Sunday, May 15, 2005

Our oceans are in trouble

My husband I were dining with a couple at a nearby restaurant that served mainly seafood. Our choice in finding a suitable entree was more difficult because we are vegetarian. The waitress responded to our inquiry about what on the menu would be suitable for vegetarian by asking, "Do you eat fish?" I chuckled and said, "No."

This began a conversation with my friend who questioned why we didn't eat fish. My response about the problem of over fishing and diminishing fish populations were some of my concerns. This was negated by a strong affirmation that there was no problem with eating fish because the fish reproduced prolifically. There would always be plenty of fish to eat. We were silly to think otherwise!

I do not try to convince anyone that they should become vegetarian. I will argue though that over fishing is a problem and that factory farming causes great harm to the environment. I will explain that it takes more land to produce a pound of meat and the large amounts of water we waste on trying to produce beef, poultry and pork to satisfy our desire for meat is going to be a big problem. These arguments alone should cause a sensible person to consider their options of alternative foods when dining.

Not our friend though. And like most Americans, we live our lives without really considering where our food comes from. We live by the false myth of infinite resources and that the more we consume the better it is for the economy.

I read the article: "Oceans in Trouble" today in the INSIGHT section of the Orlando Sentinel. When we kill the last fish and people starve because we have destroyed the ocean, land and the air, I wonder what we will say then.
Article posted in comment section.

Nuclear Energy is a Poor Choice

In response to an article published today in the New York Times, May 15th titled “Old Foes Soften to New Reactors,” by FELICITY BARRINGER.

A letter to Wired magazine editor called the article - "Nuclear Now!" by Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reiss - "right-leaning, Cheney-worshipping drivel about clean nuclear power" and said, "The bottom line is that nuclear power is inherently dangerous, and we have no way of disposing of the intensely radioactive trash it generates."

I wish that was my quote. What a jewel. This apparently came from a reader of Wired Magazine as a response to an article written on the Nuclear Energy.

I could not agree with this reader more. I understand the need for finding a way to deal with green house gases which possibly may the cause Global Warming. I understand Mr. Speth's position that nuclear may be the only technology we have to control the emission of heat-trapping gases.

But I’m horrified with his argument that says”we would want nuclear to be one of the technologies that is out there, competing on a level playing field with the others."

No we don’t want that and here’s why:

Instead of spending the money on safe alternative energy substitutes like hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind energy, we will spend the bulk of that needed research dollars on nuclear energy. Then we will be stuck with this horrible alternative for a century. We are going to trade one evil for another. How does that make sense?

We might as well continue researching "clean coal." Clean coal? Clean nuclear energy? Isn’t that an oxymoron? I can not believe that any environmental group or person would agree to spending billions of dollars of needed for research money on nuclear energy!

We got ourselves into this mess without seeing the big picture and weighing the cause and effect of our industrial actions. If we go with nuclear energy as our solution; we are heading down the wrong road again. Maybe when children and our grandchildren are are born with three eyes, no arms and numerous unknown birth defects, we’ll rethink this position.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

In Summary-- What I Want to Know!

OK , so where does all of this lead?
Yes, it is a lot of good information but it has to go somewhere. The question I ask myself is, "Why isn't this happening here? "
Why do the local environmental groups not advocate events, movies where we can learn about McDonough's vision, "The Next Industrial Revolution" ?
Why are not churches teaching about this?
How do people learn?
Why aren't there citizen groups pushing local governments to adopt these standards in government buildings?
Why is "business as usual" the standard in MY community?
What can I do, what can we do collectively to turn the tide on these type of issues?
That's what I want to know.


Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency

Environ Windows

Two links to works that relate to McDonough's work.

Cradle to Cradle NPR

William McDonough
Hear McDonough talk about his book and theories:
Listen to the event

Also, this is a website I found that has more audios on Cradle to Cradle
Here are other audios that I have found, if you find any more send them my way please.

My favorites are:


Radio audio infront of BushII:


Green Links

In an effort to gather the information on Earth Friendly Products, I am posting links to use for research. I'll call them "Green Links."


I came across the LEED standards when I was researching the UCF Stadium. It is a new way of designing buildings so that they are more eco-friendly. This would be a good thing for environmental groups to work toward with local governments. Tax incentives for buidlings that meet LEED standards.

Environmental Heroes

Green Magazine
Interiors Magazine-- July issue 2004
25 Environmental Champions

Who are your environmental heroes?

Designing the Future

This is an article about a group that is trying to find a way to label products according to their environmental design. Cradle to cradle vs cradle to grave design. William McDonough is the author.