Environmentally Educated: A Recap of my Reflections

Coming into this class I had very little idea of what to expect as far as what the class entailed. Now looking back I'm glad I signed up for this class section due to the information and the different forms of technology it exposed me to. Before this class I had never heard of blogger or google sites, much less used them. To me, blogger was a great tool for both the class and for me to learn how to use in the future. I enjoyed it because it gave me a good way to express what I thought about different topics and experiences that the class exposed me to.

One of the aspects that I liked most about blogger is how other people could read my assigned reflections and add their comments as well. I felt this was beneficial because I got to see how my writings and their subjects looked in other peoples eyes. This made me more conscious about what I was writing, mostly in quality or thought, as the quarter went along. Another aspect I thought to be beneficial was how easily I could access and read other peoples blogs as well. This easy access allowed me to read other people's opinions and thoughts on the same topics in general. Also, by being able to comment on other posts I could offer an outside view on a subject or aspect of a subject that the individual may have missed initially. The ability to comment on other peoples blogs and for my blogs to be commented on allowed us to spread ideas around that one or two of us may have caught originally. Also, in cases where parts of the movies or aspects of the readings were hard to understand these comments and other blogs helped offer other means of presenting the same information. This all resulting in more knowledge collected and understanding in respects to the material and its assigned assignments.

One thing I did notice as the quarter went on for the most part was the quality of my blogs. For example, looking at my first and less impressive blogs: Lost Mountain #1 post it was shorter and was more of a summary of the reading, not much emotion or personal thought involved. Then you go up to one of my better blogs: Food INC. p 183-218 blog it's much more in depth and has many more instances where I said "I felt that," "this aspect make me feel," and "in my opinion I..." I think this increase in quality came from multiple reasons. One of these reasons being that my writing skills improved greatly from the beginning to the end of the class. The other reason is that through other people's comments and mostly the growing realization that anyone can read these posts motivated me to attempt to write better and better each time. I felt this was unique and beneficial because usually you write a paper or answer questions and give them to the professor. With blogger everyone can read your thoughts and writing skills, which to me made me want to write well and more in depth. Another aspect that I believe contributed to the increase in quality of writing was how my view of who I was writing to changed. Originally I thought of it as I was writing to my professor, not anyone else. Then, as the class progressed I begin to shift and write towards the whole class in general. I feel that this shift made me want to present better information and more rounded thoughts, which in turn made my writing better throughout the quarter.

To conclude I enjoyed the entire class and the different aspects of it. Going into the class I never thought about how coal mining was destroying our environment or how hazardous factory farming really is. Now as the class comes to and end, I can't turn a light on or buy a pound of hamburger without thinking where did this come from and what harms did it cause to Mother Nature. The other aspect that I was glad to be exposed to was blogger. What I liked most about blogger was it allowed me to enhance my writing ability over time. Also, it helped changed the way I looked at, and presented my thoughts on, certain issues or topics.

Argument Essay Outline and Updated Bibliography

1) Introduction

Thesis: A transition to using solar power coupled with other forms of alternate energy for our main sources of energy must be utilized in the near future. This must be done to eliminate the current rate of destruction of the environment and ecology's that currently is in place by the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs.



2) Pros of Solar Energy

a. The sun has a massive energy potential- enough to power the earth by 27 times if 100% of it's energy is utilized (Solar and Renewable Energy)

b. There is little harm done to the environment as compared to the large quantities of pollution given off by the utilization of fossil fuels.

c. Solar technology could easily be wired into the current power grid.

d. tax credits, federal loans and stimulus packages can be utilized to promote the use of solar power and its derivatives, which also could help stimulate the local American economy. As compared to spending billions of dollars on foreign oil for example.



3) Consequences of Not Making the Transition

a. the harvesting and burning of fossil fuels emits large quantities of hazardous chemicals into the environment.

b. According to the University of Michigan's geologists Osman Chughtai and David Shannon, at our current rate of fossil fuel production our sources will be depleted within 50-70 years.

c. we would continue to spend billions of American dollars on foreign oils and other fossil fuel production plants.

d. we don't know the exact long term side effects of mass fossil fuel use, but from what we do know now the long term outcome can not be beneficial to the environment and its inhabitants.



4) Economic Effects

a. The vast majority of money spent on the entire situation would be used locally. The technology, man power to make the transition, solar energy collection and utilization can all be done in the US alone, reducing the need for foreign goods and services.

b. The transition would create many jobs, helping fix the current unemployment crisis.

c. By not completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels, there will still be a market for them. This means a significant amount of jobs currently in place by using fossil fuels would still be available.



5) What Needs to be Done to Make the Transition

a. The public needs to make an effort to promote the use of alternate sources of energy to the different levels of our government.

b. Current Solar technology needs to be put in place, but allow for future advances in technology.

c. The current power grid can be utilized

d. Neither fossil fuels or solar power should completely phase each other out. I believe the best situation would be one where solar power is the main source of energy with fossil fuels being used to pick up the energy demands that solar can not.



6) Conclusion



Updated Bibliography:



(2010). Sustainable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Sustainable Energy, INC, New York, New York., Website: http://www.sustainabletable.org/.



(2009). Solar Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Solar Energy Initiatives, INC. Jacksonville, FL., Website: http://www.solarenergy.com/.



(2010) Solar and Renewable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from the Alternate Energy Organization., Website: http://www.altenergy.org/



Chughtai, O., and Shannon, D., Fossil fuels. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2010, from The University of Michigan Geology Department, Lansing Michigan., Website: www.umich.edu/gs265/society/fossilfuels.

Schmitz, Andrew. (2009) The Economics of Alternate Energy Sources and Globalization: The Road Ahead. Retrieved Feb. 21, 2010., Website: www.cnas.tamu.edu/orlandoenergyconf

(2007) Solar Energy Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Solar Energy Advantages,. Website: www.solarenergyadvantages.org.

(2010) Solar Energy Revolution. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from the American Solar Energy Society., Boulder CO. website: www.ases.org

Food INC. p 183-218

After reading the section of the book written by Joel Salatin about his farming operation and what his opinions are on the subject of mass factory produced food I found myself leaning more and more towards what he thought on the subject. His farming techniques of grazing animals, letting them forage around as they were naturally supposed to seems much more ethical and "clean" than the mass production of food by large companies. They call his ways unsanitary because the meat he butchers is out in the open air, which I don't believe is true at all. That is mostly because my family as butchered our own cattle, pigs and hunted animals like deer, rabbit, and squirrel for years and I don't know of a single one who has ever been sick from eating any of it. Where just myself personally have gotten food poisoning twice from fast food restaurants. Also another large aspect that the large food producing food companies leave out is all the chemicals and antibiotics they pump into the animals. Then, they never once mention how the animals are kept in buildings knee deep in their own messes, that to me raises the question: which is really "cleaner." Then, as far as Salatin's procedure's for how he raises his animals is a lot more efficient. For example: he grazes the cattle, they digest it then excrete it, then it acts as fertilizer for new grass to grow and the cycle continues. Not once is it swept into water sources is large quantities, nor is it ever pushed aside not being used or are the animals ever living in it. Then, the last part that stuck out to me was how the term unpronounceable ingredients came up multiple times. I agree with that these are problems, and so are most other additives, because who knows what long term effects these things have on the body. I'm in a major concerned with medicine and human physiology which requires a lot of chemistry and when I can't read a third of the ingredients list I get to wondering how can all of this be good for me. I felt how he presented his opinions were very organized and each thought was explained fully, which did not leave many questions.

Another section that stood out to me was the "Questions for a Farmer" section. I felt this was very informative, but at the same time they started to get repetitive. I started to get this feeling during towards the end of the movie also. Yes they were portraying their opinions and information in different ways, but it was the same time the bottom line was the same. Not saying that it was ineffective, both the book and movie changed/is changing my opinions on the food that I put in my body. Just I'm almost to a point that "there is such a thing as kicking a dead horse."

Lastly in response to the "Eating made Simple" section I felt that it was a good part of the book because it gave a nutritionist's/biologist's viewpoint on the subject. I felt this to have more merit to it than if it were written by a spokesperson, writer or anyone directly involved in the matter because their opinions would obviously biased. Another aspect that I liked about this section is that she repeatedly used research to base her hypotheses. She made her statements using tried and true proven scientific facts, not a mere opinion to boost profit or passing ideas that she heard from someone so it has to be true.

Food INC. Part 2 p91-122 and 169-177

After reading the section about the ethanol section about how much of our nation's, and worlds corn is used to make ethanol. I have stood at the gas pump and have read the stickers saying this such and such a gas contains 10% ethanol grown and produced in America. Until now it was one of those that sounds like a good idea kind of things, especially with the positive pitch the stickers give. But, now after reading and seeing how inefficient the process is and how harmful it is. These harmful aspects being everything from higher food prices to increased air pollution to increased water pollution. Also, the fact that really stood out to me was how inefficient the whole process is. As Lester Brown is quoted in the book "The grain required to fill a 25 gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol would feel one person for a full year." (Pg.93) This really struck me two ways: one is of how inefficient the process is, it takes a lot of corn to feed one person for a whole year, and the second being with almost a billion people lacking sufficient food stores why would we support filling fuel tanks and not starving children's stomachs? Then, the big reality set in: it's all about the money, which is sad. Also, it doesn't make sense of increasing the amount of ethanol (corn usage) when our surplus is at its lowest since 1997.

Another thing that stuck out to me in the reading was from the short chapter about pesticides. What stuck out to me here was the fact that according to the EPA "children receive fifty percent of their lifetime cancer risks in their first two years of life." (p 103) Then, right after that the results form blood tests of children under the age of 6 pesticide levers were up to six times higher in children who eat conventionally grown foods, compared to children who eat organic foods. It was one of those facts that I knew there was a difference, but I was unaware that there was a 6 fold difference, that fact wanted me to throw out all of my nieces baby food jars and go home to our cellar and get some of our home canned fruit and vegetables for her. Also, I liked how Wendell Berry's name came up again on page 172 talking about the environment crisis. Then, Pollan went on to talk about how he was impatient with people who supported big fossil fuel companies and he criticizes how modern societies desire to delegate "specialists" has grown and. Then, the main thing that stuck out to me was how Pollan, and Berry was brought up again, saying the reason we rely on specialization is to make things cheap. Again it all boils down to the fact of people with power wanting to make a cheap and easy dollar, which is sad given the side effects given to the rest of the population and the environment.

Research Argument Position Statement

Throughout the research that I have done on the topic of solar energy as an alternate source of energy I have become very opinionated in the fact that this needs to become a working reality, not just an idea that sounds good. At first, I was on the fence post not leaning towards either alternate sources of energy or towards using fossil fuels to produce our energy needs. After researching the topic and seeing the pros and cons of each I believe it is important that we rely less on fossil fuels as our dominant source of energy. But, at the same time I want it to be clear that I don't think we should completely phase out fossil fuel consumption all together also. I feel that we should slowly (over the next decade, two at the most) transfer over to alternate sources of energy such as hydro power, wind power and solar power, all of which that are controlled by the sun's energy that is radiated to earth. In my opinion an optimal scenario would be one in which solar power, and its derivatives, are the main source of energy, but fossil fuels still be in place to pick up the slack that is left by the alternate sources of energy (if there is any slack). This would accomplish two main things: it would decrease the environmental hazards of burning fossil fuels and it would be utilizing a form of energy that is easily available for the most part and has more than enough energy to power the earth. Also, by using both alternate sources of energy and fossil fuels we get the best economical effect. By burning less fossil fuels we will not deplete our surplus stores as quickly. Also with that the environment will be healthier leading to less money used cleaning up the environment and on illnesses caused by fossil fuel byproducts. Not only that but, at the same time some fossil fuels will still be mined and used keeping a significant percentage of the jobs available, and what is eliminated from the fossil fuel side, can be picked up on the building and upkeep of the alternate forms of energy production side.

David Harp's Chesapeake Bay Lecture/Slide Show

After attending Mr. Harp's Lecture tonight on the Chesapeake Bay and the work that he has done there I felt very moved by his work and intrigued at how he did it. I have never been to the Chesapeake Bay, but after hearing his talk and seeing his photographs I feel that I have a good sense of everyday life in the area. Also, I thought this lecture was interesting because most of the lectures that I have attended are lecturers standing in front of a crowd talking, then answering questions. That tactic is fine and very effective at times, but through seeing his photographs I feel so much more informed and knowledgeable about the area and its inhabitants. I think this is because in a typical lecture and/or from a book your imagination (which is different from person to person) plays a large role in the mental picture you you create. Whereas with the photographs you know exactly what the scenery looks like. Also, He did a great job of telling a story with his pictures, then complimented that with spoken words to give added strength to the points that he was trying to get across. One example of this that stuck out in my mind was with the oyster fishers. He started off by showing pictures of many fishing boats with multiple fisherman on each. Then, he showed more modern pictures where there were sometimes only a few to a couple of boats, most of which only had one to two fisherman on them. Just those few pictures alone told the audience that there has been a large decline in oyster fishing in the bay. Then, he started going into the topic of how there were no restrictions on fishing oysters and how the boom in population, and therefore pollution had contributed to a 95% decrease in the amount of oyster's harvested, which is due to a huge decline in population.

Another photograph which stuck out to me was the one of the house on the island from back at the turn of the 20th century. He went on to say that the isolated island had 400 people living there at one time. Now all that was left was that one house, which had water completely surrounding it up to its foundation, and a cemetery. All the other structures had been abandoned and crumpled over time due to the island slowly being covered by the rising water levels.

To conclude I was glad that I attended Mr. Harp's lecture and slide show. It was an interesting way to learn about the area and his life's work. I felt that the photographs really added to the story that he was trying to portray. With that I felt that he wasn't trying to just tell a story, he showed us the real live snapshots of the story as it unfolded. For example, I feel like if it was someone up at a podium telling us about the flowers, soft shell crabs, the oysters, muskrats, fish, and otters that I wouldn't have gotten as much out of it as I did with Mr. Harp showing pictures of each of these individual animals.

Food, INC. Film and reading pg 1-64

Personally I felt the film was extremely educative about the true problems that we currently have as far as mass food production. It is nice and reassuring that people such as Karl Weber and Eric Schlosser are being proactive and going against large and power figures to lead the movement to a healthier and more economic form of food production. As far as the movie goes, The part that I was most stricken by was the mass chicken farms. Throughout the interviews, video, pictures and the saddened music during some transitional aspects of the section I felt a growing concern for how our food is being produced. The fact that a few major companies are in total control of basically all of our food farms is disheartening, especially how they don't care about the farmers, the environment or to an extent the chickens themselves. All they care about is getting the most chickens to the butcher in the shortest amount of time and spending as little money while doing so. When the company is making hundreds of thousands of dollars off a single chicken barn while the farmer only receives, I believe it was $18,000 a year is horrible. Then, another aspect the section is how there were dead chickens piled up laying on the ground around the live chickens. There were so many chickens in the small area it was hard to see the ground at times. Then, the last thing that bothered me about this part of the movie was when they were loading the chickens to take to the processing plant. How they were just throwing the chickens into bins didn't bother me as much as how they said that the bulk of the workers gathering them were foreign illegal aliens being used as cheap labor. Which is bad among itself, but worse by the fact that they are taking jobs from Americans, even though it may be a bad, crap job it is a job all the same which is better than no job at all.

As far as the reading goes, I felt it did a good job portraying the bad parts of the large scale food producing (the big powerful companies side) and the unhealthy aspects of it as well. But mostly what stuck out to me was how the the book stayed positive with a large section talking about how Gary Hirshberg chair, president and "CE-YO" of Stonyfield started a small scale organic yogurt company, which grew to be a worldwide company. Then, while doing this large transition they became more eco-friendly and even more organic. The major point of this section pf reading that stuck out to me was the following quote talking about eco-solutions: " The fact that eco solutions (to me, that prefix signifies both ecological and economic) like organics, waste reduction and GHG reductions present the biggest business opportunities in the history of mankind." (p. 59) This stood out to me because it shows that he is not only worried about just making money like the big companies. He is concerned about being more eco-friendly, and making money while doing it. But, not only making just money, making a healthier environment and source of healthier food for the mass population. This supplemented the point that the movie was trying to get along well I believe by not just saying here is the bad and we need to change it. I says that there is a way to get the same end result, and here is a healthier and more efficient way of achieving that goal, it showed a positive amongst all the negatives. I felt the majority of the first section of the reading did a good job of this thought. Then, another section that stuck out to me was the chapter on the Dirty Six, about the worst animal practices in agribusiness. Some of the apects I had already known about such as the long distance transport for example. But there were some that I had not thought about such as the force feeding of Foi Gras to food birds which caused them to expand and making movements very difficult while inhibiting their liver functions. This is horrible to me, especially from the ethical side. This section opened my eyes to parts of agribusiness that is often shaded from the everyday public.

OU Beyond Coal Panel Extra Credit (revised)

After leaving the discussion panel tonight I definitely had a different outlook on the topic than I had going into it. Going into it I felt like changing out sources of energy was a great idea and needs to happen quickly. But, after listening to the panel speak, and mostly after the Q and A session I feel a bit less sure about the ease of the transition. Granted I still believe it needs to happen, and that it will work once the transition is started, I feel it will be a much more difficult road that I had originally had expected. I felt that overall the answers to most of the questions were very complex and I almost got the feeling that they know the subject well as scientists, but not yet well enough to put everything into lamen terms that any Joe walking down the street would at least have a slight understanding of the topic. I believe what makes me think this is the lecture about Charles Darwin last night. This being said because every biological scientist knew that organisms changed over time but that was it. Darwin took that and through expansive research and refinement was able to put the theory that forever changed science into lamen terms that it taught to almost every middle school student in science class. The other part I thought that was disadvantageous was where due to the snacks arriving late, they were passed out between the panel and the Q & A. I felt it would have been more beneficial for them to go straight into the Q and A while they had the audiences fresh attention.

On the positive side though, I was glad to see that cutting edge research in terms of alternative fuel sources are being studied right here at OU. It goes to show that OU has an interest and is one of the leading institutions that realize that an alternative source of fuel is needed before it is too late. I enjoyed listening to Mr. Stuart's and Ms. Botte's sections about algae and ammonia as a bio-fuel. I think this is mostly because I had never heard about the possibility of these being used to produce energy before. All I had ever heard about before was fossil fuels, solar, wind, water and nuclear. Where the fact that we could use our own wastes as a source of energy, instead of letting it contaminate other water sources caught my attention. We could fix two problems(waste management problems and our current means of energy production) with something we throw away daily. Another good thing that was brought to my attention is when the director of facilities here at OU closed with a statement that they are in the process of signing contracts with companies to increase the efficiency. This meaning that by contract these outside companies are in charge of providing up to date equipment, strategies to improve efficiency and high quality coal. This is reassuring in the fact that even though they are still burning coal, they are at least aware that a change is needed and that they are taking steps to reach those needed changes. Also, I liked how Mr. Bennett, the solar and wind specialist was very open yet straight to the point with his answers about how to transfer OU from coal to solar power. He was asked how this would happen and he immediately said that it was possible that there was enough sun to power OU. But he also made it very clear that no form of energy production would meet our needs by itself and that it's not a snap your finger and the process be over situation, it would take a lot of time and effort. He was the one that after hearing him speak that it hit me that only one form of energy production will not do the job as well as we need it done. A combination of energy sources must be utilized to get the best of both worlds as far as a benefit vs. costs standpoint is concerned.

David Quammen Evolution Lecture Extra Credit

After attending Mr. Quammen's Lecture on Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution I find myself intrigued with Darwin himself. Everyone has at least heard of him, and most know why he is popular. But I feel like I know a whole new side to his works after hearing a more in depth aspect to Darwin as a man and how his works evolved. I was under the impression that Darwin was a hard headed and a "I'm always right" kind of guy. But after hearing the lecture about him my mindset greatly changed. Mostly because of Quammen's topic of how Darwin had two traits that set him aside from other scientists; he was very cautious and honest. For the cautious aspect, it took Darwin over 21 years of constant critiquing to actually publish his work on evolution after he had completed it. Then, for his honesty side, he never once felt he was misleading science and that there were a fix set of laws for life and evolution.

As far as Quammen's lecture I felt that he did a great job keeping the audiences attention and interest. He did this by keeping the mood light with bouts of humor. Then, at the same time he did a great job staying on task and portraying his information. Another strategy I felt he used very well was that even though you could tell he had an opinion, he never steered to any extreme as to offend anyone in the audience. Quammen made it clear that Darwin was not trying to disprove creationism, only that those creations evolve to set laws. He wasn't completely all for Darwin, he was sure to point out that Darwin had his faults. I think he did this to seem (be in my opinion) more credible and seem a little less biased.

I feel like I gained a lot of knowledge by attending the lecture. Not so much more knowledge as much as just a different insight on the topic. I would recommend attending the lecture to any person, be spiritual or science based, wanting to gain a new aspect on Darwin and his works.

Research Prospectus and Bibliography (REVISED)

In 2009 85% of the worlds energy came from fossil fuels (Sustainable Table). These fossil fuels include oil, natural gas and coal. All of which are non-renewable, or at least they are being used at a rate much greater than that of which mother nature is producing them. Not, only the fact of the fossil fuel banks are being depleted, but the burning of these fuels emit large quantities of hazardous gases into the atmosphere and many natural habitats were destroyed to harvest these fuels. All of these factors I believe lead to the fact that a more efficient and less destructive form of alternative energy must be designed/utilized before too much damage is done by our current ways. There is many sources that can be utilized; Solar power, wind, water and geothermal for example. This all leads to the topic of my research prospectus; the use of solar power as an alternative form of energy. Solar power drives nearly all other forms of alternative energy. It creates thermal gradients which causes the shifting of barometric pressures and therefore causes wind. Also solar energy causes a thermal gradient in water, which causes currents and is a major player in the role in the movement of water. Then, lastly the solar power itself can be caught via solar panels and stored as energy to be used at a later time. This research prospectus will discuss the pros and cons of using solar power and the effects it would have on human beings, both economical and ecological.



Sustainable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Sustainable Table, INC., New York,
New York. website: http/www.sustainabletable.org/.


Solar Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Solar Energy Initiatives, INC.,
Jacksonville, FL. website: http/www.solarenergy.com/.

Solar Energy Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010 from Solar
Energy Advantages., website: http/www.solarenergyadvantages.org/.

Solar Energy Revolution. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from the American Solar Energy
Society., Boulder, CO. website: http/www.ases.org.

Solar and Renewable Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Alternative Energy
Organization., website: http/www.altenergy.org.

Solar Energy. Retrieved Jan. 31, 2010, from Britannica Online Encyclopeadia., website:
http/www.britannica.com/solar-energy.

A Forest Returns Blog

After watching the movie in class today, I feel really good about what the government did in making natural forests. In living in NW West Virginia and SE Ohio all my life, I have been around national forests before, But had no idea how bad things were before they were created. I was always under the impression that they were just lands that the government bought and kept nearly original. I had no idea they were stripped, barren, used up farm land. Also, the other thing I really liked was how the government used it as a way to help out families during the depression. They could have took in a fraction of the workers and used mechanized machinery, but instead they used old-fashioned man/hand power. Which greatly helped out those individuals involved, but also helped the economies of local businesses and towns. Then, to finish I think it would be a good idea for the government to continue buying the land to keep it or let it go back to how mother originally intended it to be. I'm a fan of keeping nature in its natural state and only using what we need to.

Continuing Research

As I look more and more into my topic that I chose for the research assignment I find myself more and more interested in the subject. I think this is because of three different reasons, one being: the sun gives off enough energy to supply the entire earth for 27 years daily(www.altenergy.org) and it creates over 9 million jobs and makes $1 trillion dollars in revenue just in the US annually (www.ases.org/about). Then, the last being due to the fact that solar power is the starting point to all other forms of alternative energy. It causes the changes in temperature that causes wind, it's sunlight allows for biomass products to be produced.(www.altenergy.org) Then, finally it's radiating energy results in warmth on the planet and also that energy can be converted and used for nearly any form of energy that we would ever need as humans.(www.altenergy.org). The other thing that I've noticed throughout looking through more of my sources is that so far I have only found two negatives about it. One being the total amount of sunlight, which is a problem during stormy and cloudy days. Then, the other being the cost of initially putting in the equipment. Both of which seem pretty minuscule compared to the harm that the current mainstream sources of energy is doing to the environment. So to sum up the work since choosing the topic, I feel there is a lot of reputable information and that this subject will really open both my eyes, and others to the subject.

Research Prospectus

For my research project, I'm going to choose a topic under the umbrella of alternative energy. The bulk of our energy currently comes from fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and nuclear sources). All of these seem nice at first, but once you dig into the topic you find out how bad they really are. Yes, they are cheap, readily available and the use of them provides many jobs. But, they are very hazardous to the environment and all have a finite amount, we are using them faster than mother nature is producing them. Which means later on down the road, they will be no longer available. Also, with that the earth will be more polluted and may have already permanently lost many forms of plants or animals by the time they do run out. Therefore, I believe a new cleaner, safer and more efficient form of energy production should be utilized if we want to have a healthy and safe planet in the long term future. Which is why I'm choosing this topic.

Throughout this research assignment I will focus on two research questions. The first being: What can finding/utilizing alternative sources of energy do for the planet/environment (what are the consequences of not finding/utilizing an alternate sources of energy)? Then, the second: how will this effect human beings everyday lives?

After digging into the topic a little more, I now think that I will focus in more on solar energy as a source of alternative energy. I will touch on some others but since solar is the starting point of nearly all the other forms, it will be the main focus. Then, also without the sun (which produces solar energy) all other sources of energy would shortly thereafter cease to be viable also. My final goals of this project is to provide not only myself with more knowledge and awareness of the topic, but also to others as well.

LM Assignment 3

In the last section of the book Reece describes Wendell Berry's essay " Two Minds" Here Wendell talks about how there are two ways of thinking about nature and its resources. There is as "rational" mind which only intends to use nature to make gains. It's objective and analytical based and believes there is an individual profit to be made. Then, the other is a "sympathetic" mind which favors nature's organ wild side. This kind of mind set favors wholeness, a sustained long term source of resources. They don't believe in making a profit off the earth, just use enough to survive. One example of a rational mind set is the main focus of this entire book. The coal mines have no respect for the mountains that they are destroying, or the ecosystems that inhabit the mountains. They just want to make a profit, strip the mountain of its resources and move onto the next stripping site. Then, an example of a sympathetic mind set is when Robert Kennedy visited eastern Kentucky. During that time he saw how poor people were, and that for some all they had to eat was their gardens, and farm animals they had. They did all they could to get what they needed to survive from the land, and all the while putting effort back into keeping it healthy and fertile. This was all inhibited by the coal mines destroying the land that they used to survive off of, making them even poorer and hard off.

The quote choose is the following:

"Love the quick profit, the annual raise,

vacation with pay. Want more

of everything ready-made. Be afraid

to know your neighbors and to die.

And you will have a window in your head.

Not even your future will be a mystery

anymore. Your mind will be punched in a card

and shut away in a little drawer.

When they want you to buy something

they will call you. When they want you

to die for profit they will let you know."

(pg 223-224)

This quote stuck out the most to me mostly because I think is sums up everything the coal companies are wanting. They want the profit, the money and vacations. All the while not caring about the little people who make that all possible, and who's lives they are destroying. The little people work til they bleed knowing that's all they will do all their lives, hence why their future will not be a mystery. Then, the last really hits on the fact that the coal companies don't care about the workers, they just want to boss them around and make a profit off of them. Also, this quote hit me because I feel this relates to many things today. Most notably being the war in Iraq. Everyone knows that the "war" is little more than a war for oil and world economy. I personally feel the US government is playing the same cards that the coal companies did. There is little to no reason for our troops to be over there dying (they are soldiers if you send them there let them fight, not play baby sitter). But, that is a topic I could spend days on, just wanted to make that connection.

Flow Extra Credit

After watching "Flow" I was really suprised at how big and widespread of a problem there is dealing with clean water. Living in the society that we do I think we tend to take things like that for granted. We have clean water to drink, shower and play in and not have to think about it. where in some of the places in the film, their best was a creek or murky river. Another thing that stood out to me was the part about the herbicides and pesticides running off into the water supply. Especially, the one produced in Europe (don't remember the exact name) but it was banned in all European countries, but billions of pounds of it is sold to the US yearly. Another thing that stuck out to me was where nestle put the pump plants in Michigan. They sucked many creek and river beds dry, lost a lawsuit telling them to stop pumping. Then, through their money and power they go higher and won a lawsuit to let them pump again. (bought may be a better word than won) Then, The last thing that stuck out to me, which goes back to our bottles water discussion, was that just the US spends 5-10 times yearly on bottled water than what the UN quotes creating clean water sources for the entire planet that doesn't have it already. But to end on a positive note, I do think the film was well organized and had a good pitch. I also hope more people see this film, and others like it, and begin to start doing things to fix the problems.

Lost Mountain Assignment #2

After reading this section of the book, Honestly I feel more interested. Not that I wasn't in the first part, just this time Reece does something different that sparks my interest more. This section seemed to be more political and money driven, where as the first was more on the introduction and the environmental side. After reading the first part of the book I was kind of indifferent on the idea of mining the coal, but after reading this section I feel more opposed. When Reece went into talking about how the mines would sign contracts to buy houses and land to mine and start mining some of it. Then, they would file bankruptcy and get out of paying the full amount for the land and homes. That part stuck out to me and really bothered me by how self-centered they were just wanting the money and not caring about other human beings and their well-being. The other main part of the reading that really stood out to me was where Reece talked about the woman and her child. He went on to talk about how she was in fear of her child getting polluted water in his mouth while bathing or playing outside, because she doesn't know what it would do to him. It's horrible to have to live in that fear just so some big wig 10 miles up the ridge can make some cheap dollars off the land. Like I said before I was kind of on the fence post leaning towards the oppose mining coal side, but not I am walking further and further to the opposing mining side.

Lost Mountain Assignment #1

In Lost Mountain, Eric Reece really emphasizes on the importance of the variety of both plant and animal lives and the destruction of their environment is so harmful to their existence. He does a great job of showing his personal and emotional views and opinions on the topic of mountain top removal. He went through great stresses of going to places and seeing things first hand. Then, going back later after the "reclamation" of these lands. He did a great job of providing a argument for why the destruction of these environments to be so bad. These arguments being all of the animals and plants, whole ecosystems as wholes are being destroyed never to return to their original state.
Reece uses the destruction of the environment as his main argument. He spent a great deal of time writing about how the mountains were once lush, full of life and the water being blue and pristine. Then, shifting to how they were turned to flat and stripped of life by the mining of the coal. Then, he went on saying how the variety of plant and animal life will never be the same as they once were.
After reading the beginning of the book, by being from northwest West Virginia and seeing a taste of this first hand I feel very strongly about saving the environments of the mountains and keeping them as they are now. There has already been enough damage, and it needs to be stopped before there is nothing left. There are so many people who are worried about making a quick buck and using cheap energy. Which sounds great in theory, but the use of coal isn't really cheap. The destruction of the environment is a huge problem, and we are using up coal faster than mother nature is making it. So really it is not a reusable source of energy as fast as we are using it up.

Clean Coal Blog

Initially, after viewing both videos my opinion my opinion sided with the view of opposing the clean coal technology. Then, as I watched the video that was pro clean coal my opinion changed until I read who made the video and was conducting the research, ACCCE the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. This pointing out to me that it is not as credible and is certainly biased since the coal company is trying to make business off of the clean coal technology that isn't necessarily "clean."

What is at stake with the argument is two things; the economy and personal side (pro clean coal) and the destruction of the environment in the long run (con clean coal) The pro side is saying that the clean coal technology is the future, creating more energy more efficiently and all the while creating jobs in a time that the economy is below par. On the other hand the con side is saying that there is no such thing as a clean coal, that the technology does not even exist. The black smoke coming out of the chimneys at the coal plants is not clean, and it has to go somewhere. That somewhere being our environment and that the bi-products of using coal will slowly destroy it.

The audience of both is the general mass public. With both side's fighting the power struggle for the most support. I tend to believe that the pro side is trying to play on peoples good intentions by saying how it helps create jobs and boost's the economy but saying nothing unbiased and scientifically supported about the environment.

The pro clean coal site is supported by the coal companies. The con is supported more by the general public, people who don't have anything to gain economically wise by using the "technology." Those being non-profitable groups such as Sierra Club, National Wildlife Foundation, Alliance of Climate Protection, etc. I believe the con site has more credibly mostly due to the fact that they don't have anything to gain by using the clean coal "technology" they only have things to lose (healthy environment) Whereas the Pro site is sponsored by the coal companies, which have things to gain and is obviously biased.

Initially, the pathos of the pro clean coal site is appealing. Stating that it is harmless to the environment while being more efficient and creating jobs. Which appeals to the lesser informed public, especially with the economy how it is. Then as it goes on and on the legitimacy decreases in opinion. As for the con clean coal site the pathos there is more straight to the point. They come straight out saying there is no such thing as clean coal, the bi-products of using coal has to go somewhere. After viewing both sites I feel they are trying to save the environment, and the pro side is trying to sell an idea (clean coal technology).

Visual expressions on both are effective in stating their opinions. But as stated before even though the pro argument side sounds good on the surface, once you dig deeper it loses its luster to me personally.

Personally I find the con clean coal site to be more persuasive. Mostly because it has more credibility to it than the pro site does. I feel that the pro site, being supported and headed by various coal companies, is trying to sell business. Whereas the con side is looking out for the best of the long term environment.