4 Responses to “Reading for April 2: Global Warming Survival Guide”

kelseyensor Says:
April 8th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

     I really enjoyed reading the Time Magazine article on surviving Global Warming. While the 51 things you can do to make a difference are more of quick informational snippets, I do really appreciate the collective presentation of many different ideas that surround the global warming issue and found even some of them useful. In many ways it is more refreshing to see this type of information presented in the public discourse. Where much of the small tasks that the everyday individual can partake in have a relatively small affect upon the overall situation (similar to the problem of trash production as presented in Gone Tomorrow), it’s presence helps to insure the likelihood that this will influence the public and political decisions that have broader effects, for example in large scale production, etc.

     I recently viewed the documentary Jesus Camp and was surprised at one portion in which the film followed a home-schooled lesson in which the mother facilitates the reading of an evangelical produced textbook that advised caution in believing the onslaught of global warming. It degraded the idea of global warming to that of political rhetoric, much like the dialogue that is continual produced by more conservative politicians. To me it’s really astounding that many individuals are still incapable of admitting that our actions are having negative affects upon the planet. And further still that many interest are still in pursuit of domesticating foreign planets or moons as a solution to the possible destruction of the planet. Biologically altered cyanobacteria is being produced in Japan in hopes of utilizing these super oxygen producing organisms to create an atmosphere on Mars. Overall, I think this Manifest Destiny spirit of mankind really needs to put itself back in check.

     Another thing that caught my attention is the promotion of buying carbon offsets. While I understand the idea of greening anything/place is a beneficial idea, I’m not so sure if I am keen on celebrities using such modes of evasion to continue with their car collections and private jets, or whatever else the extravagant life style affords. But these concerns also put my own contributions and practices under the microscope and until I go vegan and stop using my electricity I’m also stuck in the recurring generation theme of psychological impotence when it comes to effective action.

     I really appreciated the information on Patagonia and their fleece recycling program. And the bit about Diane Von Furstenberg’s show room in the meatpacking district as well. I must also add that I find the idea of carbon sequestration a bit alarming, in that I have a rather sneaky suspicion that much like many other things we invent or “discover” this might also come to have a negative effect in the future. I am also a little hesitant to support the idea because it allows for us to continue our practices without any changes for any number of years until such reserves are full. If all of the consumption and waste and production were to stop on a dime right now, I already wonder what the planet would be like. Have we started a domino of events that couldn’t be stopped even if we tried? I’m beginning to fully understand the contempt that Nietzsche felt for the human species. I’m also beginning to wonder what benefit we have on this planet. And that maybe yes, we should go and inhabit some other uninhabited realm in order to preserve what little we have left of our dignity. In the same was that we colonized new continents, maybe the whole species should be forced out to some place else because we are incapable of co-existing.

Amanda P. Says:
April 8th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Although many of the article’s 51 ways to cut global warming are either common sense or actions of very little impact, I did notice that the writer on the first page writes, “Even the most effective individual action, however, is not enough.” I guess the reporters are trying to stress that one be aware of his or her carbon footprint while at the same time realizing that larger steps must be taken by corporations. On the whole, though, much of the article is strictly factual and slightly boring. As for the “51 Things We Can Do,” I was happy to see assessments of each item’s impact factor (assuming, however, that they are accurate). Yet, I am still confused about the time horizon and feel-good factor ratings, especially the feel-good score of “Move to a high-rise.” After reading the few paragraphs on living in New York, I was shocked to see such a low feel-good factor. I assume they gave “Move to a high-rise” a low rating due apartments’ reputations for being cramped; however, many people enjoy living in densely populated cities regardless. I guess the feel-good factor is just too debatable. I will say, though, that I found a few of the items listed quite interesting such as #27 “Straighten up and fly right.” Before reading this article I was unaware that pilots waste fuel due to nations’ airspace regulations. I was also shocked to read that Japanese office buildings kept temperatures at 82.4 degrees throughout the summer (and amazed that it was given one of the highest feel-good factors). While I will probably never do this myself, I found it worthy of noting.

Rachel Salame Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 5:19 pm

In this months vogue (May 2007) there were a few pages dedicated to the “paper vs plastic” debate. It talks about “saying no to plastic bags” by “making a statement” and “whipping out your own brilliant alternative”. It then lists designers who are a part of this change (ie Hermes and Stella McCartney) and gives examplse of products that can be used in place of plastic bags. One is a tote that says “I’m not a plastic bag” that sells for $15.

I thought it was interesting how the global warming issue has made its way to the fashion world. According to this article, “there’s something pioneerin in all of this. Signs are it won’t be long before it trips over into a full- blown phenomenon”. I think that has already arrived- I recently heard a commercial for a bank that starts off with a “tip to save our environment”. Are businesses just using the problem as a type of advertising? Do they really care? What’s the deal here?

Becca B. Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 9:59 am

I had mixed feelings on this edition of time magazine. As much as it pointed out the problems with various kinds of fuel and energy, it doubly took on a sort of “feel goodsy” attitude about things being done to lower carbon emissions. In two separate parts of the magazine they commended Walmart for the its plans to go a little bit greener with plans for 5% less packaging and hybrid cars. I can only surmise that Walmart is paying somebody at Time magazine. It’s things like this that make me doubt the credibility of of the publication. Patagonia a more thoroughly and notably green company was mentioned as a possibility for clothes recycling, but in a much briefer way than Walmart. It also didn’t address companies that were not taking active measures to decrease CO2 emissions. They explain where to shop, but they don’t attack corporations that should truly be avoided. I liked the charts revealing how much the little and big things they could do would help and in what time frame, but these charts were cheapened by the third which explains to Time magazine viewers how good they will feel. Also I would prefer for these sections in particular to include less vast pictures and more information informing the reader who to contact and how to go about making these changes. Who do we go to for solar paneling our houses?

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website