Katelyn+Kelly's+Final+Exam


 * Sustainability Problems, Fall 2012**


 * Cumulative Exam**


 * Katelyn Kelly**

Corporations are a sustainability problem mainly due to their treatment as people rather than companies. As cited by the film, //The Corporation//, corporations are treated by people but by a personal definition are psychopaths. The film draws out the mindset of corporations in an ethical sense in that good people may enter a corporation, not share their views at all and then when something goes wrong or awry, the people are singled out rather than the corporation. Furthermore, corporations are set out to solely make profit, this forces people to get into the mindset that their only concern is monetary gain. As the film sites, Carlton Brown, who deals with trading gold, recalled after the September incident, that the first thing that gold traders thought of was how much the value of gold would go up. Furthermore, thanks to this ideology of focus on monetary gains and profits rather than focusing on what’s better for the people they serve, in conjunction with power in political and judicial fields, corporations are able to buy out their problems rather than deal with them. There are several cases, for example, of large food corporations buying their way out of court with attorneys until smaller farm owners can no longer afford the case and reside. Another example of this is the idea of emissions trading. Emissions trading is an idea where carbon caps are given to different industries or corporations which put a limit on the amount of emissions that a corporation can release into the atmosphere. The process then allows companies to trade emissions caps with one another; companies that didn’t emit as many pollutants can sell them to other companies. The flaw behind this mindset with corporations is that rather than promoting pollution cleanup, corporations are given a false sense of satisfaction that they can pollute more and just buy more caps from another company. Corporations, therefore, are a sustainability problem in that they are treated like people when they shouldn’t be. Due to their mindset of gaining profits and monetarily gains, they falsely lead people into believing they are doing good for the company and therefore their customers. However, thanks to the extreme power held by these corporations, they are able to cover up or buy their way out of any situation that they may be in, creating a style of economy that is unsustainable in the way corporations hold their views and esteems. Mainstream media contributes to sustainability issues in the United States thanks to a myriad of problems, including; funding from outside sources, influential media, and lastly the editing of programs in favor of a side. For example, many news stations on television are influenced by either the dominant Republican or Democratic parties of the United States and therefore don’t necessarily own the stations but broadcasters heavily favor one side when reporting certain stories, discuss a certain candidate or show themselves to be partial to one side on an issue. This can be a sustainability problem in the way of ignoring or downplaying certain sustainability and environmental topics; allow for the cherry picking of certain information; and reports can easily be distorted to make a person seem less or more intelligent on a subject in the case of which party is portraying a certain event. Much like the influence on many political events and candidates, topics in the form of environmental and sustainability issues can be covered on two ends of the spectrum either conservatively or liberally. These topics, as recently discussed, have been fracking in the northeast, mountain top removal, global warming, alternative energy, and the war on recycling and landfills. Parties aiming to shoot down the theory of global warming, for example are primarily of a Republican background, and it is therefore likely that a conservative station or a reporter that is leaning towards the conservative side of the spectrum, will downplay or write off global warming as some hosh posh because that reporter is prejudiced to the conservative side. A less informed viewer who may not know that the station is influenced by the Republican party could then assume that what the reporter is announcing is fact and that global warming is something not to worry about. This is clearly, therefore a sustainability problem, and the same example could be used for cherry picking with viewers trying to find information that affirms their previous or prejudiced mindset. If a person wants to convince themselves that global warming isn’t an issue, for example, and then comes across this report, they will be convinced that they are indeed correct in their thinking. Lastly, thanks to editing, an interview can be picked apart by producers to show one side of an argument or case. This tactic is heavily used in comedy news as interviews with experts are edited in order to work up the credibility of certain guests while making a less popular guest, or one that is disagreed with by the host, less credible. This is a sustainability issue much for the same reasons in that the truth is being contorted by a group of people that lean heavily toward one side of the political spectrum and are therefore aiming to only show one side of the story. Advertising industry is a sustainability problem in that the industry that we as Americans operate in now is not a process that we can sustain, making the advertising a false lead to comfort among consumers. Ever since the commercialization boom from post-WWII, Americans have been exposed to a new kind of industry; use and dispose. Coupled with this new industry, advertisements started to become better produced and flashy as television quickly became the new form of delivering media to Americans. Throughout WWII the production of factory items was evolved through the need of materials and supplies fast for the war overseas. This evolution of factory production carried over after the war, however, which led to easy and convenient production that resulted in the creation and mass production of disposable products, which of course leads to planned obsolescence, the current waste situation we are in, and lack of recycling. In conjunction with this production technology, advertisements capture the minds of Americans that have been captivated since the 1950’s, telling them to want, want, want. Thanks to this mindset of wanting more, consumers become susceptible to the false impression that if they feel bad then buying a certain product will make them feel better. Buying certain labels or certain products in a consumerist economy also speak to a person’s or family’s status in their community and they could therefore be inclined to purchase the most expensive product, regardless of how sustainable or effective that product or brand name is. This creates a dependency on certain products across the spectrum of product cost. One of the major evident impacts of this is the demand of healthier, “higher class” food for the wealthier class, which has a reverse effect of the lower class being left with the less nutritious and cheaper alternative. Sustainability advocates could use the same tactics as advertisers, but use it to advocate a sustainable product, local food, organic products, etc. The reasoning behind this being why change what already works? If you can use flashy messages and songs to sell a piece of crap, then why not use the same tactics to sell an environmentally-aware product or group? Similarly to the issue of mainstream media, the internet is even more misconstrued; anyone with internet access, a basic knowledge of networking, and a strong opinion can put anything on their mind on the internet. Thanks to the wide public access of internet, there are all major wings of politics exposed on a variety of topics such as environmental awareness and problems, health issues, military, and government spending. This conceives similar problem as mainstream media, but to more of an extent. For example, the select population that believes that anything that surfaces on the web is true is gaining an extremely twisted view of the world. Thanks to comedy news sites such as //The Onion,// news is given a humorous twist or articles are published that are purely conceptual and have no strain of truth to them. This is a sustainability problem in that this form of communication, if continued, could have terrible consequences in a social aspect, mainly a social divide of extremists that view certain “information” available on the web as true to a religious extreme and with the more insightful population that obviously disagrees with this viewpoint. Furthermore, much like news stations, websites of newspapers, a blog, or any sponsored website could hold the opinion of a very influential speaker of a very extreme view of a topic. Essentially, if someone is inclined enough to speak out against a sustainability or environmental topic or has a very influential presence—mainly hiding behind the computer screen mentality—then they can easily voice an opinion, that as illustrated above, could be mistaken for scientific or even the only answer. This, in turn results in cherry picking information and even worse knowledge than previously obtained. This is a sustainability problem in that since environmental problems are such a controversial topic to begin with, by giving everyone access to the internet to voice their opinion, false impressions, accusations, and assumptions can be drawn very easily, making a certain population believe that the problem is not a sustainability issue at all but is just a disproven theory. The best and most prominent characteristics of successful environmental media and documentaries encompass very little use of dramatization and literally just tell the story as is. In order to make stories or views believable, they need to be just that; believable. In order to achieve this, the story teller or producer should gain true testimonials from the average person. Often times, as evident with documentaries, only one side is shown and it is over dramatized in order to influence the audience in a certain direction. This could be through pity, sympathy, or even fear; story tellers try too much to appeal to negative emotions in order to scare or persuade a person into something or some idea or mentality. The films that I have found to be the most persuasive throughout this semester have been ones that portray a certain technology or idea in a positive light. For example, the documentary //Jimmy’s GM Food Fight// is the story of Jimmy Doherty, a traditional farmer out to seek what the big fuss is with genetically modified foods. He sheds light and admits that there is a problem among stores with the denial of accepting genetically modified crops. Jimmy looks into why these are seen as a problem, and to an extent, sympathizes with protestors against growing GM crops. How he goes about doing it though, rather than go to an extreme end of the spectrum of either pro or against GM crops is he goes to various corners of the world and shows how the crops are impacting the farms and farmers, be it negative or positive. Throughout the film, Jimmy finds that in most cases GM crops are not the evil they are portrayed to be but are rather just a more modern form of selective breeding, a technique that has been in practice for a century and allows for the production of crops that are not found in the wild. He acknowledges that there are certain uncertainties with this newer technology, but rather than conclude that GM crops are bad because they allow for modifications, he promotes the use of test crops and defends that option with clearly provided positive evidence. In summary, often times films will over exaggerate a point to make it seem like it’s an end of the world fad, but this is more often than not what turns people off to problems such as climate change and energy consumption. Either that or another extreme could be their intent is to scare people into thinking there’s only one solution. Therefore, it’s sensible to make the story like any other (actual) news story; report the facts, interview people with actual testimonies and not just one side of the story over and over again. //1. Corporations need to be treated as such and their people as people, hold people accountable.// As of now, corporations are treated like people rather than as a company of people, which could easily lead to the false accusation of a CEO or other corporation employee that may have nothing to do with the situation, but is rather just a scapegoat so the public is assured the corporation is taking action. However, by not removing the problematic person in the first place, the corporation is likely to act on the same person, based on the amount of power they have, and the problem is therefore likely to occur again. //2. Start funding more research for alternative energy, etc.// Much like Shell’s investment in making fuel more sustainable and cost effective, the government should start investing in certain companies’ or universities’ efforts in sustainable research. Not only will this propel research, but it will also shed a positive light to the public as the effort that the government is putting into going green. //3. Regulation on what can go in stores/a tax on plastic used by packaging or products on corporations due to plastic’s inability to be recycled.// If the government were to impose a plastic tax on companies based on the packaging they use, or the amount of unrecyclable plastic in a product, it may turn companies off to using plastic in their products and may cut down on plastic waste in landfills that is unrecyclable. Furthermore, it may also force companies into making a more sustainable product and could lead to more efficient recycling. //4. Have a higher standard for recycling.// The United States government could model its waste and recycling gathering off of programs like Germany. In other words, at home for the trash collector, residents could be given a greater number of bins (lower in cost in order to promote recycling correctly) that would force them to separate paper, aluminum, and glass recyclables for collectors. This could be taken a step further by charging people extra for going over a certain amount of waste per person in the household. While unpopular at first, this collection idea could greatly benefit the impact landfills have on the United States as well as more efficient recycling processes. //5. Cut down on car production or recycle car parts.// One of the major issues in American culture is that we are consumers by nature. One of the major issues with trash is old cars and cars being produced, bought, and sold at a ridiculously fast pace. Cars are ending up in junk yards and even after compaction result in huge environmental impacts. Therefore, if the government limits a car dealership to how many cars they can possess at any point in time, this may force car companies to recycle old aluminum or materials from old cars, and produce cars at a slower pace, rather than updating and selling cars every year. //6. Make water a basic human right.// This could include things such as public water fountains in gas stations, etc. The water board, rather than billing people on water, could allocate a certain amount of water per household and then charge those that go extra. This would discourage the excessive use of water, but still allow everyone access to water. 1. Incorporate an ongoing subject throughout grade school that focuses on sustainability that is aimed towards individual and household tasks that could help raise a family’s sustainability awareness. For example, community garden as a class project, conserving electricity, alternative energy, etc. 2. Enforce laws against people and not corporations. This way corporations can’t create a scapegoat and people are held responsible for their actions. In turn, the credibility of the corporation will decrease if a member is charged and will have the same effect and then some, as just lashing out against the head honchos. 3. Add a disclaimer to media programs that makes viewers aware that media may be portrayed at one end of the spectrum. This way, freedom of speech is not hindered, but people are aware that the program they are watching is heavily influenced by a certain group (mainly Republican or Democrat). 4. Force companies to build in unpopulated land and enforce regulations on companies such as a factory that produces toxic waste must be so far away from civilization. Too many times companies have built factories or have mined dangerously close to impoverished populations and have at times, even harmed those populations. Major examples include Love Canal, New York and mountain top removal in the Appalachian chain. 5. Factory Farms should be regulated so that they are not allowed to buy out smaller farms or farmers’ land. This would promote local farms to have their produce and meat sold in local supermarkets rather than having larger food companies buy out lower level farms and then warping their meats and controlling how they are grown and processed. 6. National Parks and trails, such as the Appalachian Trail, should have stronger enforcements and should be off limits to highways, roadways, and major commodities or retail stores. The essence of sustainability is to preserve the Earth and its resources for as long as possible. In order to drive home this mindset, National Parks and trails need to be kept pristine in order to idolize what the Earth once was and is in its natural state. 7. Public transportation needs to become more accessible to commuters as well as intercity travelers. Cities are a major source of pollution in that they house the country’s worst congestion, primarily due to cars sitting in traffic or travelling at excessively low speeds, let alone the sheer number of cars within cities. By streamlining public transportation, these emissions could be cut down and hopefully eliminated from city pollution. 8. Installing community gardens in apartment complexes. By giving a tenant access to a community garden this could instill in that tenant a sense of self-sustainment. Costs could be folded into rent and would therefore come of free or low cost food at the hands of a tenant. This would cut down on food costs and put back to the environment by replacing consumed food with that grown food. 9. Require companies to recycle a certain amount of their materials in production. By requiring major manufacturers to recycle a certain amount of their material, the manufacturer will in theory become more aware of the raw materials that they are using and putting out into the environment as waste. By eliminating a certain amount of waste and forcing that manufacturer to recycle it, they will in turn become a more efficient production line and will hypothetically strive to create a product that is more recyclable. 10. No privatization of water; water should no longer be bottled and sold but should rather be made accessible to all people such that there are water fountains available in gas stations, supermarkets, etc. Furthermore, as stated before, a certain amount of water per household should be made available and then extra usage should be charged. This would raise awareness of water usage per household and would eliminate the pressure of water accessibility for the Earth in its entirety. The following is a sort of narrative for what I would instruct my students to do, or a narrative for the lesson of that day: The first and most difficult thing you have to do is forget all of your prejudices; if you don’t like something because someone said it’s bad, then look up an article that they may have found it. Look up the author’s credentials then see if you can find one that says the exact opposite, play devil’s advocate. Once you’re on a level playing field/have a clear mind, then you can start researching what’s in question. For this example, hydrofracking actually get acquainted with the process, not the politics, weigh the pros and cons. Because we have adversity in this class, people are going to have different pros and cons, it’s important that you are aware that someone with a lower income than your family is going to have different opinions because they grew up appreciating things that you may have taken for granted, like clean drinking water. If it affects you or your classmates enough more than it provides energy for people who wouldn’t have energy elsewhere, then maybe you think it’s a good decision. However if you find in your research it actually affects more drinking sources and houses than it provides energy, then probably not so much. In summarization, I would basically be aiming to guide my students to let go of their prejudices and gain a clear sense. An easy test of this, for example, is to imagine you have never tasted ice cream before, but you want to ask yourself what your favorite ice cream flavor is. You wouldn’t go around from source to source seeing what other peoples’ favorite ice cream flavor is, but you would try and get as much ice cream as possible and sample all of the flavors. The same idea can be applied to gathering research for topics such as hydrofracking. You can’t trust what everyone else is saying about it, you have to do your own research and make sure that you are covering as many research topics as you can to make sure you’re getting all of the information (or flavors). //1. In light of our recent and ongoing economic downturn, let’s say you are a consultant for an environmental firm. You are part of a team that is focusing on how sustainability can be advertised as a marketable investment. How would you use sustainability as a promotion tool to companies in order to pitch your idea to save them from suffering with the economy?// People are becoming more financially aware and therefore are becoming more frugal; they want to invest in something they think is going to last rather than something that will need replacing. People are also becoming aware of the recycling issue. It is therefore advisable to promote to companies the idea of a product that will either “last a lifetime,” or advertise in the sense that the company is gearing for a green revolution something like biodegradable packing peanuts, in order to make a customer say “I’m going to invest in this product because I will have less impact on the world,” and allow them the chance to have the feeling of saving the world a little at a time. //2. Analyze your carbon footprint: go through your typical day and list all of the impacts your daily life may have on the environment.// (This question would test students’ knowledge and awareness by seeing if they incorporate things like consumption of food, purchase of packaging, use of products and fuels, to include beauty products or hair products that are eventually drained into the water systems, as well as the dumping of liquids or food trash that may contain caffeine that could affect the ecosystem. This would also challenge students to be more aware of themselves in everyday tasks such as making sure technology products are turned off, and that they take the time to recycle or plan a bike route versus taking a car.)
 * 1. Identify ways that corporations are a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.**
 * 2. Describe ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester.**
 * 3. Describe how the advertising industry a sustainability problem. Discuss the environmental implications of “communication for commerce,” the effort to create emotional connections between consumers, commodities and companies, and the cultivation of “loyalty beyond reason” (The Persuaders). Also discuss whether sustainability advocates should borrow techniques from the adverting industry to advance their message.**
 * 4. Discuss how Internet communication and other forms of new media are sustainability problems, as well as a means to sustainability solutions.**
 * 5. Identify key characteristics of the best environmental media (recognizing that few films or other media are likely to have more than a few of these characteristics). Reference examples from films we’ve seen this semester.**
 * 6. Explain, from your point of view, what the US government should do to advance environmental sustainability. What should the US government not do? Together, your lists should include at least six items. Include concrete example to illustrate your points.**
 * 7. Identify ten developments (in education, law, media, etc) that you think would help mobilize greater public awareness of and commitment to environmental sustainability.**
 * 8. Imagine that you are teaching high school seniors about environmental controversies. How would you advise them to make sense of the controversy around hydrofracking for natural gas? What questions would you encourage them to ask in analyzing all environmental controversies they encounter?**
 * 9. Write two exam questions that creatively test students’ analytic sophistication about environmental sustainability. Answer one of these questions.**
 * 10. Write a 400-word biosketch that describes where you will be and what you will have accomplished twenty years from now. The biosketch should be narrative rather than resume style. Include basic biographical and educational information, the expertise you have built and have become known for, and a brief description of important projects you have been a part of over this period of time.**
 * Katelyn Kelly**


 * Born** March 16, 1991 (age 41)

State College, Pennsylvania


 * Residence** Amherst, Boston, Massachusetts


 * Nationality** American


 * Fields** Urban Development

Transit Oriented Design

Traffic Engineering


 * Institutions** University of Massachusetts Amherst

Transportation Research Board


 * Alma mater** Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (B.S.)

University of Massachusetts Amherst (M.S., PhD) Katelyn Dion Kelly (born March 16, 1991) is best known for her research in the field of transportation systems and foot traffic engineering. Her reports in the fields of Transit Oriented Design and City Development have launched a career in developing urban plans for cities in order to better facilitate the use of sidewalks and footpaths and decrease the need for cars for intercity dwellers, as well as improve public transportation systems for commuters. An American engineer and local politician, she is currently working in conjunction with the city of Boston and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She works in close contact with the public of Boston and has done multiple social experiments and proposed those solutions to the Transportation Research Board, which meets annually in Washington, DC. These social experiments include improved footpaths and the removal of parking spaces in certain areas of Boston and Cambridge in order to create a psyche of a sustainable mode of transportation versus the ever-expensive mode of automobile. Kelly has also been a notable speaker at conferences advocating for the improvement of urban atmospheres and has integrated green spaces such as community gardens into urban design. She currently resides in Amherst, Massachusetts where she works as the head of the newly formed Transit Department of Boston. Here she continues to develop a rail system for the city of Boston as well as the city’s street networks for pedestrian use. Kelly has collaborated with tenured professors at Rensselaer as well as with engineers among the Transportation Research Board where other cities are starting to develop this greener, pedestrian-geared urban development system. The system is modeled off of European states and cities, which are more condensed than American urban areas but are developed to accommodate people and bikes rather than cars, then span outwards from city to city. This research has proven not only to physically improve the atmosphere due to decreased emissions, but has also shown behavioral improvements for residents as well. In the social experiments, when residents began walking as opposed to taking the intercity bus system, they reported feeling more at ease and relaxed. Garden spaces in conjunction with this urban development has also contributed to more community awareness, and in areas where this community system is being used, crime rates have dropped noticeably. Kelly and her team of researchers have been noted as pioneers in the field of Urban Development and Transit Oriented Design and continue to make their presence known as they disperse across the United States, making each city more accessible one at a time.