rogat+-+sustp+-+final+exam

Michelle Rogat Sustainability Studies Final Exam Responses


 * 1) Identify ways that corporations are a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. **
 * (Word count: 730) **
 * Corporations are legally bound to increase profits to their shareholders as their main purpose, and this presents a situation in which there will be many conflicting interests. This gives them the motives to cut corners on costs such as following environmental regulations and other laws in order to save money and increase the profit share. Overall this gives businesses to externalize as many of their costs as possible in order to increase their profits, and that means that in the end the public is really paying for those costs in the form of health issues from pollution and more. (The Corporation)
 * Products, markets, and even whole industries like the agricultural industry in America have become less like competitive markets because they are being cornered by fewer and fewer corporations. This has an almost monopolizing effect where consumers and other groups like farmers are stuck with only a certain kind of product, like GMO crops, so there really isn't as much diversity in options as the public thinks there are. In order for corporations to keep up that appearance they try to make it seem like their product is diversified through advertising different names and such, but the reality is they keep much of their practice secret. The government gets involved in these markets because since they are run by few large corporations and have become so large, the government gets worried about the supply of food and such that they work more closely WITH these corporations. There is another conflict of interest, because the government has to deal with the dominating narrative that it's the environment OR the economy, and if they regulate these businesses to decrease pollution and such, they are worried that they will be creating a negative effect on the economy.
 * There is a revolving door between industry and government that shouldn't be permissible because it creates conflicting interests. For example, the policy makers and government officials that worked on the laws and regulations around the tobacco industry, after retiring from government they went on to work for the same tobacco companies they used to regulate. This gives the industry inside knowledge on how the regulations are made and creates incentive for people currently in office to be friendly with industry so they have a job later on. So while the government officials are in office and should be doing everything they believe to help with regulating the industry, they won't, and instead might leave loopholes in a regulation that corporations can work to their advantage (The Corporation). I heard about this issue being discussed by Alan Chartock on NPR, and he said that it really is a hard complex issue. If you think about the kind of resume the government officials will have when they go on to retire, for them it would make sense to go work for the industry they used to work to regulate, but it doesn't make sense for society.
 * Not only are corporations corrupting the government with the above describe revolving door, but they are also having enormous control over the media and news, to the point where one could argue that corporations censor the media to their liking. The structure of the news media is partly to blame because it relies on money from corporations and businesses in exchange for advertising. However, corporations are able to censor the media and news by threatening to go somewhere else for advertising, taking their money that news outlets depend on with them. An example of this is when Monsanto threatened much the same to FoxNews if they ran the story on how the bovine growth hormone (BGH) that Monsanto used on cows was researched to have negative health effects on the cows. Monsanto was in a position that they had enough power to demand that FoxNews not run the story, or to change most of its wording around, and FoxNews listened. When their reporters wanted to go ahead with the story anyway Monsanto resorted to bribery, which in this case wasn't a success, but the reporters were fired. This makes one questions what information on the news can be trusted, and what aren't corporations telling us about their products? How can citizens and consumers make informed decisions and be a part of the solution and change, or even correctly voice their opinion if they are not first informed about the issues going on? (The Corporation)


 * 2) Describe how science can be a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. **
 * (Word Count: 555) **
 * Science, along with economic drive, is what determines the development of technology. Some believe that it evolves and unfolds almost naturally like it's evolving, but in reality people decide on where to go with technology and how to use it. However, as Naomi Klein mentions in Addicted to Risk, we tend to think of technology as the thing that's going to solve our problems in the future without thinking and realizing that technology is going to be part of the cause and ongoing on our problems. Since people are overconfident in the ability of technology to solve problem, they are more inclined to take greater risks such as arctic drilling. This overwhelming narrative, as Klein describes it, that we'll have something or someone save us at the last minute is preventing us from thinking about solutions productively right now.
 * Another example, monocultures are able to thrive because of the antibiotics and pesticides created to act as the system's immunity, but then there's resistance issues that cause stronger strains of viruses and disease, that push the development of more medicines and pesticides. It's a vicious cycle that is perpetuated and only made worse by the advance of technology in antibiotics and pesticides. Feeding antibiotics to increase growth rate kills off the weak strain, but then the strong strain survives, and so an antibody resistant monster strain is created. (Fresh)
 * Another issue with science is that it can be bought, and therefore can't always be trusted. The few neigh-sayers of climate change are probably bought and paid for by oil companies and other big corporations, or the science and research that does show the problems with unsustainable practices gets hidden from the media. An example of this is seen in The Corporation, when the film explains the incident of Monsanto and their use of bovine growth hormone (BGH). Their studies showed that there weren't enough studies done and that they weren't done long enough to conclude it was safe, so other countries didn't pass it allowing it on the market. Monsanto faxed the news reporters at Fox News, week after week, threatening that they needed to check their facts and if they did air the report there would be "dire consequences". Another example of the science being just obviously corrupted is shown in Erin Brockovich when the company, PG&E had a seminar at the plant for the residents about how good chromium 3 was for you when all along they were using chromium 6. The tests they did for the water was done on an onsite monitoring well, but PGE told them that their water was fine. That is INSANELY CORRUPT, and illegal, for PG&E to mislead the public by giving them false information on their practices.
 * People place too much emphasis on science because even when the scientists advise, they aren't listened to and society gets stuck in this "analysis paralysis" where they want more research and information. The End of the Line shows an example when scientists advised the fishing industry of the optimum number of fish to catch for the industry, the government decided to set the number higher than that, and then the industry went ahead and caught more fish than what even the government suggested! The fishing industry collapsed because they overfished the fish population and ruined their resource.


 * 3) Describe ways that mainstream media is a sustainability problem, referencing at least four examples from films you watched this semester. **
 * (Word count: 503) **
 * Mainstream media has become too influenced by corporations and industry because of how media outlets depend on corporate advertising for money and because of how he media is being ran in a lot of ways like a corporation. The film The Corporation showed this with the example of how Monsanto was able to force FoxNews to bench a story that would have been bad publicity for Monsanto. I'm sure there are many other instances where a news media won't publish a story because it would hurt one of their investors or major clients and they can't afford to lose their money. In this sense the news media is being ran less like an outlet for information with the purpose of educating the public on current matters and more like a corporation worried about their bottom line.
 * Advertising has become a new kind of urban warfare because of the competition among advertisers for publicity; prospectors for new space are everywhere and it has become a vicious circle of clutter that they create and then have to break through with an effort of more clutter. It doesn't make any sense. The film The Persuaders, supports the idea that this clutter of too much advertisement is messing with our attention spans and is increasing the cases of ADD. This is a problem because a society full of people that can't focus will have a harder time trying to solve sustainability issues, or even seeing passed all the media bullshit to be aware of climate change issues.
 * The Persuaders also explained how how non-stop advertisement is feeding into the culture consumer society and leaves us feeling that we need more and can get satisfaction from materials. This reinforces the unsustainable mindset that there are limitless resources to provide for our horrible habit of consistently buying things and then soon replacing them. This creates a ton of waste, incentives designers to not spend much time on quality but more on quantity, and uses a ton of resources and energy that could have been used for otherwise for things that would last longer and improve society.
 * A way in which the mainstream media can be a sustainability solution is by harnessing the "information stream" like youtube, social media, and getting the attention of the newsmedia to bring forward information, solutions, and action for climate change issues. 350.org asked their network of colleagues/friends to do this by joining them for one day to bring their message about the oil industry and climate change forward. Their first big day of action was fall 2009 and for 48 hours there were over 5200 demonstrations in 181 countries, CNN called it the most wide spread day of political activity in the planet's history, they flushed the information stream with the 350 message, and this grabbed the media's attention and brought the information to people throughout the world. (Do the Math) This is now possible because of how our technology allows us to be so interconnected with the media and each other.


 * 4) Describe how the advertising industry is 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: 352) **


 * "Communication for commerce" remind me not just of advertising, but also of the term "voting with your money" because of how elites and corporations with a lot of money are allowed to influence elections by "donating" a ton of money to campaigns, allowing the person's campaign to buy more advertisement and reach more people. This isn't fair because then not everyone has an equal voice because the poor or lower class can't afford to help their pundits' campaign to get elected. This is a sustainability issue because the corporations have the money and get to advertise over the message of environmentalism and climate change.
 * Constant advertising drives the consumerist culture, creating more waste and using up resources and energy that could have been used more productively. (The Persuaders)
 * Yes, sustainability advocates should use the same strategies as advertisers because they work ,which means whether or not the strategy of brand loyalty is sought after consumers will still feel a loyalty towards certain brands either way. To use these strategies would be to the sustainability movement's advantage. I have actually interview a woman who works in LEED and the US Green Building Council, Jodi Smits-Amderson, who explained that she won't even address words she knows her clients will feel uncomfortable with, such as the word sustainability, unless they do first. She instead explains her suggestions from a business perspective and leaves out the "by the way, this is sustainable because..."
 * Bob Willard has a chapter in his book, "The Next Sustainability Wave", that is all about how the meanings of words have been evolving and how it isn't necessary to use words you aren't sure the CEO's will be comfortable with. The best thing he suggests is to ask them what they prefer and why, that way you know what they like, how they want it worded, and what goals they are going after. He also explains how there is a language and knowledge barrier between business professionals and people involved in sustainability, the "sustainababble" feeds into the gap and confusion between the two groups when that is the opposite that is needed.

> The media should leave people more informed of the problems and of their options leave the audience with a sense of hope and inspiration, NOT despair or more confusion.
 * 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: 358) **
 * An example of good environmental media should be able to present the issues, explain it from all perspectives and angles, give any insight into the complexity and systems thinking involved in the issues, suggest solutions and ways to get involved do your part, and display a line of questioning that is a good model for others to realize that they could be asking these same important questions throughout their own lives. It's important that the environmental media is able to present the information and data clearly with resources and credentials to back it up, so there isn't any confusion or question as to the validity of the information.
 * Fresh is a good example of environmental media that is clear and concise because farmers throughout the film give their reasoning for why they have decided to produce in alternative ways, which is nice because it not only presents the problems to the audience, but shows them that there is something else that can be done, there are solutions. Aside from farmers there is also the well known food and growing critic Michael Pollan and an economist as well. It's nice to have other experts to lend weight to the farmers' alternative practices and to further explain the kinks in the agro-food system.
 * Do the Math is a perfect example of environmental media that leaves the audience with a sense of inspiration and hope because not only do they make the issue very understandable, but the gives suggestions for action and show examples of people standing up in this issue with video of 350.org speeches and acts of civil disobedience at the White House. Bill McKibben even directly addresses the fact that this can be an overwhelming issue, and that when he finds himself depressed he finds that action and working with other people on the problems helps him. This is something that people already within the sustainability field struggle with, and it's nice that someone actually speaks on it.


 * 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]" **
 * (Word Count :280) **
 * Jon Stewart is poking at the issue that there isn't real information coming across in the mainstream media. The way that mainstream media is now presenting information is so that they just give the information to you without provoking some thought or questions in the audience. Heck, the film OutFoxed shows how FoxNews will interrupt and and cut the microphones of some of their guests once what they are saying strays from what FoxNews wants to hear and what they want their viewers to hear. Stewart and his media team are determined to spark some questioning and inquiry in their audience's mind's by presenting the news and then pointing out how ridiculous some of the events occur truly are. When they say "fertilizer" "so people can come along and growth things", Stewart means that their mission is to plant the thought provoking seed in the mind's of their audience in hopes that their viewers will then start to form their own questions and come to their own opinions on a matter instead of just taking their opinion verbatim from the newsmedia. I am very persuaded by the metaphor and since this class have started watching a lot of The Daily Show, and the showdowns with Bill O'Reilly just to witness how crude their tactics really are. Now Jon Stewart understands that comedy news shouldn't replace the newmedia as the primary source for news, but he does hope that the newsmedia would catch on to their ways and change so they they actually presented issues in an honestly fair and balanced way and allowed for questions and debate to occur, you know, so the public that's watching could actually learn something!


 * 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. **
 * *The Perception Factor: Climate Change Gets Personal. (Environmental Health Perspectives, 11/1/2010) **
 * [] **
 * *Heroes wanted in climate science story (USA Today, 11/20/2010) **
 * [] **

(Word Count: 388)
 * One of the reasons Americans are skeptical about climate change is because it is now involving a lot of research from the social sciences field which is seen as one of the "soft sciences" and not a "hard science". "Americans often are very selective about which sources of information they trust; they have incomplete, often oversimplified information; they don’t believe individual actions will make a difference; and/or they believe climate change won’t ever affect them or the people they know." (Cooney) A percentage of American's have a distrust of scientists in the news and are very selective about who they will get their news form in the first place based on political assocations, such as a conservative or liberal bias. This can be confusing to the public, because often conservative newsmedia will cover and favor climate change deniers and industry/business over other sources. The liberal newsmedia tries to be more fair and have sources and information on improvements in the environmental field and cover those controversies.
 * "... some groups of scientists, particularly climate researchers, might want to polish their story-telling skills. Where 97% of active climate scientists agree climate change is a reality and only 52% of the public say they agree, according to an Eos journal survey, something may have gone wrong in how scientists communicate to the public." (Vergano) So even when scientists and researchers are able to present information on climate change to society, their presentation style and language can do more to confuse than help the understanding of climate change. As I mentioned in another question, there is a knowledge and language gap between environmentalists and the public, and "sustainababble" can confuse it even more, so instead this article suggests to explain situations more like a story, but one where the public will retain the information. In short, climate scientists and environmentalists need to work on their communication skills.
 * Another knowledge gap is standing between Americans and understanding/believing in climate change, and that's the cutlutural knowledge gap. American's don't know much about how their society is organized, like how they get their food and what happens to their waste. This lack of understanding about our society is what seriously perpetuates skepticism, because if you have a blind spot to the reality of how society is ran, how can you see its issues?


 * 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 examples to illustrate your points. **
 * (Word Count: 441) **
 * The US government should find a way to guard against conflicting interests between government and the industries it should be regulating and one way might be to stop the revolving door between industry and government. Another would be to have a task force committed to just following the money from industry and its officials and take notice when a government official is bribed in order to keep corporate interests out of government and government more focused on what is good for society. When I was discussing this idea with my boyfriend, he said that we already have an agency that should be covering this, the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission), and my response was that they must really suck at their job!
 * Government should do away with the notion of the corporate citizen from the 14th Amendment and make it so CEO's are able to be persecuted for the crimes their companies are committing, then maybe government officials would think twice about becoming involved in the industry and maybe the lawbreaking and pollution happening in industry would decrease.
 * The government should not be subsidizing oil or soy and corn crops that undermine the farming and selling of healthy food in this nation. Instead the government should take the money and use it to invest in a transition to an energy industry based on sustainable resources. A good way to do that would be to have another 'New Deal' to kick start sustainability initiatives that provide jobs all around the country... like to help set up a smart grid and ease off of oil.
 * The government should mandate our health care system to consider environmental influences in their prognosis and record them if it is found to be the source of medical issues, that way hotspots where there are a concentration of environmental health issues can be tracked using GIS mapping through time and space in order to link health problems with industrial activity.
 * The government should mandate that their economic advisers use the Genuine Progress Indicator instead of the Gross Domestic Product to measure the well-being of society and the economy. This could help to break the consumerist cycle by showing that an increase in GDP isn't necessary for the increase in the happiness and well-being of society. Maybe then the government would start considering the environment over the economy.
 * The government should include in it's education reforms the need to include environmental history and systems thinking into the CORE curriculum. That way students are aware of how we have gotten to where we are today, and they should be able to make the connections to see the larger problems themselves.


 * 11). Describe the key message of Fresh, providing illustrative examples from the film, then evaluate its strategy and effectiveness as environmental media. **
 * (Word Count: 465) **
 * The central argument of Fresh was that aside from the mass corporate food production there is in our agricultural industry, there are alternative, healthier, and more sustainable ways of producing food. It has mainly farmers throughout the film that give their reasoning for why they have decided to produce in alternative ways, which is nice because it not only presents the problems to the audience, but shows them that there is something else that can be done, there are solutions. Aside from farmers there is also the well known food and growing critic Michael Pollan and an economist as well. It's nice to have other experts to lend weight to the farmers' alternative practices and to further explain the kinks in the agro-food system. The most compelling parts of this documentary was seeing the relief and happiness of the farmers when they get to explain their new methods of producing food as opposed to the corporate industrial farming methods that look like it sickens them to talk about. The look of relief and a clear conscious, that can't be faked and I bet a lot of farmers watching are going to want to get to that point themselves.
 * However, this documentary did little to represent the corporate and industrial farming side, besides including farmers that used to grow in their system. Including the other side always strengthens and argument, and gives insight to the audience as to the culture and reasoning for their growing methods, and I'm guessing would probably show that it comes down to greed and just not getting it, just not understanding the failures of their system because they look at it only from a business perspective, and one that couldn't be taking everything into account. This film could have also been improved if they included the resources available or if there's an almost separate system that exists to help farmers leave the corporate industrial model behind, like organizations that are there to provide the education and a helping hand. I know that there exists like a machine swapping system where you can rent most of what you need from a shard group of tools and machines. It could be helpful for farmers watching so they have a sense of who they could turn to for help, and it'd be nice to see an alternative system develop so alternative methods can reach more people.
 * I think that overall this film is an example of good environmental media because it explained the issues and the possible solutions currently available and left you with a sense of hope knowing that change is possible. The film used good sources to present to information with multiple perspectives, but they are a bit bias in that they didn't include a someone to represent the agro-food industry side.


 * 18. What attitudes and cultural constructs in the United States will environmental educators need to work against? Reference at least two films. Briefly describe at least one activity for k-12 students that would work against these attitudes and cultural constructs. **
 * (Word Count: 508) **
 * As Naomi Klein talks about in her TED Talk, Addicted to Risk, there is a dominating narrative that people in our society believe that climate change isn't going to affect them. In reality it will and already has affected everyone, people just don't take notice of it. In my high school, we had a history teacher that coordinated "Immigration Day", the first thing off the bus we had to line up at the school entrance as though we were immigrants waiting at the gates to Ellis Island trying to gain American citizenship. We had to go through different checkpoints where we had to answer questions, some of which was given to us, like the language we spoke would sometimes be Spanish or French. We ended up in the gym where we were grouped in sections of people that were turned away and those that made it to America. This activity could go hand in hand with the issues of environmental refugees, and designed in a way so that at the end they see the percentage of them that lost their land and culture, some of them their lives, as a result of climate change now, and what the number f environmental refugees will look like 50 years from now, still in their lifetime.
 * There is a dominating attitude that one person can't make a difference. But as Bill McKibben says in Do the Math, when people come together and bring forward action to fight for what they believe in, then they can make a difference. We've seen this throughout history with rebellions and civil disobedience, and even just through voting through our democratic process. I think that a good activity for students would be to show them the power of getting involved and coordinating the will of the people by having them be more engaged in their student government. In most k-12 schools, the study body doesn't get much of a say, even when going through their student government, so the school system itself would have to recognize that they do have a voice in order for this to work. Students should be given an assignment to create a project description that included something they didn't like about the school, how it could be improved or changed, and how to make that change happen through the student body. Then the grade's advisor could help the student body to carry out the project if the students wished to pursue it. This sounds like it would be boring for the students, but it actually isn't. I my elementary school, we all hated the playground we had, that was made of some metals, would get really hot in the sun so you couldn't play on it without burning yourself, and other issues. So though our student body and fundraising we were able to get a new playground for the school. In high school I always imagined changing the cafeteria system by starting a gardening group at school, and having a student farmer's market in our cafeteria... the possibilities are pretty endless.