Hendobear18’s Blog

Stumbled upon a CNN article today that proposed that it had “8 weird ways to save the Earth”. These include things like;

1) “Space-based frisbee reflectors,” to “Deflect the sun’s rays with a cluster of translucent disks, each two feet in diameter, placed in orbit between the earth and the sun.”

2) “White Deserts” that “cover the world’s great deserts with white plastic sheeting, like a tarp but thicker, in an attempt to reflect more of the sun’s rays back into space.”

3) “Hurricane-Killing Wave Pump,” which is “basically a ring several hundred feet in diameter, with layers of old tires making up the outer wall. In the middle, a funnel runs down several hundred feet into the ocean. The force of waves breaking over the outer tire ring forces warm water down the funnel. It mixes with the cooler water below before rising to the surface again, colder than before. This would create a constant exchange of warm and cold water.”

Need I say much more?

This article is completely sickening…Have we really come to the point in our existence where we are more inclined to come up with million/billion dollar projects to physically alter natural processes as to prevent our impacts upon the climate, rather than adjust our living habits to live more sustainably, according to our definite physical boundaries that have been imposed by the limits of our planet? What if any of these technologies backfire? Honestly, I thought that the last slide was going to be some sort of “Gotcha!” joke stunt, but our folks over at CNN money are apparently taking themselves pretty seriously.

These are all “weird ways to save the Earth” that perpetuate our “Business-As-Usual” mentality that true environmentalists are so desperately trying to deconstruct. Sustainability is about a complete ideological re-working, and in my belief this is just emphasizes our complacency and reliance upon ‘technology’ to solve everything. Technology, while essential for forms of sustainable progress, is not some blanketed solution that we can overlay to our problems without changing the ways in which we think and live.

These solutions are like shitty band-aids, covering up the inevitable wounds we have inflicted upon our planet & climate. The band-aid’s adhesives, as we ALL know, do not defy the test of time, and similarly, technologies such as these can only mask the changes we have made for so long before we realize that they are not enough, and that we have to fundamentally re-structure and re-envision our societies and lifestyles in a new, sustainable manner. As my good friend Maggie Craig put it, “We need to re-frame the discussion.  It shouldn’t be “what can we do to save ourselves from climatic disaster” because then we get solutions like this.”

I spend a minimum of 15 hours a week staring at this illuminated computer screen for my internship, so eventually, my brain must make up for the lack of physical exertion.

I’ve been working on creating a 2.0 version of my company’s ‘Green Office Makeover’ for about a month now. That means I’ve been delving into a variety of “How to Green Your Business,” “Greening Your Business,” “Green Business,” and “Green at Work” loveliness that are the how-to’s that unfortunately all think they have the answer to sustainability (yet they all use the word ‘green’, which is a HUGE pet peeve of mine just because I feel like it belittles the movement).  It has given me some cool new ideas, but more than anything, it got me thinking about modern perceptions of consumption and how they fit within the environmental movement.

Lots of recommendations involve purchasing a new “non-toxic, post-consumer recycled material, energy-efficient, water-saving” this-or-that in place for your old one. Lots of replacements, especially ones that are infrastructural, like light bulbs, faucet heads, or an indoor compost are indeed awesome, vital changes that can reduce one’s overall carbon footprint. But what I’ve come to have problems with is the ‘culture of consumption’ that has frequently surrounded the current environmental initiatives.

If you buy this, this, and this on our checklist, you can be THAT–> “Green”! You cannot buy your way to sustainability, nor can you hope to change your overall ideology to cater towards a more environmentally benign lifestyle.  I don’t know if anybody else has an opinion, but what I’ve rationalized to help bridge this seemingly contradictory gap between a consumer-driven capitalist economy and sustainability and a concern for the environment goes something like this;

My adorably awesome research manager was asking me about a Green Office Makeover Report Item I had added that recommended to purchase clipboards that did not contain formaldehyde and were made out of post-consumer recycled materials and/or FSC certified wood. She asked me for my opinion–should eco-consultants recommend to the office manager that they should just replace all current clipboards immediately and trash the old ones, or just incorporate this component into the purchasing policy, whereby when there is a need to purchase new clipboards in the future, the correct kind are purchased?

Certain things do not need to be immediately replaced with the ’sustainable commodity’–to simply purchase something because of the identity it holds is very contrary to sustainability in the first place. Why immediately replace (something like a clipboard) with a ‘green’ clipboard when the current one is already functional? Shouldn’t you wait until your lights burn out to replace them with CFLs?

I don’t know if its consistent with all environmentalists, but what I’ve found that suits my fancy is that “Consuming sustainably is important when there is a need to consume”. Why should I replace my old, functional converse for a new pair of eco-sneaks if my converse are working perfectly fine? It doesn’t apply to the purchase of all items, but for many commodities, this seems to be the case.

I haven’t had the chance to upload my pictures yet, but this morning before work I had the pleasure of visiting the “High Line” park here in NYC. It’s basically an old extension of an expressway (at least that is what it looks like) that has been completely renovated and turned into a parkish type walkway. I walked the expanse from Ganservoort Street to 14th street, and encountered lots of old couples or young hipsters trying to sketch things. But it was everything besides the people that got me thinking…

Bumble bees were pollinating clusters fiery pink flowers that were planted alongside old, rusty looking bars that very obviously used to be the part of a highway. Small trees were thriving, sprouting out of the rocky ground and overhanging the sides of the High Ling fencing just enough so that the passerby on Washington Street could see. Signs were scattered over the walkway that said “Keep it Wild; Stay on the Pathway”. Now this park was anything BUT the wild, if we are going to abide by Thoreau’s concept of “wild/wildness”, anything that is completely untouched by mankind and in its most natural, essential form. Everything about that park was landscaped, planned, planted and maintained by the flesh and blood of humanity. Hell, it was built on top of an old expressway of some sort! Yet in a world where the human hand has grappled with just about everything, I am starting to believe that this definition is extinct.

Urban environmentalism, a new concept that many don’t really know how to interpret, conceptualize, or apply. Does it mean tiny, egg-beater looking wind turbines on top of buildings generating our own wind power? Does it mean hybrid taxi’s and photovoltaic cells lining the roofs of apartments? Or is it a Manhattan wide recycling service that has started to pick up compost, or that every single New York resident should have access to some sort of green-space within ten blocks (maybe if we’re referring to PlaNYC 2030, but I want to stick to my point). If environmentalism is going to be a widespread, inherent part of humanity’s conscious thought processes, then the idea of our wild environment has to adapt.

I would never go so far as to not whole-heartedly appreciate Natural Wildlife Preserves, National Parks, hiking trails, and other very well-preserved natural areas that still grip tightly onto what the planet would have naturally decided the area should look, smell, and function like. But in a world that is now predominantly living in cities (over 50% of the earth’s population lives in an urban setting as of 2007), the environment cannot be seen as something out of reach that can only be experienced if you are wearing birkenstocks, a bandana, and riding your bike or paddling your kayak through some unknown, remote area. While that is fun (besides the birkenstocks) refreshing, and essential to many people’s well being, the environment also has to be envisioned where the majority of humanity now lives–in cities. And this park, the High Line, was the perfect expression of this idea. NYC is opening community gardens that are farming small vegetables, opening greenhouses atop of buildings, and now, making parks out of our broken, run-down infrastructure. It takes vision, planning, and maintenance, but as long as these initiatives are built and maintained in a sustainable way, why not accept these adaptations as our feeble, yet admirable/commendable attempts to reconnect with the planet in a modern way. As long as we do not go so far as to say that ‘we create the environment’, these built glimpses at the ‘environment’ fosters thoughts and appreciation for the realities that indeed to exist and need to be maintained.

I could write for hours about this, and I still feel like it wouldn’t come out the appropriate way, so I will just leave it as is.

I’m sure many other New York-dwellers (I’m always hesitant to use the phrase New-Yorkers, because too many times I have heard that you can live here your whole life and not be a ‘New-Yorker’, so I don’t want to flatter my petty 2-year stint) find beautiful, inspirational things every day while walking on the streets.Regardless of whether it be a breathtaking sunset, or a homeless person boisterously jangling change in a cup rapping on 14th street outside of Walgreens (have you seen that guy? he’s great…) every once in a while there are ‘moments’ where you just have to slow down your walking pace, breathe, and appreciate.

If you’ve ever taken the BDFV to 42nd street and taken the underground tunnel to get over to 5th Ave, then you will have seen where I had my ‘moment’ the other day. Usually, these underground tunnels are smelly, uncomfortable, sticky, narrow, and a couple more unpleasant adjectives. But as I took my eyes off of my feet for two seconds, I saw that the walls had these quotes and designs on them, not typical of your usual grimy tunnel. The first one I saw was the best, and frankly, the only one I could remember;

“Gutta Cavat Lapidem”, Dripping water hollows out a stone-Ovid.

Nice, right? It could mean a variety of things, connotations positive and negative. First, it made me think about humans as ‘drops’,  each a small entity in comparison to the broader scope of our entire planet living out our daily lives. Who would have thought that our species could be the one to so profoundly change the ecology of our earth, sucking it dry of its resources and completely altering its original landscape. It’s uncanny.

But then, to try and reverse this depressing, pessimistic train of thought, I envisioned ‘drops’ as revolutionaries; people, words, or ideas that started small but have since shaped more inclusive, fair, and positive futures for all. The Civil Rights movement, Pacifism, Free Love, Women’s Suffrage, and millions more are all very different in structure, goals, composition, and influence, yet all start with ideas that seem small yet aim to bring down mountains. Most close to home, I thought about the environmental movement, and how much it has grown in the past couple of years. The NYU Sustainability Coordinator, Jeremy Friedman, always speaks about how it is a “Wild West” of people now looking to get out there and spread green to whoever HOWEVER they can. Better a Wild West than a barren desert. The movement is slowly pushing its way into consciousness’ of individuals who one would never have imagined would even speak the word ‘environment.’ Exxon Mobil? General Motors? Our very own governments are imposing laws and regulations to maintain a stable, healthy, “sustainable” environment for generations to come. It thrills me that people understand it is beyond a fad, but rather, it is a paradigm shift. (for all of you who took a class with Mr. Tom Collins, the god of life-altering educational experience, I’m sure this makes you smile)

Unfortunately, I did not realize that the BDFV did not take me anywhere close to where I should have gotten off to go to my best friend’s brother’s apartment. But whatever, some mistakes are worth it.

So, I was on the NYU Sustainability Task Force Website today (literally doing something as important as jacking the NYUSustainability logo for a PowerPoint presentation my boss is giving later) when I stumbled upon their ‘recent news’ section. Best discovery ever…

The first two articles I checked out were about Earth Week–I was already being vain, wanting to hear everybody swoon over the ‘incredible street fair’ or the ’shocking second annual bare-energy frolick’. But not only did I get that, no, I got my own voice (well, words) chirping back at me like the chipper little tree-hugger I am.

"CAS sophomore Sarah Henderson, one of the event’s organizers, said the frolick was about promoting clean alternative energy."

In the first one, I speak mildly intelligently about Earth Week and our planning committee’s goals, but in the second one, I literally sound like a raging, naked hippie. With brilliant, profound quotes such as “If you support clean energy, take off your clothes,” I think I am setting a great example for young environmentalists everywhere. They unfortunately didn’t mention that I was screaming that line while I was running to rally up energy from the crowd and whoever else, but whatever.

Here's to the Long Haul @ the NYU Earth Day Street Fair 2009

Check out ‘Here’s to the Long Haul’ on their myspace, great bluegrass-y style music for a great cause (they are touring to promote awareness about the environmental destruction attributed to the mountain-top removal mining of coal)

All me-related articles aside, 2009 NYU Earth Week as an awesome success, I have to admit. So many people put their energies into putting together 25+ events throughout the week from a variety of different NYU communities. Here is the full schedule if anyone cares to reminisce a little bit. Hopefully next year, although I won’t be here to enjoy it, EarthMatters, The Earth Week Planning Committee, the Sustainability Task Force, Lisa Kail (the Goddess of StreetFair planning and Student-Club President Stress Management Coordinator), and the hundreds of other people that have traditionally helped host events and pull together a celebration of our planet can rally together once again to align a fine series of events that immerses NYU administration, faculty, staff, and students, whether intentionally or unintionally, into environmental culture and awareness.

YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT . According to the UN, our investment in renewables and other sources of green energy have overtaken investments in fossil fuels.

Suck on it, old timer. We’re finally coming to our senses. Took long enough…

Okay, so the other day NYUnplugged (NYU’s Residential Energy-Reduction Challenge, which ACTUALLY will most likely be in Fall ‘09 instead of Spring ‘10) had its wrap-up party in the University Hall Commons, and I was lucky enough to meet some great people from this organization,Rock the Bike. They were outgoing bikers/musicians/environmental activists who totally are the expression of one of MY ultimate dreams, to generate electricity WITH OUR LEGS! They’ve managed to reclaim bike parts, weld, and wire up their bike fleet to do a variety of things. 

Rock the Bike is also closely associated with the bicycle-touring music scene, especially in California–they definitely ‘rock’ the whole grass-roots, easy-going biking culture scene. (Maybe they should hook up with Times-Up?) They recently opened up a shop in NYC with the help of Central Park Conservancy; so if you’re into great music, awesome people, environmentalism AND biking, I think this is the sort of place to be headed, I’m pretty sure their NYC shop is in Brooklyn, but I’d double check the site. They are working at putting together a fleet of multiple bikes to power speakers for LARGE concerts, so there has to be room for enthusiastic biking volunteers who would be willing to chill on the bike for a concert and be HEAVILY RELIED ON FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT! 

After I helped run the bike-powered sound system for a little bit (and worked up a good sweat), I was beyond inspired–no one at Rock the Bike was a certified mechanical genius (not to say they aren’t brilliant people for the idea!), but they figured it out themselves! There has to be a way to expand man-powered electric technology to operate on larger electric grids…say, buildings? Muahaha.

Okay, I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but think about it; the number of gym-goers that are in and out of Palladium Athletic Facility every day from open to close, there has to be enough energy that can be stored in some sort of generator and used as electricity to AT LEAST power the gym itself! Could this work? Stay tuned. I think there needs to be some looking into numbers, grids, and $$prices$$ to figure out whether or not a pilot project could even be launched in a smaller location. 

Regardless, check out Rock the Bike, they are awesome.

Finally, it has been done!

Obama invited representatives from the EPA and leaders of the top automotive industries alike to the White House late May the day that he announced new nationwide mileage standards–35.5 MPG average by 2016, and ‘rules’ that will start to take effect as early as 2012. NYT has a full article.

Obama making the announcement

Yet there is criticism coming from all sides. The government now owns 60% of General Motors and has poured billions of dollars into Chrysler and GM to keep them afloat and avoid the liquidation of the companies. Although Obama has said that he does not want to play a role in managing the company, we hear every news station touting that he is making profound decisions about the design and direction of the auto industry by specifically demanding these standards. 

Honestly, this is revolutionary…

1) The fact that these standards are nation-wide trumps so much opposition from the auto industry, because now their models have to be standardized to have the same mileage wherever (and these models will most likely become international sellers as well–spreading our better MPG standards beyond our boundaries)

Obama and the CEO of General Motors

2) This dramatically cuts our dependence on foreign oil (On a side not, I find it so repulsive that  as we use non-renewable resources and tout the need to reduce our use of them, we use these same resources to transport itself to other places in the world. This just simply needs to be stopped.)

 3) MOST importantly, it saves something like 1.8 billion barrels of oil by 2016, and consequently,will reduce billions of tons of CO2 emissions in our atmosphere. To quote the AP, “Obama’s proposed change in rules would for the first time combine pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road, said senior administration officials speaking anonymously, ahead of the announcement. New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said.”

This is a TRUE clean air initiative, or should I say, ‘act’ (to spite the previous administrations feeble, unsubstantiated attempts to reduce global warming) We just have to wait and see what happens–i.e. the auto companies need to start turning over a revenue so that they can pay off the billions of dollars in loans and actually dedicate their funds to developing new, fuel-efficient models!

I have no idea where this is, but it's great!

With the advent of summer, I wake up every morning to peek out my window to decide what to do that day based in whether the sun is shining or not. If its nice out, I’ll go to the beach, bike-ride, swim in a pool, run outside, play soccer/beach volleyball, or do anything in my power to make sure that the indoors is unnecessary. If GOD FORBID it is cloudy, then my entire plans change.

The sun’s presence is made known now (summer) more than the rest of the year, not only by its more frequent appearance in our sky and the warmth that we are lucky enough to receive in the northern hemisphere, but also through sunburns, and tanning-salon closures that provide other telltale signs that the natural source of light is ready to be worshipped more than any other point in the year. Coincidentally, I have a tattoo of the word “Sunshine”, mainly because that was a nickname I had growing up. But when a friend asked me the other day why I had it, I started uncontrollably ranting about the power of the sun–I’m not even sure why, but maybe it was because of this pent-up energy I have had on reserve about how important a resource and power the sun is in our lives.

Eatin' it up

If you think about it, our earth system is ultimately controlled by the sun. In a brief synopsis of my late-night rant to my drunken friend (who just was looking for a simple explanation of my tattoo), I started going into something like this;

I learned in my climate class this past semester that before anthropogenic contribution to the increase in greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere over the past century or so, the temperature was a FORCING for greenhouse gases (which means that temperatures would increase first before greenhouse did). How did temperature randomly change? Well, these crazy inter-planetary gravitational forces called “Milankovic Cycles” would sporadically change over LONG periods of time; whether it be the eccentricity of our planets orbit, the tilt of our earth’s rotation axis or the relative orientation axis of our spin (precession and obliquity band) would change the amount of insolation (incoming sunlight) that our earth would receive in a given period of time.

Nice unibrow you got there, Milutin!

Heres the Wikipedia if you want more specifics

Basically, before humans were around, the earth’s entire climate and surface composition (which inevitably changes with climate) was dictated by how much sun we receive. Going back even farther, the emergence of multi-cellular organisms can be attributed to sunlight. Sun is the essential component for processes like photosynthesis, the hydrological cycle, wind patterns, fossil fuels, and so many other essential parts of our planet. What would we be without it?

So although I might be jumping the gun here, I’m starting to believe that the Sun is somewhat like a God in the natural sense–it creates, it destroys (its powerful UV rays, if not shielded by our Ozone layer, are deadly), and I know I can say that it makes me happy and gives me hope. Hell, why would they give students school breaks during their respective summers!? They need to relish in the wonder that should be our most prized gift as a planet and species–el sol.

 $50 mil to go Organic; I’ve gotta admit, I’ve got a couple of questions, and am a little skeptical.

Don’t get me wrong, organic agricultural practices produce way healthier, cleaner, natural food and have a lesser impact on degrading the farmland. But I’ve always believed that the local food movement was way more sustainable–it reduces the carbon footprint of farming by eliminating any globally shipped products, it supports local jobs, and is USUALLY natural and organic, because since the local farms are usually pretty small, what’s the need for fertilizers and synthetics for higher yields? PLUS, many of the local farms use organic practices, such as no-till, pesticide free pest control, and ‘natural nutrient management’, yet cannot afford this official USDA organic logo. If you think about it, only larger, more corporate farms have been able to afford purchasing this logo, and are shipping the products globally, which dramatically increases the carbon footprint.

Imagine; Obama in overalls...the 'White House farm'

Is there any way that the government can fund the expansion of local farmers’ organic, natural practices under-the-radar of officially USDA certified organic label? HERE COMES THE PROBLEM; How large can local go without becoming a corporate giant who finds it more profitable to ship products abroad? Will our future look like a sprinkle-sundae of millions of local farms providing for their area? Would that really be sustainable to devote such extensive amounts of land just so that it can be ‘local’? 

If only we knew!