FinalPB

Answer ten of the following questions in essay form, using 300-600 words for each response. A printed copy of your exam is due in class Friday, December 7.


 * 1) Identify ways that corporations are a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. (Word count: 503) **

Corporations can be a sustainability problem in multiple ways, from simply practicing unsustainable techniques to actively attempting to generate a profit in a manner than knowingly destroys the environment.

 The film __End of the Line__ is a good example of practicing unsustainable techniques. This is due to the fact that they are overfishing the seas in order to make a profit. It seems that there is no true way to meet demand for fish without this overfishing and therefore they are not just going out there to harm the environment, rather they are simply doing what customers want. However it is impacting the environment by reducing biodiversity and overall numbers of fish. This may eventually lead to the depletion of the ocean as well as an increased number of invasive or secondary species that completely change the ecosystem.

 However in the film __Gasland__, corporations can be seen as a sustainability problem due to hydrofracking. This stems from the fact that the corporations are not doing everything in their power to ensure that the environment is not being harmed. Their profits are put before the environment. This has created opportunity for fracking materials and natural gas to enter some water sources, making them unfit for consumption. They are also denying claims that their fracking is impacting the environment and the people around the wells. The corporation is putting the burden of proof on the consumer rather than on them to prove that fracking did in fact cause these problems. This is a different kind of problem because corporations should accept responsibility for their actions in the same manner anyone else is required to.

 The film __Food Inc.__ outlines a different kind of sustainability problem, namely the fact that the mass production of food harms the environment and individuals in that environment. These large factory farms pollute water sources with manure, pesticides, and other harmful toxins. Similarly, the produce that comes from these farms has the potential to be contaminated with diseases like e coli. These two things in combination create a major health risk. When there were no factory farms however, a majority of these problems were nonexistent due to the fact that everything on a farm had a use to the farmer.

 In __Blue Gold: World Water Wars__ corporations are shown to have begun privatizing water sources across the globe. Water is one of the things that humans need to survive, yet when these corporations take over and privatize the water, the cost of water increases dramatically. This means that the poor are no longer able to access water in a manner that is beneficial to their survival. Similarly, corporations have begun bottling water from US rivers and shipping it across the globe. This disrupts ecosystems and changes the natural water cycle. The natural water cycle is a sustainable process that is capable of replacing our fresh water. However when it is messed with, there are a large number of factors that no longer work as intended and we eventually all lose out.


 * 2) Describe how science can be a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. **


 * 3) Describe ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. (Word Count: 525) **

Mainstream media can be a sustainability problem in multiple ways. In the best case scenario media can simply ignore facts and not report them, in the worst case it can knowingly alter information in order to perpetuate its ideals and ideas. There are examples of this in many of the films we watched this semester.

 The film __Food Inc.__ is one good example of this. Large corporations use media and advertisement to sell their products. The case talked about in this film is that of corporations portraying their product as if it was raised on a family farm when it is truly raised on a factory farm. This is done through advertisement on TV as well as packaging. This deliberate misinformation that is being portrayed to the consumer makes it so many do not know where their food is actually coming from. Rather, they resort to what they learned about previous farming techniques (maybe from grade school) rather than actually understanding how these corporations are going about producing their food.

 A similar idea is expressed in the film __The Persuaders__. This film talks about different marketing strategies used to reach different consumers in order to make them desire to buy a specific product. In relation to __Food Inc.__, this film discusses the use of empty or misleading marketing (which is essentially what is happening in the supermarket). The film discusses how many different methods there are that are intended to reach consumers. The worst part of this is the fact that a piece of misinformation heard from a mainstream media outlet can then find its way through nonmainstream outlets. This use of misinformation from advertisement is a sustainability problem due to the fact that many consumers will take it as true without properly researching the factoid. From this there is a spreading of misinformation which in itself is a sustainability problem.

 The film __The Corporation__ makes us aware of how few companies are truly in charge of TV. There are 6 major holding companies for the majority of TV and radio and this means that there is a greater chance that there is a deliberate spreading of misinformation. Worse than that, there is the possibility to alter programming to fit the interests of the holding company. This is the case of Fox News/Monsanto as talked about in the film. In this instance Monsanto ensured that a story couldn’t air due to the negative publicity that would follow from it. This is a sustainability problem due to the fact that any corporation has the possibility of doing this and therefore you never truly know what information is being covered up.

 In the film __The Persuaders__ there is yet another example of how media can be a sustainability problem. Coverage in media can be purchased for a monetary sum and therefore you generally need a large financial backer if you have any desire to advertise a new product. This can create sustainability problems when inventors of better, more sustainable products are unable to sell their products on mainstream media sources. This also means that consumers can be swayed towards less sustainable products if they see those advertisements.


 * 4) 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.  (Word Count: 410) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The advertising industry can create a large sustainability problem due to the fact that there are many consumers who base their purchasing decisions on advertisements they see online or on TV. This means that they might be sold unsustainable products when there is a sustainable alternative. An example of this is an ad for a Hummer when a Prius would be much better for the environment. Also, many trips and vacation destinations are advertised for but the fuel that is required to go on these trips contributes to a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, all of this advertisement leads to the cycle of work and spend and materialism. This is due to the fact that consumers are led to believe that nearly everyone has these new products and therefore they feel the inclination to have them as well. Lastly, companies feel as if they are required to advertise in order to sell their product when it might be better for them and the environment if they used that money elsewhere.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Communication for commerce can be either good or bad for the environment depending on how the technique is used on consumers. This is due to the fact that advertisers can create an emotional connection with a product that has a negative environmental impact. An example of this would again be the Hummer. If they successfully created an advertisement that made a large number of consumers feel as if they would be the perfect fit for a Hummer, then they would have created an ad that had a negative environmental impact. However, if there was an ad for a Prius that also had a large emotional appeal, this would most likely be better for the environment (unless of course they were not in the market for a new car, then it would be creating more waste).

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Similar trends lie within the idea of loyalty beyond reason. Loyalty beyond reason could be negative for the environment if a company like apple exercised practices that were bad for the environment, however there are many a consumer that will continue to buy apple products due to the positive experience they had with them in the past.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> I believe that if a technique is proven to work then there should be no reason to not use it in order to promote the sustainability message. The only reason to not use a specific technique is if one feels as if it is morally reprehensible.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">5) Discuss how Internet communication and other forms of new media are sustainability problems, as well as a means to sustainability solutions. (Word Count: 364) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The internet and other forms of new media can be either sustainability problems or solutions; however it is entirely dependent on the end user of the service. The main issue with the internet and other forms of new media is that nearly anyone can use the service. To compound this, there is little to no way to truly verify ones identity over any of these media outlets. To make matters even more difficult there is the possibility to take control of an account that is not yours fairly easily. However, the fact that there are reliable websites and the many people can access the information means that new media is not all bad.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> New media can be a sustainability problem either maliciously or innocently. It can be used maliciously if an individual posts a factoid under a false identity of someone trustworthy. An example of this would be if someone made a fake Bill Nye twitter account and posted that they believed global warming was a hoax. This might lead an average individual to believe that this is actually Bill Nye’s position. Someone could also post false scientific results on a website and claim it to be true. This could become even worse if others used this as a reference in a scientific entry or journal. Lastly, someone could hack a database and delete a large portion of information that could potentially include data related to sustainability measures. Any of these scenarios would ultimately harm the cause of sustainability.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> However, new media can also promote sustainability. It allows individuals from across the globe to connect and communicate sustainable ideas. Similarly, other sustainable solutions can be accessed from anywhere in the world which allows ideals to be perpetuated without direct contact. This alone is the biggest assistor to sustainability because previously one would have to wait for a journal or other form of media to learn new information yet now it is nearly instantly accessible. Also new media allows for alternative viewpoints to be heard. This means that if there is a corporation that is controlling mainstream media outlets, the users of the internet are capable of reporting this when otherwise it may go unreported.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">6) 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. (Word Count: 444) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I believe that everyone views different important characteristics in environmental media. That however does not mean that there are not important aspects of films that can be used to create the best film possible. The first important characteristic is a films conciseness, or how easy it is to understand the point that is being portrayed. This is important to me because if a film is not concise then no amount of information or emotional appeal will allow a viewer to truly understand the filmmaker’s position. The film __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Homo Toxicus __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> is a good example of a film being concise due to the fact that the producer began the film by stating her position and the rest of the film followed that overall theme with little deviation. The next important part of a film is the scientific content. This is because for me, and many others like me, the facts can always outweigh emotions. I feel that none of the films we watched this semester held a significant portion of scientific information; however the film __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Gasland __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> did almost exactly the opposite. In this film, many affected individuals are interviewed and their story told. The interviews were striking and made me question what was really happening in areas where hydrofracking was occurring. But when I reflected on the film I found myself barely convinced. The film did say that there was a nasty concoction of chemicals in the groundwater but I am not convinced that there might have already been some of these chemicals there even before fracking began. That is to say, the lack of scientific integrity made me less interested in the films message. Another important characteristic of a film is that it is unbiased. A good example would be the film __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Switch __<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">. This is due to the fact that the information is not presented in a manner that suggest one method is superior to the other, rather it simply allows the viewer to make their own decision on the matter. I feel that if someone doesn’t make their own opinion then they will never value that opinion as highly as one they created by themselves. Lastly, a good film should include go fix it solutions. This is because the films ultimate goal is to persuade the viewer that there is a problem that needs fixing. Yet when they get that message across but do not allow the viewer to follow up then they are essentially allowing the viewer to acknowledge the problem and then sweep it under the proverbial rug. This is not good due to the fact that someone who takes no action is just as bad as someone who is not informed.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">7) In a 2010 NY Magazine article, Jon Stewart describes his media team as "Soil enrichers. Maybe we can add a little fertilizer to the soil so that real people can come along and grow things.” What does Stewart mean, and how persuaded are you by the metaphor? The NY Magazine article is "[|America is a Joke] <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">" (Word Count: 338) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Jon Stewarts quote “<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Soil enrichers. Maybe we can add a little fertilizer to the soil so that real people can come along and grow things.” means that his media team is not going out and actively attempting to change the world. Rather they are working to inform individuals about issues that are not being discussed in mainstream media and give individuals a differing viewpoint from the one they receive from mainstream media. In this they are not working to promote a cause or gain momentum for a certain position, rather they are attempting to show people that there is more than one side to an issue and that there are many issues that are simply ignored by mainstream media. In doing so it seems that they are attempting to allow people to think for themselves and go do independent research on subjects that are important to them. This will hopefully influence these individuals to go out and make changes that they feel are necessary. Stewart seems to have no interest in forcing his ideas on individuals but rather wants individuals to make these decisions themselves. This will allow more diversity in opinions across the board.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> I believe that Jon Stewart is doing exactly what a news caster and media figure should do. He ensures that everyone is attacked equally and that every point is questioned. Because of this I am very persuaded both by him and by his metaphor. I believe it to be the case that everyone must form their own opinions on issues rather than turning to an outside source. This is because everyone has a different set of morals and beliefs therefore it is unreasonable to believe that any one person would be able to give you a position that you will always agree with. That doesn’t mean that you should not draw from others deliberations and meditations but rather you need a justified reasoning behind following one individual. This is difficult to have if you have not previously thought about the issue at hand.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">8) Design a film intended to educate a particular audience about a sustainability problem. Describe the audience you intend to reach, and its characteristics (biases, ignorance, expertise, etc); the aim of the film; its narrative structure and its content. (Word Count: 370) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">If I were to design a film it would be discussing new and emerging sources of energy as well as talking about the drawbacks and benefits of older types of energy generation. It would be fashioned after a show like __Into the Universe__ where it seems very futuristic yet still remains scientific. It would be targeted for all audiences but it would be most informative for someone in the age group of 15-35. This is due to the fact that it still touches on many creative elements that an older generation would likely dismiss but is technical enough that anyone younger than 15 may not understand anything that would be talked about. That doesn’t mean however that people outside of the age group cannot watch it however they will most likely not take as much away as they might. It would attempt to be unbiased, however when talking about future and emerging technologies it may seem biased to those who believe that conventional generation is the best possible scenario. This is due to the fact that I would be promoting a shift away from conventional sources once everything was in place for emerging technologies to take over. However I would stress that currently these conventional sources are the best and most reliable sources of electricity and therefore should continue to be a major player. I would use researches from universities whom are focused on new tech, as well as industry leaders who would potentially be able to give a better impression of what their technology brings to the table. The types of energy that would be touched on are; coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, fission, fusion. It may not seem like there is anything that has not previously been discussed in films like switch etc but there are many different applications of wind, solar, and tidal that have not previously been talked about. For example, piezoelectric wind stalks would work for both wind and tidal power in ways that are radically different than current methods. Essentially my film would be an attempt to map the past, present, and future of energy in a way that hopefully generates a strong desire to continue to research new generation techniques.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">9). Many Americans are skeptical about climate change, and climate science. What do you think explains the skepticism? What do you think scientists should do to further enroll the public in concern about climate change? The articles listed below will provide material for your argument. Reference both articles in your answer. **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">*The Perception Factor: Climate Change Gets Personal. (Environmental Health Perspectives, 11/1/2010) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">*Heroes wanted in climate science story (USA Today, 11/20/2010) **
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">10) 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. (Word Count: 662) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The US government has a great ability to advance environmental sustainability, however they do need to be careful to ensure that they do not overstep their bounds. However, they can take on a bit more responsibility to ensure that we remain one of the world leaders in sustainability. Currently, European nations are at the forefront of sustainability due to the policies that they have enacted.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> The US should eliminate tax loopholes for everyone to ensure that they are taking in proper revenue that will allow them to balance their budget. Similarly, there should actually be leftover revenue that they could use to promote research and environmentally friendly business. Lastly, this will no longer allow oil and gas corporations to maintain a low tax rate that inflates their profits and therefore they will need to begin making smarter choices that will allow them to have continued success.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Similarly, the US should create a larger research budget and research library. This will allow us to create more jobs in research labs that will have an overall net positive on the economy. Also a large majority of this research leads to new and better inventions that will allow us to hopefully become more sustainable. A larger research library will allow anyone to directly access previously done research to both ensure that they are not doing the same experiment again but also to further other research projects that will use past research as well.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> On a different note, they should pull out of programs that would be better conducted at a state level. Examples of these programs are medicare, welfare, and environmental policy. It seems to me that the representatives of an individual state are more informed of the needs of its people than the overarching federal government and therefore will hopefully be able to progress the sustainability measures further, faster than the US government could. This could also allow the US government to focus on issues that are more important to them such as defense and overall sustainability and environmental cleanup efforts.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Lastly, they should remove the stranglehold that a small number of corporations have on business. This would most likely entail changing the rules regarding monopolies. This is due to the fact that we no longer have any true monopolies but rather we have 4-5 companies that rule a specific area of industry. This means that they are not a “monopoly” in a traditional sense, but businesses have grown so large and powerful that they are essentially not allowing any other startups into business. This is the same effect that monopolies had on business. Hopefully this change will allow new companies to join an area of industry and revolutionize it.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> The US government should also ensure that they stay away from some practices. The first of these practices is giving subsidies to businesses that harm the environment or marketplace. This means that a large majority of companies will not receive their full and usual amount of subsidies making it so they can no longer sit idle but rather they are being required to innovate and promote sustainability. It would also ensure that companies are staying within environmental regulations and that workers are being treated properly. This is due to the fact that subsidies actually do account for a decent portion of some company’s monetary income and therefore this reduction would hurt them deeply.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Lastly the government itself should not just sit idle and continue with business as usual. This does two things. One it shows companies that it is ok to no progress. The opposite of this is that if a company sees the US government making progress they might feel as if they need to keep up. Secondly, it shows that there is no need for everyone cooperation but rather things should only undergo change if everyone agrees. This means that there are no movements that one would consider “risky” but those movements are actually the ones that begin to get things done.


 * <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">11). Describe the key message of //The Age of Stupid//, providing illustrative examples from the film, then evaluate its strategy and effectiveness as environmental media. **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">12) Identify ten developments (in education, law, media, etc) that you think would help mobilize greater public awareness of and commitment to environmental sustainability. (Word Count: 310) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Report atmospheric CO2 reading during the news. People might not know what it means but if they see it consistently going up they may get concerned and look into it <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Whilst talking of ecosystems in elementary school also talk about and give simple examples of how easy it is to disrupt and completely change an ecosystem and show its negative consequences <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Ensure that from a young age we do not disassociate ourselves with nature, rather teach that we are also part of nature and what we do affects things as much as anything else <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Law that eliminates subsidies from conventional power sources. This will allow more companies to get money for nonconventional sources which will then create more research and eventually allow these technologies to overtake conventional technologies. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Instead of a show like 60 minutes, have a national geographic documentary or report on the environment. Something simple that viewers could be very interested in that promotes environmental literacy <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Have greater testing of pesticides before they are allowed to be used. Also make regulation that caps how much you can spray and the concentration you can spray at <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Enact more whistleblower laws that will allow those within business to report things simply and easily. Ensure that the whistleblower is not blacklisted from jobs etc <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Laws that create easy metrics to measure ones sustainable progress. There are a large number of factors that go into this but hopefully the government can make this into an easy list <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Incentivize more sustainability measure for consumers because they currently do not factor sustainability into most purchasing decisions. Even the MPG rush is so they can save money, not the planet. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">- Have media begin a “good guy going green” segment that will show off companies efforts without seeming like they are trying to green wash consumers.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">13) Imagine that you are teaching high school seniors about environmental controversies. How would you advise them to make sense of the controversy around hydrofraking for natural gas? What questions would you encourage them to ask in analyzing all environmental controversies they encounter? In answering this question, you can draw on news accessible here: [] <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">. (Word Count: 445) **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">If I were to attempt to teach a sustainability course to high school students focusing in environmental controversy hydrofracking would probably be one of the better topic to look into. As they were doing research I would ensure that they were looking at multiple things that would, in combination, make it so they hopefully get the full story.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> First, I would make sure that they look at a substantial number of academic and nonacademic articles outlining the problem and its causes. This would ensure that they would get a multitude of opinions that hopefully will give them a broader spectrum picture. In this, films like __Gasland__ would also be integral resources to get as much information as possible. I would make sure that my students knew who funded the research study, film, or who gave the OK to publish the article. These are all important due to how easily someone can gain influence over others with monetary sums. Similarly, I would ensure that they knew who wrote or talked in the film, study, or article. This is because an individual may hold a certain opinion that might be different from everyone else. However if they get published in multiple sources and one is not careful to look at this it may seem like a majority opinion. Also students should look at any bias’ that are present and attempt to eliminate the biases by looking for both confirming and denying evidence of claims. It is most likely easy to find one or the other but if you cannot find denying evidence does that truly mean that the position in question is true. That is something that one can only figure out on and individual by individual basis.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Similarly, I would ensure my students looked at how this new controversy might affect their view of sustainability. If it is contradictory then they can choose to ignore it on the grounds that it does not fit in with their world view. While this is not wrong, one would have to at least alert them to their irrationality. Similarly, students should look at other cases that seem to have undergone similar debate to see where this debate may ultimately conclude. This is because precedent plays a very large role in our current society. Also, one should ask how they or others could fix or prevent the problem at hand. This will allow them to determine the scope of the problem. And lastly, they need to understand the benefits and drawbacks of holding every position. This will allow them to understand why others do not hold the position they do even though they find it to be the superior position.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">14) Scientific research demonstrating a link between toxic chemicals and skewed sexual development has developed considerably in recent years. Describe how this could be effectively communicated. What audience would you target? What media form (film, website, radio show) you would use? What research studies would you highlight (see news coverage of some of this research below)? How would you represent the state of the science? What kind of environmental and scientific literacy would you aim to cultivate? What “go fix it” strategies would you suggest? In answering this question, you can draw on news accessible here: [] <span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">. **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**15) Assess how each of these videos about problems with our food system would likely impact viewers. What message is delivered by each film? What does each accomplish, and not? Which audiences would be most responsive?**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Transport: Food Miles **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Pig Picture **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Meatrix **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">16) Write two exam questions that creatively test students’ analytic sophistication about environmental sustainability. Answer one of these questions. **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">**17). 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. For an example, see the Wikipedia entry for Paul Farmer (** **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[] **