Week #14

April 19^th, 2013

I had a great time on this field trip, it was my favorite one by far. There were so many places to choose from along the coast of Sarasota but I found this one to be most applicable.

Although it was very windy today (which kept the high 80’s heat down!) it was so beautiful. The water is that crystal clear turquoise color that looks hyper-saturated, no clouds in the sky, birds soaring around. It was an interesting walk over to it. I thought the park would be labeled on a sign right off the Ringling Bridge but I stumbled across it accidentally after I parked by a lagoon and walked over to the bridge to find the sign for the trail which begins by walking underneath the Ringling Bridge! It was so cool as I rounded the corner to have the busy traffic getting into Long Boat Key (which was sooo beautiful) on my left, the calm Sarasota Bay on my right, and then the preserve off on its own island amidst everything. Immediately upon walking into the preserve were two Ospreys playing together, screeching, and looking for food. (Their nest was on the other side of the island which I find by walking through a quite precarious mangrove area!). I loved that to my left was beautiful flora and fauna and a step to my right was the bay. As I walked further into the island I saw there were estuaries and lagoons (man-made and natural) as well as tons of mangroves (red, black, etc.).

The preserve was in pristine condition (aside from the bag of trash I collected of some beer bottles and chip bags) with healthy plant life (there is a sign I included in my power point stating they allow two invasive species on the uplands), cranes enjoying the shallow bay waters for fish, and the Ospreys gathering food.

Quick Point seems to be a well preserved and protected area that the local community has deemed to be worth the effort in sustaining. Perhaps one thing that comes to mind as a potential risk factor is it is very easy to get to by boat, therefore making it a place for trash from folks who walk around the island or fish from it instead. In all honesty, I saw very little trash, even as I walked the shoreline.

I am so glad to have found this place (I’ve lived here 5 years and go the Mote constantly and have never been over here which is right across the water!) that I want to bring my husband and son there to enjoy as well.

Week #13

April 8^th, 2013

When I initially completed the quiz I fared at 4.7 earths if everyone lived like me. So I went back and completed the more in-depth questions thinking I’d score better, not to my surprise did I see I scored worse by .1!

Upon exploring the options to further reduce my carbon footprint it asked me to eat less animal products – meat, fish, poultry, dairy, etc. Then it requested I purchase more post-consumer material and packaging. Which nowadays is the norm, but I don’t go out of my way to purchase it. But if I happen to need/want it and it is recycled packaging, we both win. The last thing it suggested I do was to take a trip locally instead of flying (I fly once a year, if that! Sheesh).

These requests are untenable in my eye – asking me sacrifice my dietary needs for the planet is abhorrent. Not to mention having me drive instead of fly when if I’m lucky make one trip up to Virginia a year.

The least obtrusive request is to buy more recycled products and materials. As I mentioned before, many items sold now have some sort of recycle initiative and if I happen to purchase one or a few in a trip to the store than I am contributing to reduce my footprint.

In all honesty, I’m not sure how much the earth would be able to sustain if everyone lived like I do. Perhaps not very many since I seemed to just surpass the 4.5 – 4.6 planet earth average range. I looked again on my results page and didn't see it listed anywhere.

What would be more interesting to me is to see how the algorithms are compiled and the basic guidelines are chosen. To someone who finds this to be a bunch of bologna anyway, I wonder how scientific the science is behind it to begin with. 

Week #12

April 2^nd, 2013

“Sustainable consumerism” is the concept of reducing the waste, pollution, and emissions in production for services and goods rendered by consumers.

I can’t speak on the global level but in regard to American capitalism if a company wants to participate in more “sustainable” practices through volition because they find value in it and are not government regulated, then sure that is fine by me.

I learned about “greenwashing” when I attended interior design school. I suppose I knew it was out there but because I don’t go out of my way to purchase “green/organic” products I didn’t have firsthand knowledge. But essentially it’s a way for companies to dub their good or services “green” by following the lowest parameters set to be allowed to call their product or services “green.” Then they are able to slap “green” or “organic” on the label, website, etc and sell it with false pretenses.

If I found value in “organic”, “local”, and “fair trade” products, sure I would purchase them regardless of the cost.

My shopping habits are out of convenience – I patron the evil “box stores” because the prices are relatively lower and with the rising cost of fuel and food, it would not be judicious to spend an extra $50 dollars each week at Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, or at a “granola” mom and pop shops (even though I have watched my grocery bills rise exponentially over the past few years). If ever I do frequent a mom and pop shop it is because I am in the area and need something to eat or have found something I’d like to purchase. I find no shame or guilt in shopping at plazas and malls.

The “ramifications of my habits are a drop in the bucket. I participate in capitalism and champion the notion that I can continue to receive goods and services which I need/want and keep people employed by shopping there. 

Week #11

March 27^th, 2013 

I had never been and this was a perfect opportunity to visit on such a beautiful day! My first thought was “I thought it would be bigger.” Although good with directions and orienting myself to my surroundings, big cities can turn me around in a heartbeat. Today I had no problems whatsoever – whether driving or walking around.

There were no emotions that downtown evoked in me. I noticed certain criteria only due to the assignment parameters that there were laid out. There seemed to be a great deal of older buildings brought up to code that were newer and more modern looking than their predecessors. As I walked down side streets I noticed some of the older buildings like the Edison theater, the courthouse, a gorgeous church, and the art building which felt very Washington, DC to me. The streets were lined with tables, chairs, sunbrellas, and outdoor heaters, accompanied by boutiques scattered about. The only two “commercial” businesses I saw were Subway and Starbucks (there has to be a Starbucks near the pseudo-intellectuals no matter how evil corporations are – it’s an exception to be made!).

As I stated before the architectural details were quite plain and boring with nothing jumping out at me except when I passed the original buildings from time-to-time. When I first began walking I noticed how nice and new the bricks were on the grounds only to find a placard under my feet that the first 500,000 bricks were recycled and re-laid down on the sidewalks (which looked to be in good shape).

This area is quite small and not equipped to handle volumes of vehicle traffic aside from parking in front of some establishments, however there was a large parking garage I saw on a side street that could handle the foot traffic once parked.

I ventured my way toward the waterfront and saw the Nina and Pinta boats and discovered not only one but two Army Air Fields were here – Buckingham and Page Army Air Fields. Both served as training bases for gunnery school and pilot training school. I then saw placards in two separate places about their conservation efforts in regard to releasing clean water into the Caloosahatchee River – 1) Detention basin and 2) biological storm water treatment. I was looking for other things like this elsewhere downtown but never came across anything at any establishments or local placards saying “hey were doing X, Y, and Z to integrate sustainability in our community.” 

Week #10

March 23^rd, 2013

I will be providing the same answer to this blog post as the question proposed in Week #10s second discussion board in regard to what my proposed energy plan would be.

The first question of this blog post is a loaded question – what defines “cheap?” If you mean the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on wind and solar energy than the answer is no – it isn’t cheap. If you mean the fact that I can afford to pay my energy bill every month sure. But again, this topic will be tied into my response to the overall picture of this blog – in that no more taxpayer dollars should be poured into ineffective alternative energy ideas like wind and solar. More time needs to be spent developing other, newer, better ideas that WILL work on a grand scale and become affordable for all.

Good old Jimmy Carter – the worst president to date before Obama was elected. He said in a speech as he donned a sweater because we were facing an energy “crisis” and needed to do our part to conserve energy. This is the embodiment of government intervention even though it is laid out to the public that we must all “do our part for the greater good.” Which are words that make my blood run cold.

If it hasn’t been clear so far, let me say emphatically NO on government intervention whatsoever on energy. I believe my first sentence to this discussion board assignment was something to the effect of “I am here to tell the American people that the DOE is hereby dissolved.” When our government was put together I don’t think the framers had visions of creating huge arms of government that was not in their parameters to do so in the first place – including regulating energy.

For the sake of the assignment I will utilize the involvement of the government to achieve mollification of both sides of the political aisle:

Drilling and fracking for the oil and natural gases we have under our feet for the next pick a number – 25-30 years (or more if available). This will provide us time in the interim to develop and study newer more cutting edge alternative energy technology. Toward the end of this time frame we will sustain our energy independently and save billions and billions of dollars to propping ourselves up on hostile nations for oil. The end result is two-fold and a win for everyone (although it will never happen and everyone can never be satisfied simultaneously) as we gain independence from foreign nations AND create efficacious alternative technology that will provide us with many years of better, “greener” days.

I will be taking no steps toward reducing my carbon footprint because man-made global warming is a fallacy. If I was to in the future and I have no way to tell you what I may do, it would be on volition because it would save my family and me money – that’s it. We recycle, I pick up trash if I see it (and won’t get hurt doing so), and I drive a pretty fuel efficient car (not because of the environment but because it saves me money on gas). There is nothing else I wish to do at this point.

This topic is irrational to me because its premise is to guilt you for being alive, that you are somehow evil for being here and being capable of rational thought and reason, for progressing (a term I loathe in the political sense but in the rational sense I’m ok with) as a species through innovation and ingenuity. Indeed we have made huge mistakes along the way and should right them but not by the hands of government. 

Week #9

March 16^th, 2013

This topic is the existence of the course – “climate change”, “environmental awareness/consciousness”, “carbon footprints”, “being/going green”, “reduce, reuse, recycle”, and all the other buzz phrases out there. All of this transpired years ago by the environmental wackos from the left to inject fear and guilt with the population as a means of control. This “epidemic” has spiraled out of control and saturated every facet of our lives whether we realize it or not. To draw a distinction – I mentioned in my opening sentence that the reason this colloquium course exists is because of the handle this so-called “man-made crisis” ruse has on science and academia which trickles down to ignorant individuals and most importantly the indoctrination of young minds – students (who of course can be highly influenced).

In regard to believing if anthropogenic global warming is actually caused by me the answer is emphatically no. There are too many variables – agendas, career politicians, backroom deals, and emotion that are now placed in science, so instead of studying the subject objectively “facts” are twisted to suit theories to further expound upon perpetuating this “crisis.”  The atmosphere is an open system and it is impossible to study on a computer model which is a closed system. Furthermore, these computer models cannot operate themselves which leaves the data to be studied at the whim of the scientist who is conducting the experiment.

I briefly touched upon the medias involvement in the matter already. They are in the back pockets of the leftists in Washington and therefore champion (w/o questioning) whatever agenda necessary. The fear mongering they participate in is exactly what Washington wants – to instill panic, fear, and guilt which are akin to the ultimate goal of control.

Do I make lifestyle changes on volition due to this “crisis?” No, not unless I find true value in them or it saves me money somehow. I will not waiver or succumb to the irrationality that is “climate change.” Observe it is no longer called “global warming” as it has been exposed as fraudulent, therefore forcing the agenda to be tweaked and re-adjusted to make it suitable for consumption if you will.

Perhaps life will improve for my son and grandchildren if the government abided by the parameters set forth by the constitution and quit meddling and breeding regulations to fix problems they began in the first place. Solar and wind energy are worthless technology with no efficacious benefits not to mention neglecting any fiduciary responsibilities to the tax payers who are forced to continue to fund it. Somehow I don’t see life being better for my children or children’s children whether it be by a small, limited government or this spinning marble being healed from evil man. 

Week #8

March 1^st, 2013

The eucalyptus was indigenous to Australia and has made its way to other continents and eventually to the United States.

There are pros and cons of this tree, however in this particular instance of bringing the tree to FGCU, I must argue against it for several reasons.

The benefits to the eucalyptus tree are the financial stimulation they bring to certain poverty stricken areas. The trees grow extremely fast and the wood is able to be chopped off and the root quickly regenerates which in turn provides areas with a cash crop to bring money in. The next “pro” is a catch-22 in that the roots need an extreme amount of water for survival and in turn dry the soil and surrounding area out but lessen the malaria population for the local residents.

As aforementioned these trees draw a lot of water lower the water table underneath the ground and reduce the soil salinity. Another pitfall is the oil these trees generate is extremely flammable and combustible and the branches have been known to fall due to their high density therefore causing potential dangers to campers.

These trees also disrupt local ecological biodiversity and displace current wildlife because they cannot survive on the food that is provided.

For this particular situation, I must contest the notion to bring these plants to the campus as they provide no value – financially or economically for the staff, students, and local wildlife.

Sources:

Wikipedia.com