An evening with Tom Friedman: A Themester event

The use of Bosch seems particularly appropriate.

This past Thursday was the Themester event "Friedman-palooza", which featured Tom Friedman (foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times and author of Hot Flat and Crowded) in a q&a session hosted in Woodburn, dinner with Caitlin in which we chatted about Friedman though he did not join us (despite the number of voicemails we left with his agent), his lecture which drew quite a crowd, and the reception that followed.

Given that I have only read Friedman's work in the New York Times and have yet to crack open any of his books, I hadn't realized he was an "energy guy" -but not just that, he's also an "energy policy guy". And when anyone brings up sustainability policy with the straight-forward, no bullshit rhetoric the way Friedman does, I'm tempted to immediately switch my major into policy. Thankfully, the program office was closed by this time of night.

So for those unable to make it, here are the major points of discussion he covered:

• Why green energy and sustainability initiatives have been slow to get off the ground.
• No one protests to have burdens placed on themselves but instead protest to have burdens lifted, like in rights movements. Also those affected have yet to be born (debatable) and so the effects are not as visible as they will be for generations to come. 
• The results of politics and science clashing. 
• Politics pollutes the science when it would otherwise not be an issue. 
• He gave the example that no one questions if the apple fell on Newton's head, because no one had anything to lose in that observation.  
• Population control. 
• Is there a morning after pill for shopping too much? A prophylactic for Macy's? Those with higher birthrates, as we've read, consume nothing compared to those in Western countries. Until this changes, we have no argument. Rather, we need to provide family planning education for every community so that there are options available but the rest is their own business.
• China and India are going to own us if we don't get on the ball. 
• The US is teeming with new developments and initiatives, but there's no real direction or backing, just political posturing, so we can't get off the ground. These countries and their economies are growing rapidly and are beginning to seize the opportunity to be leaders in the next technology wave.
• How these issues can be discussed with skeptics. 
• It's important to make connections between the war in Afghanistan and people driving their cars. If people really want to support their troops they need to be for clean energy that doesn't help to prop up "petrodictatorships". A byproduct of addressing climate change is increased national security. 
• It should be noted, however, that while we are supporting these groups, we do get the majority of our oil domestically and from Canada.
• Have you ever been to a revolution where no one got hurt? 

• The "green movement" is being advertised as if everyone wins. And while humanity and the environment as a whole benefit, individuals benefiting from the status quo may get hurt along the way. This applies to those profiting from oil to those who have to suffer the inconvenience of walking to work rather than driving. Rather than making sweeping changes, we are opting to find the low hanging fruit and patting ourselves on the backs. Friedman took a minute to mention titles of inane books touting how easy it is to "go green". Sustainability is is an issue of enormous scale, and therefore our responses must be enormously scaled. It should be mentioned, however, is that the impetus for change comes from individuals taking small steps and making demands on those capable of making those sweeping changes (like in research and development).

During the last q&a session at the end of his lecture, Friedman was asked what we can do to become more involved and stir things up. His reply was Rosa Parks didn't blog about taking the bus. Advocates of these issues have been lulled into thinking that hiding behind their computers while making criticisms and arguments is an effective method of public discourse (meanwhile, the crazies still show up). But Friedman mentions that while we have all gone digital, politics are still analog and getting face time with our representatives and becoming visible in the community is more important than ever. He also mentioned that initiatives like the Green Energy challenge are important in gaining visibility and being active as a campus. It's important to note that the winners of the challenge were announced and SPEA was one of them! Woo!

The winners of the Green Energy Challenge: If you squint, you can see Professor Brown fourth from the left.

Do the meek inherit the galaxy?

This is a short, easy read article that came out recently after the whale attack at Sea World. It's one I frequently re-read (I've got a terrible short term memory).

Do the meek inherit the galaxy?

I find it to be a fascinating perspective on what it means to be intelligent life and the context of humanity on this planet and in the universe. We might not be an anomaly afterall, but merely a standard blip on the universe's radar.

After reading pieces like this it is also frightening to me that we still treat the other forms of intelligent life so poorly (and also unintelligent but we won't get into that now). Given that dolphins and primates have the intelligence and emotional capabilities equivalent to that of human toddlers and greater, it boggles my mind and saddens me that we haven't done more to protect them from humans (from those we see in The Cove to those who shell out the benjamins to swim alongside them at aquariums). But in the end they might be the ones who come out ahead, as the recklessness and destruction we exhibit toward them and the rest of the planet ultimately brings about our demise.

And now, one of my favorite songs to stave off the depression that ultimately comes with these conversations...

Living in the Monkeysphere

Has anyone heard of Dunbar's number? Or the more informal term, the "monkeysphere"? It's an incredibly interesting phenomenon and I would like to write about it sometime in relation to sustainability issues.

Essentially our cognitive abilities limit us to being capable of focusing on about 150 people at one time. Outside of that, we lose empathy and interest. It helps to explain why we are much more impacted by the death of one in our community rather than a city wiped out by a war or famine. Perhaps this can be used to understand and tailor sustainable movements to become more meaningful to those in need of a behavioral change. This relates to the research done by Meadows in Limits to Growth on the perspectives of households and Brown's comment on focusing on making sustainability issues relevant for this generation, rather than just future generations.

Overviews of this phenomenon can be found in serious format or humorous and perhaps, at times, vulgar format (you get what you pay for with Cracked).
So take your pick:
Serious.
Humorous.

Take that, Drill Baby Drill

In Bob Berkebile's lecture in Indianapolis last week, he brought up the reality we must all face with peak oil. Berkebile mentioned that even if you don't believe we have reached the peak, we cannot deny that we are currently using more than we are extracting - which requires us to address the problem of oil in the same way. My first thought upon hearing this was, I bet my parents could somehow find a problem with this. They would say that's why we need to move into Alaska.

So today I was happy to find this article. I will be interested to see if this doesn't begin happening more frequently on our search for Texas Tea.

Little boxes on the hillside

Pete Seeger anyone?

Urban design is one piece of our society that is frequently forgotten by the general population. We forget that these communities didn't pop up from nowhere with no planning, that it could look different, and if designed better it could change our lives. We go about our daily lives as though the decisions are put forth by some man behind a curtain determining what roads should look like and how many cul de sacs should confuse us when driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood. And to a certain extent there is, but this idea leads people to believe they have no right to decide what their communities should look like and what amenities should be provided.  For example, in my hometown in Arizona the city has forgotten that its citizens have legs and, therefore, provide no support for those who would prefer to stretch them rather than drive their cars.

My neighborhood street. Characteristic of the design genius of the Southwestern suburb

Street sidewalks are barely wide enough for two people and are lined by cinder-block walls rather than shady flora. Walking down this narrow corridor -interrupted by a traffic light every quarter of a mile- only serves to invite jeers by obnoxious passengers as you walk down this narrow, isolated corridor. Parking lots radiating heat stand between you and your destination, but at least provide a refuge from the automobiles racing down the road at 10 miles over the 45 mph speed limit. But it never occurred to me to think, how could this be different and what is it that's keeping me from walking to the mall rather than driving? I simply assumed my fate had been decided for me, once I turned 16 I needed a car to survive.

I'm aware that this system of urban design had good intentions, for the most part. Individuals wanted the security and cleanliness of the suburbs, with the comfort and convenience of the automobile. Urban designers found the suburban layout to be either cost effective, in good taste, or an efficient way of organizing a city around these desires. The residents, however, neglected to sufficiently express their desire for inter-connectedness (between the buildings and the people), clean air, and physical activity level. Perhaps during the suburb craze many didn't even know they desired these things (and just assumed drinking martinis and crying at the kitchen table once the kids left for school was normal). But as the masses are rediscovering their desire for connected communities and wanting to opt out of the systems that come along with this package of the American Dream, the time has come to retrofit these communities to meet the demands on today's generation. The time has come to pull that curtain aside, and confront what's behind the curtain: bad zoning ordinances.

I came to realize what an important role aggressive zoning codes play in the design of our built environment after taking a course in urban dynamics in my undergraduate career and participating in my professor's research analyzing which specific zoning codes that help to characterize to a "good city" and a "bad city" (according to the APA's designation of good communities). An example of a good city and ordinances observed is pictured. As discussed in my Phoenix example, the way cities decide the rules by which we must build can have a significant effect on our lifestyle and the ways in which we impact the environment. Considering the infeasibility of ripping out and replacing these poorly planned cities, altering the zoning ordinances to reflect the infrastructure we value provides a way to transition into more connected communities. As we continue to build, these new ordinances can be used to adjust our communities and encourage more sustainable practices.


Examples of these ordinances include:

• Building height minimums which encourage density rather than increased land use
• Maximum parking spaces or minimum parking spaces for a larger footage
• Minimum sidewalk widths, decreased driving speeds in pedestrian areas
• Maximum building setbacks to encourage building storefronts to line the sidewalks
• Pedestrian scaled lighting and signage
• Allowance of sidewalk furniture

Comprehensive zoning reforms are capable of implementing these piecemeal ordinances in one fell swoop. Overlay districts outline areas within a city that require more progressive municipal codes that support and conserve desired community attributes. These include cultural overlays, transit overlays (supporting amenities like lightrails and bus systems), and historic overlays. Cities that adopt a package of form based codes can foster community connectedness by requiring new development to fit in with the desired urban form rather than to separate development by use. Cities are able to regulate development according to design with greater judgment, increasing the aesthetics and layout of the public realm.

So while altering the built infrastructure is a tall order, there are measures that can be implemented that allow for greater freedom while simultaneously supporting the urban form desired by the community. By requiring developers to operate within these measures, we can create a system that allows for flexibility and greater use of our outdoor space.

Transitioning into a veg diet

A few of us veg's were recently asked our perspective on consuming fake meats. Doesn't that go against everything for which we stand? I stumbled upon this article that discusses the merits and drawbacks of relying on faux meat products as a supplement to one's vegetarian/vegan diet. A look at fake meats

During our discussion the other day, I mentioned that fake meats are an easy way to make a transition to a plant based diet. The idea of becoming vegetarian can be completely overwhelming initially, because everything you once knew about feeding yourself has gone out the window. Learning to shop (and what to shop for), cook, scour labels, etc. suddenly becomes more work than it should be - particularly for those who were raised in carnivorous families. Given that my mom was unable to teach me how to make rocking tempeh tacos or barbecue seitan, I pretty much starved for the first year of being vegetarian. And then, like manna from heaven, Morning Star Farms released an extensive line of faux meat products.

As I became more comfortable and simultaneously bored in the diet over the years, I explored more vegan restaurants and deli counters (I dearly miss my Phoenix haunt Green) . I discovered that the variety and quality of vegan food far surpasses that of vegetarian food. We just make lasagnas without the meat, or swap a portabella for a hamburger patty, or, obviously, use processed fake ham in our club sandwiches. No wonder no one wants to come to the dark side - we've got nothing to offer but a pat on the back. Vegans, on the other hand, have to get creative as they have less with which to work. Rather than doctoring a previously meat filled dish to be less than we remember, they completely revamp old favorites to be delish for carnivores and veg's alike (see. vegan eggplant rollatini which is pictured above) or they create new dishes specifically for those looking to celebrate the vegetable. This discovery ultimately led to the presumptuous notion: if they can make meatless food good, so can I! And with that, I was able to transition from relying on fake meats and all of their processed goodness to food that has less impact on the environment and less impact on my thighs.

So for those who are interested in making a transition, or just eating some really amazing food no matter what your diet happens to be, I would recommend picking up or using Google books for a copy of the Veganomicon -which not only has recipes but also handy tips for finding and cooking with new the ingredients- or perusing the Post Punk Kitchen website. The authors of the Veganomicon post recipes here regularly. For those who have less time to spend in the kitchen, Skinny B****, in the Kitch is a great starter cookbook. They use fake meats in some of their recipes, but provide a great jumping off point as they explain veganism from a practical and humorous standpoint. -Want to look hot AND eat like a whale?