Simon Romero

[12] Gina Kennedy

[13] Michelle Mendez

[14] Joyce Kinabo

[15] Michel Chossudovsky

[16] Michel Chossudovsky

[17] National Journal- Food is Different

[18] Robert Lee