Cradle to Cradle

I found this book incredibly inspiring after an entire semester of depressingly realistic authors. While, rather idealistic, it is nice to read someone proposing actual changes and following them through. The other authors we have read have proposed solutions, but mostly called for an entire societal change, which, lets be honest, is not probable in our current society anytime in the near future.

McDonough and Braungart have created a economically friendly system, embracing the ideas “waste=food” and “income from solar energy.” They embrace the sun, as it is the only resource we have that is given to us naturally, and without any real effort or strain on the economy. They believe that the sun can power buildings through electricity, and grows our food and building materials, so we are pretty much completely dependent on the sun.

The idea that I particularly liked was the idea of “waste=food” and the two cycles that the authors have created: the Technological Cycle and the Biological Cycle. The biological cycle combines the environment and the economy, and has them working in tandem rather than separately. McDonough believes that waste, in particular waste that has come from the ground should not end up in a landfill, but be returned back to the earth to create more food and products for animals and humans. The technological cycle is one that transforms parts of technology so that they can be completely recycled and reused for the same product. An example of this was the actual book “Cradle to Cradle.” This book was made from a polymer that can be broken down and made into a completely new form of paper, having lost none of its value or wear. The idea behind these two cycles is to completely eliminate waste, and create a society that reuses every product that is made, and works in harmony the environment while doing it.

An idea that was sparked in my head from watching the movie about Bill McDonough’s architecture was how companies can still gain profit while recycling and reusing products. Many argue that capitalist companies will not be on board with transforming into a waste-free society, because it would lose them money. When the part in the movie came on about Nike trying to make their products reusable and someone said the line “shouldn’t we be in the business of shoe-ing people’s feet,” I thought of a system that could potentially work. Any kind of clothing or shoe store could work as a cell phone service does, and create contracts with customers. Customers could get deals and discounts on new clothes if they brought their old, worn-out ones back, fostering a system where companies could use reusable materials and customers would have incentives to bring their clothes back.

The Next Industrial Revolution

After having read very pessimistic, discouraging, and depressive views on the state of the environment and the role human beings have played and continue to play in it. I really appreciated reading Bill McKibben’s and Michael Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle. The two authors offer their audience their vision of “the next industrial revolution, founded on nature’s surprisingly effective design principles, on human creativity and prosperity, and on respect, fair play, and goodwill. It has the power to transform both industry and environmentalism as we know them” (6). Thus, they call for a fundamental shift in the system that our world currently operates so that human beings not only can confront the environmental issues they face today but even solve them.

The focus the authors use in their argument is very production-centered. They call for the re-design of “how we make things” as they way to change the status quo of the world we live in. Given the currently dominant ideology of capitalist growth that guides most influential actors on this planet, I believe that this angle for approaching the issue is valid and promising. I appreciate that McDonough and Braungart don’t put all responsibility on individuals, who as a single entity in a large system capitulate in front of the seemingly impossible challenge of saving the whole world.

Instead, they identify producers as the driving force in the environmentally destructive dynamic that is prospering nowadays, and as an influential group in a world guided by capitalist principles, I do believe that a change on that sphere will have large effects on humanity as a whole. Ultimately, individuals are consumers who can make choices from the goods and services offered by producers and as a country’s success is defined by the amount of its GDP, producers also decide over the success of a government. In this sense, I believe that McDonough and Braungart’s approach is compelling.

However, at the same time, it removers responsibility from other sectors, such as the government but also the individuals and I felt their exclusive focus on the production side was at times a little bit too limited. For example, while their illustration of upholstery fabric that can be removed and the “composted” appears very interesting to me, as a consumer form a developed country – being myself from Switzerland, I know this specific product but also others developed afterwards such as bio-degradable towels, which my family even uses -, I honestly don’t know how much interest it would encounter among people who do not even possess the time to sit down and read a book in their spare time because their 18 hour work days don’t allow for anything else. Thus, evaluating the consumer side from their argument at times might have increased the strength of their argument.

At the same time, though, I have to recognize that both authors constantly pointed out that no generic “one-size-fits-all” solution can be found for the issue of environmental degradation and instead, producers from different parts of this world need to identify context-specific solutions.

(Thus, my previous criticism of degradable upholstery fabric not being a valuable asset for people confronted by realities that don’t even allow them possessing a couch or an arm chair is weakened to some extent, as one might argue that this example was never intended to apply to such a context. However, I do want to repeat that no such more holistic approach was mentioned in most examples.)

Anyways, I felt that this recognition of the diversity of realities on this planet that demands a diversity of solutions was one of the mayor strengths of their argument. They explain that, ants – who for them embody this production that is in harmony with nature – should not be mistaken as one group of the same individuals, but many different forms of ants exists that perform different functions for their species and who’s skills and capabilities are geared towards it.

One very impressive example of this recognition and even celebration of diversity is Bill McKibben’s experience in Jordan. While another team of developers suggested Soviet-style prefabricated housing blocks trucked down from Amman and assembled in the valley for building towns where Bedouins could settle, McKibben and his colleagues created a proposal to adapt and encourage “adobe” structures. “Local people could build these with materials at hand –clay and straw, horse, camel, or goat hair, and abundant sun. The materials were ancient, well understood, and uniquely suited to the hot and dry climate. The team tracked down elder craftspeople in the region who could show them how to build the structures (especially domes) and the train the Bedouins to build with and repair adobe in the future” (124).

Thus, the local context offered a solution that was truly sustainable as its effectiveness came from the local grounding of the project, which also guaranteed the local ownership as it was an indigenous solution applied to an issue and social capital created through it.

Thus, in my opinion, their call for a revolution of the status quo, away from trying to be less harmful to becoming truly eco-effective seems a great concept and while challenging, it appears the most compelling approach I have encountered so far to truly tackle the environmental challenges we are facing currently. Unfortunately, I feel that in their five steps guide to achieve this eco-effectiveness they address only producers in developed countries and not developing countries as the context necessary to implement this strategy needs a “Western” state. For example, step one call for “getting free of known culprits.”

While I agree that manufacturers in developed countries should be obliged to no longer use substances that are known to be harmful, I feel that it is difficult to impose this same rule on manufacturers in developing countries as non-harmful substances are often more expensive and because they compete to simply enter the globalized market, their developing status might be harmed by this requirement. However, without the developing countries on board, a true “next industrialized revolution” cannot be achieved.

The case of the ozone regime showed that this problem can be overcome by Western nations taking on the responsibility to giving aid and technology to developing countries to adopt better practices without experiencing negative effects because of it – however, McKibben and Braungart never touched on the necessity of such a North-South cooperation for the feasibility of their idea.

Thus, going back to my previous criticism, other angles, in this point the one of state governments and the international arena would have been helpful if integrated as they are necessary for a solution to the existing problem of environmental degradation.

Cradle-to-Cradle

One of the great things about Environmentalism is the delusion of designing the "perfect" system that will change the world. The idea that all we have to do is "change the system" and that the "tools are all there" is nice, but frankly unrealistic. Cradle-to-Cradle, in my opinion, is just that: nice, but unrealistic. There are however  some intelligent ideas and readily implementable solutions that should be given some credence. Although I do not think that we can end our entire system of waste and replace it with a sustainable "Cradle-to-Cradle" one, I do think that there are certain ways in which we can avoid unnecessary waste by implementing systems in which to do so.

For example, electronics. Although, unfortunately, not all parts of electronic products can be broken down and reused, there are many pieces of the products that can be; computer and laptop casings, certain metal components, rare metals, etc. Electronic recycling is still, for some reason, relatively unpopular. The market exists and there are systems set up all over the country, but there are still thousands of electronic products being thrown away and not recycled every day! This is a system that could use some reforming, and one in which a no-waste mentality would be smart considering the decrease in rare metal materials that are currently being put into "disposable" electronics.

The main problem with this kind of system is, in my view, the same problem with mainstream environmentalism: Idealism. It's the hope that if we can just change everyone's philosophy, everything will change. I hate to say it but, people need to wake up and smell the coffee, because that is NOT going to happen. People aren't going to suddenly realize their faults one day any more than you or I will ever be able to understand what cats are thinking. It is simply an impossible goal. Not only that, but to many people, the idea that they need to change everything in their lives and that everything they're doing is wrong is daunting and it will never make them change anything at all.

So, stemming from that framework, incremental, systemic change is possible, but only if people are given economic incentives for doing the "right" thing (other than catastrophic change). More efficient and AVAILABLE recycling programs (available is really an important thing), profitable economic systems for waste and redistribution and making the recycled products cheaper and easier to purchase than raw materials.

One concept that I found interesting from the reading was that of ecological intelligence. The idea being that you know what's in your product and where it came from before you purchase it. As romantic as that idea is, the fact remains that an electronic product you buy (because you probably can't afford anything more than the price offered) is likely made from parts from three different countries, as mentioned in the beginning of the book, whose regulations are hardly strict and who probably wouldn't even tell the manufacturer what replacement material they put in the product even if they asked. Ecological intelligence is definitely an important idea, but I think it would be difficult to practice in every day life. If I went to Target today to buy a sofa, or a table, I would have no way of knowing where that particle board came from or if there were some toxic coating on the furniture. That information would be very hard to find even on the internet.

I did very much enjoy this book because I like to feel optimistic about environmental problems. I want to feel like all I have to do is be smart and talk to people around me. But I know the looming truth is much less simple and that practically speaking, I won't see the changes I so hope for before the end of my lifetime.

When reading Cradle to Cradle, I found myself both excited by and weary of the concepts outlined. Though the authors make fantastic points, I think they are missing components which must be taken into consideration. They stress that our current industrial system causes a lot of our problems because it is designed on a linear, cradle-to-grave model. This model includes the extraction of resources which are made into products and then sold and eventually disposed of. Such a cradle-to-grave design is how most things are manufactured. For example, approximately 90% of materials extracted in the United Sates become waste almost immediately, which is frightening considering this waste is not be reused effectively (if at all) to sustain our environment. Despite the many issues with this, such a system is deemed successful and functioning because it is based on GDP measurements. While this system is a poorly designed one, it nevertheless makes us prosperous in terms of GDP, which is what we strive for. So our industry infrastructure strives solely for economic growth, which has caused serious current issues and will continue to be detrimental in the future. In particular, they stress how we are being harmed as humans by the products we use.

In replace of this system, McDonough and Braungart suggest that we are in need of a cyclical system that is far more sustainable. They refer to such a system as cradle-to-cradle. This system includes eliminating the concept of waste, which is a different approach than that of traditional environmentalists who focus on reduction and minimization. McDonough and Braungart argue that the traditional notion essentially suggests that being “less bad” is acceptable, which is a terrible approach. They argue that rather than having less waste, we need to have no waste. Furthermore, they assert that the assumption that being eco-efficient (meaning doing more with less) is healthy for the environment is also a bad approach because this is what brought about the Industrial Revolution, which set up our current industrial cradle-to-grave system.

Rather than being eco-efficient, it is better to be eco-effective, which refers to making things the right way. This includes designing products without the concept of waste. For example, a television would be purchased for usage rather than the materials themselves, and once the customer was done using it the product would be returned and broken down to create a new one. Other products would be designed in such a way that once the consumer was finished with them, they could throw them on the ground so that they biodegrade. The authors assert that once products are designed without the possibility of waste, our industries and systems can get bigger, which will be beneficial in that they will be able to replenish and nourish the world. They draw a connection to a cherry tree, which provides nutrients through its waste.

While exciting suggestions, they seem difficult to implement. First of all, while a romantic notion, I am not sure our current systems in place will allow us to become like cherry trees. Additionally, asserting that our systems and industries should be larger in order to replenish and nourish the world seems like a dangerous road to take, particularly given growth has caused us so many problems already. They argue that such growth will be based on making products the “right” way, yet fully implementing such a system may be incredibly difficult to do. Furthermore, I am weary of what they say is the “right” way to produce something, given there are always detriments involved. Ultimately, this new system requires a complete overhaul of everything we currently do and a massive shift in how we view and consider certain things. Changing the way we think to open up the door for new and creative possibilities can be incredibly challenging, and something I am not sure people are capable of doing on a large scale given how entrenched we are in our current ways. While it is essential that change does occur given how damaging our current industrial system is, I think the authors need to consider the limitations of humanity’s ability to envision such alternatives as these. There are far too many people relying on our current system, not to mention all of the money sustaining it, for us to make such a transition easily, if at all. It would require massive regulations on international and domestic levels, which McDonough and Braungart argue is not effective because it forces companies to comply or face punishment. While I appreciate their concepts in theory, I think there are far more components to be considered when facing how to best approach our current environmental issues.

Cradle to Cradle

My first impression of Cradle to Cradle is that the two authors take a very anthropocentric stance. The book begins with the situation of a comfortable reader having to come to grips with the health hazards of household items. It continues on to talk about human economic activity and how it affects the environment. After every point, though, it returns to how humans are harmed and thus why for humans' sake we must change our actions. Since they gave us their general histories (which, as a college senior who isn't sure what to do with her life, I really appreciated) I know that they have strong enough backgrounds in environmental sciences and chemistry.

They must have actively chosen to write this book from an anthropocentric viewpoint, and my guess is that they made that decision in order to better appeal to their readers. On the other hand, an everyday Joe wouldn't pick this up for some casual reading. The target audience for this book is probably middle-aged or young adult, environmentally minded, and has probably read some environmental literature. Another possible explanation for the people-centered writing is that the book concentrates on the concept of consumption.

Regardless of the style, Cradle to Cradle is a good book to end the semester with, as it ties together many concepts we have talked about in class. Since "Our Phony Economy" was one of my favorite readings for this class (it's such a simple concept that people don't talk about enough), I particularly liked the quote "If prosperity is judged only by increased economic activity, then car accidents, hospital visits, illnesses (such as cancer), and toxic spills are all signs of prosperity" (pages 36-37). Another theme they hit upon is the dichotomy between urban and rural which was really thrust to a forefront during the Industrial Revolution. As many historians and anthropologists have pointed out, understanding this relationship is key to getting a good grasp on consumption, which involves both culture and economics.

What I don't particularly like about the book is its connection to human health that begins with the Introduction and continues throughout the book. I believe they miss the mark with this, since it is not their academic specialty and their audience is already convinced of the dire nature of human's impact on the environment. To me, it cheapens the writing with a sense of alarmism. If they were to replace facts on human health impact with numbers on the environmental impact of our consumption, I would without hesitation give the book two thumbs up.

Global Warming: A Scientific Competition?

Climate Change, Global Warming, the Greenhouse Effect – hardly any day can pass during which we are not confronted with one of those terms, be it in the news, television, or in a commercial… Talking about the environment has become trendy and one of the most popular themes within that topic is climate change.

However, because it became almost an element of popular culture, it is very difficult nowadays to determine how to make sense of the claims we encounter. I honestly am not sure how knowledgeable Leonardo Di Caprio is in terms of the scientific realms of the issue, but I do understand that E News prefers to show his statement than that of some science geek at MIT (sorry for the stereotyping...).

While the two sources for this weeks assignment, the “Friends of Science” website Grit’s “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” do immediately suggest greater legitimacy for their claims than the former Titanic star, I still find myself lost in my intellectual quest on determining whom to believe.

My stomach tells me that Grit’s “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” “feels” more accurate, but I might be mislead by its intriguing writing style and the much more appealing design of the website itself, compared to “Friends of Science.” Also Leah’s conclusion of favoring Grit’s position because it reflects her own viewpoint better rings very true to me.

Thus, I’m still left with the question of who actually speaks the truth? How can I as a educated but not particularly scientifically-knowledgeable individual evaluate the scientific claims these two competing pages make?

Initially, I noticed that “Friends of Science” did not cite sources for their claims, such as in their section “Providing Insights into Climate Change: Myths/Facts. ” Although they counter every “myth” with a “fact”, they do not disclose neither the source nor the evidence supporting their claim that supposedly disprove the validity of commonly held climate change believes.

However, once clicking on the link on the bottom of the page, I was redirected to a well-founded, scientific research paper by C.R De Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Sciences at the University of Auckland, and I had to admit that each of his arguments was grounded in convincing research results.

Consequently, as I am not capable of determining the scientific accuracy of the information provided on either page, I have to determine which site is more convincing in another way. After having thoroughly “surfed” through the content of both pages, I think it is fair to say that “How to talk to a Climate Skepic” provides a more inclusive perspective on the debate than “Friends of Science,” acknowledging the vast amount of different opinions on the topic and using a variety if resources to counter them.

Especially when considering that no “absolute truth” has been produced yet on the topic of climate change (an I’m not sure if this will ever be the case), I feel that a scholar is obliged to at least acknowledge and mention the other view points, without immediately condemning them to non-sense. Although, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” does this to some extent – referring to some argument as silly or naïve – I believe that it does so less than “Friends of Science,” who refer to any other view on the issues as myth.

However, the question remains of why there actually exists such a fierce competition around the science of climate change? Being confronted with a possibly extremely harmful phenomenon for not only human beings but also the environment and the planet earth in general, one would assume that scientists are motivated to investigate this phenomenon to determine whether a danger truly exists and if so, what, if anything, can be done to prevent it from having the detrimental effects it potentially could have.

Nevertheless, when looking at the current debate on climate change, well-being – be it of human beings, animals, nature, or our planet – seems to be one of the last items on the agenda of scientists. Instead, it seems more important to win the competition against all other researchers and thus proving to be better and more intelligent than anyone else than gaining knowledge of importance to life in general. One calls the other liar, other refers to fellow scientists as cherry-pickers – but the actual issue at stack seems to be lost.

Moreover, I believe that although the competitive nature of science nowadays might spur motivation in the short run, it also prevents the most brilliant minds of out time to collaborate together on this issue that truly concerns humanity as a whole. If not even one profession itself, that of scientific researchers, is able to identify climate change as a human problem that concerns humanity as a whole and instead makes it their personal egocentric quest for achieving fame over others, how should we expect people from different backgrounds, countries, cultures, social classes, genders, etc. to work together to make a change in their attitudes that impact our environment? Only when we overcome our self-centered viewpoint of the world around us and our role in it will we be able to truly engage in a “green” revolution.

After scanning these two websites, almost immediately I thought, no question the “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” was the more academic and convincing. But after considering it for a little bit longer, I realized the reason that I thought that was because I agree with the website’s point of view. After further consideration, both of the websites had graphs, charts and explanatory facts. That is what makes the climate change debate so difficult, because there is evidence for either side. Obviously, the evidence supporting climate change is stronger, but it is easy to see how skeptics are not completely ignorant.

How do we know who to believe? Each website has convincing graphs and charts, and their own opinion of what the scientific evidence. Personally, I believe there is enough information pointing to the evidence of climate change. The “How to Talk to A Climate Skeptic” website is definitely more thought out and complete, providing multiple data sets and articles detailing why climate change is not just a myth. The “Friends of Science” website had convincing graphs, but their articles were vague and confusing, and not as thorough.

Even if there were no solid convincing evidence for climate change, which according to skeptics is the case, combating the effects of climate change would not be the end of the world. To make a dent in the effects of climate change calls for a societal lifestyle change. This change could benefit our society—one that has gotten completely out of control with consumption and resource use. It would only benefit us to cut back a little on consumption, and return to realizing what truly makes us happy. It is proven that with the increase of material possessions that a person has, the less happy they are. We are a part of a vicious cycle that promotes the idea that the more possessions we have, the happier we will be—however the average person’s happiness has decreased every year since the 1950s.

So even if you do not believe that our planet is warming, a societal change would probably do more good than harm. If combating climate change would mean the death of our planet and the people on it, then I can see where the resistance to change would be stemming from. However the increasing global climate unfortunately means exactly the opposite. So even if you are not completely convinced by scientific facts, make a change to benefit your own life.

Climate change is a difficult subject to consider given the plethora of views on its nature. These many views have flourished into competition on who is right, which is scary considering it shouldn’t be about who is right but rather how can we work together to combat such change. Friends of Science provide one viewpoint, which I found incredibly frustrating not because of the content of their view but because of the way in which they present it. Within their position statement it is argued that the sun is the main driver of climate change rather than CO₂. They state that “variations in solar activity and cosmic rays correlate to temperature much better than CO₂…fewer cosmic rays result in reduced low cloud cover, which allows more sunlight to warm the earth’s surface”. Furthermore, they assert that CO₂’s effects on the climate are “grossly exaggerated” by current computer models. This is a strong statement to make as one’s position. They furthermore state that the current “obsession” with the notion of global warming is dangerous because it does not take into consideration climate fluctuations. On their main page, they delve into six things everyone should know about climate change, which are “The earth is cooling”, “The sun causes climate change”, “Al Gore was wrong about CO₂”, “Violent weather isn’t getting worse”, “It’s been hotter”, and “Climate computer models are proven wrong”. Regardless of the validity of these facts, the way they are presented on the website is, in my opinion, wrong. They are presented as fact, as though there is no debate whether or not they are incorrect (even though their statements suggest a lot of other people are). After listing these six “facts” that “everyone should know”, they state “this debate matters!”. Because of competing claims and conflicting evidence, climate change is very much a debate. Yet the fierce competition that has cultivated as a result of such debate is leading groups to present one mere side of the debate as fact and the correct opinion. Thus, it is difficult for people attempting to understand the science of climate change when opinions are presented as fact like this.

Coby Beck’s “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is a better approach to the subject in my opinion because of the detailed arguments presented which directly tackle statements made by the other side, yet it still represents one part of the pointless competition surrounding climate change. With such opinions vehemently supported like this, it is difficult to sift through each claim to establish a well-rounded perspective of the science around climate change. Competition around this subject is frustrating to me because it has become about who is right or wrong rather than considering that the truth may be somewhere in the middle. Climate change, regardless of how much it is affecting us or the way in which it is, needs to be addressed with unanimous support. The field of climate change has been wrought with contention and bickering, when it really needs people to work together to create workable and sustainable solutions.

However, I am not sure if this will occur given our propensity as humans to compete and strive to win. As individuals it is therefore important to seek out as many opinions as possible (and we all know there are plenty out there) in order to evaluate the science of climate change in its entirety. Furthermore, it is important to not fall victim to the persuasive arguments of one side and take it as fact like websites such as Friends of Science would like. I agree with Laura that many people manipulate certain facts and such to their advantage. Because of this, I am cautious when it comes to anything presented as “hard fact”, whether or not it comes from a small Canadian organization like Friends of Science, an environmental journalism site like Grist, or even a report issued by the US government.

The Opposition

I feel like I have a less negative view of opponents to climate change than most. This is not to say that I'm tickled pink when someone interrupts me with a blanket "climate change is a myth" statement, but I do think that opponents to climate change have legitimate reasons to be defensive, that they have considerable scientific objections, and that opposition ultimately helps us (the good guys) form a better platform.

As "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" (the academic and stronger of the two websites) indicates, there are too many arguments against climate change (which reflects the complex arguments behind climate change). Nonetheless we have to acknowledge the position they have been put in (let's say politically since there are many ways to view it). This issue is a relatively recent political issue if you count its origins in the 1970s. Unlike ozone depletion, climate change puts the blame on varied parties: from individuals to governments, from industries to the planet as a whole. Of the climate change blamees, it seems that industry gets the worst rap, and it is no coincidence that those outspokenly opposing climate change often have some tie to industry. In the early stages of the movement the science was still being worked out and people were still making up their minds, however as the movement strengthened, policies were implemented. These policies were hard law and required change in action that directly affected the livelihoods of many citizens and entities. As the opposition grew, the animosity between the two groups made reconciliation or middle ground almost impossible. If I were on the other side of this, I sure as heck would be frustrated with the alarmists who are convincing important policy makers to make pivotal decisions on something I believe to be an exaggeration.

As a supporter of climate change action, it's easy to write opposition off as stupid and untrue. After examining the two websites it's striking how people can manipulate what we assume to be "hard facts" to their advantage. When I watched An Inconvenient Truth, I was frustrated by the fact that the man who ran for president didn't label his graph axes. Not to say that he made up the information, but it reminds me that it can happen both ways. I need to be equally weary of sources that tell me what I want to hear as I must be with those that don't. Thus we should make sense of and evaluate them equally. Teachers, especially historians, are often telling us to not ignore something that doesn't fit into our thesis, but rather find its significance and adjust our thesis accordingly. People, myself especially, are so set on keeping our beliefs simple that we have a tendency to be blasé about what we don't understand. Regardless of who's right or wrong, we're both working with science. The result of listening to the opposition is a much clearer understanding of what we as individuals (and on larger levels) believe in.

Discussion Question 8

We'll be talking about climate change the next couple of weeks.

Prior to our next class, I'd like you to spend a little time comparing the "Friends of Science" website with Grist's "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic."

Consider, why is there such fierce competition around the science of climate change? How should we make sense of and evaluate the scientific claims these two competing websites make? Is one of the sites more convincing than the other? If so, why?

The place that I live in is a small, 9x1 mile island, filled with natural landscape and gorgeous ocean views. I have had many encounters with nature in my hometown, just enjoying being on the ocean or hiking the cliffs at the end of the island. Because I have lived there since I was four-years-old, I had taken the beautiful scenery for granted and never appreciated how lucky I was to live in just a tranquil place.

After leaving my peaceful little island for the bustling city of DC, I quickly began to realize how much I missed the calm ocean always in sight and the quiet nature. I noticed every siren that passed by my window, every loud student voice through the dorm halls, and the lights that never seemed to turn off, blocking out the view of stars at night.

When I returned home for the first time, I travelled to the cliffs at the end of the island by myself. It was a sunny day, but crisp and windy. I walked down a path that my friends and I had always journeyed down whenever we were bored afterschool on a nice day. Once at the end of the path, I sat on the rocks by the water and felt the ocean spray on my face. The wind was chilly, but it didn’t even matter because at that moment I felt free and at peace. Because the cliffs of Fort Wethirill are at the end of the island it opened up to the Atlantic Ocean. As I sat there I realized just how vast the earth is. I did not realize how much I had missed nature and the tranquility of the water until that moment. Being in a city, I have very limited access to quiet nature, and I now appreciate the small town of Jamestown, Rhode Island so much more.

Going off of this experience with nature, I do believe that saving nature is extremely important. Nature provides homes for animals, natural services and not to mention calming experiences such as mine previously described. The more we destroy nature, the more detached from those experiences we will become.

Grass is Not Just Grass

Having grown up in a tiny Swiss village of 1,200 inhabitants, located in a valley in between hills covered with fields and forests, the non-human world has always made up a large part of my familiar environment. Almost fairytale-like, the singing of the birds outside my window used to wake me up in the mornings, morning frost on the fields announced the coming winter, and crossing paths with deer, badgers, or foxes while jogging was part of my daily routine – thus, the presence of nature was in my human life was nothing out of the ordinary for me.

However, one experience with and in the non-human world I remember as having stood out as especially thrilling and magical was my herbarium school project – although in the very beginning, after having received the instruction of putting together a collection of 150 different dried plants that are mounted and systematically classified for study, I was not too excited about this time-consuming and meticulous task.

My high school biology professor, Professor Heitz, was a renown specialist of botany and the curator of the herbarium of the Swiss Society of botany, who dedicated his life to the study of plants. To be able to share and convey his love for the flora and fauna of Switzerland, Professor Heitz had become a high school teacher and with my class being his very last one before his retirement, he seemed especially compelled to achieve this goal.

While Professor Heitz put great time and effort into teaching the subject of biology, he expected the very same dedication from his students, which made his class challenging for all of us but at the same time highly educational. His assignments were complex and time-consuming, demanding for the students to immerse themselves in the subject to gain a real understanding of it.

The scholastic climax of the class formed the senior project of composing a collection of 150 different dried plants that are mounted and systemically classified for study – a so-called herbarium. In other words, the assignment consisted of getting out into nature, collecting plants – it could be leafs of trees, flowers, grasses, etc. – drying them by putting them into a plant press and once completely dry, classifying them using a plant classification guide, recording a detailed description about the plant, its appearance and its natural habitat, and then beautifully arranging them in a folder. Not surprisingly, my class, including me, didn’t seem utterly thrilled about the reception of this instruction of how to complete the project, as the numerous work hours it would require to make our own herbarium were already calling our names.

However, we had no option but to get to work. The following weeks, I spent every possible hour either in the woods or in a field, with the plant classification guide under one arm, a bag for my collection of plants in the other, and a magnifying glass in my pocket, searching for 150 different organisms, which formed part of the flora and fauna of the environment I lived in. And once I really took on the assignment, my negative attitude towards it changed completely. Being forced to look closely to look at the immense variety of living entities that formed the nature I lived my life in, I came to realize the scope of biodiversity that existed.

The task shifted my focus of looking at nature as a backdrop to my human activity to acknowledging the fact that my human existence is embedded in the complex of the billions of existences, human or non-human, that together make up life on this planet. I recognized that grass is not just grass, but there exists a gigantic variety among the different forms of grasses, each of which possesses unique characteristics. At the same time, though, there exist families of plants that are related to each other, that share certain features while each of them retains its uniqueness at the same time.

In this sense, the experience of composing my own herbarium allowed me look at plants form a different perspective that I used to. This new perspective, then, enabled me to experience the most magical engagement with the non-human world I’ve had: an engagement based on the realization that plants, like I, as a human being, a living entities that form together the complexity of life on earth. Not only did it change my appreciation of the non-human, but instead, it changed the relationship I see myself being in with the environment.

Consequently, “saving nature” saving nature is not just something we should “concern” ourselves with but we should make it one of the top priorities on our human agenda. Nature does not simply compose a background in front of which human activities are performed but instead, human beings are one component of life of earth and nature forms another. Thus, we are intimately connected with and dependent on nature as with our her, life on earth is not possible.

However, it is important for me to point out that I don’t want to make the argument that we should “save nature” for the sake of humanity. Engaging with the flora and fauna that surrounds us, I come to realize that human beings are just a small part of life. Instead, “saving nature” is crucial to allow life in general on the planet earth, as without the non-human world, not only humanity, but life in general will no longer be possible.

Quite honestly, at times I feel like human beings, as a form of life, might no be able to live on earth forever and I am not sure whether I think this is a bad thing – many other species have become extinct before. However, what I think cannot happen is that human beings, as one single species that through its technological capabilities has come to be a driver of environmental change, not only destroy their own capabilities for life but also those of all other species or other forms of life.