Yup, I've been ridiculously wasteful recently. And I'm going to play the blame game, too.
When I first moved into my off-campus house 3 years ago, I was living with two very eco-friendly roommates, and they were such a great influence on me when it came to being wasteful. We had several house meetings where we discussed using as little energy in the house as we could manage, such as only running the air conditioning or heat whenever it was crucial and not to leave it running constantly. We used the dishes and took turns washing them, saving water in the process.
But now... I have different roommates... and my eco-friendly ways have taken a back seat to some other lifestyle choices I've made this semester.
When these roommates moved in last semester, I hadn't changed much. I was still aware of how much energy the house used and I washed my dishes. But one roommate in particular always accused me of leaving a pile of dirty dishes in the sink, when the culprit was actually his fraternity brother (another roommate) whom he always stuck up for. I got so fed up with it that I stopped using dishes completely and converted to paper plates, plastic cups, and even plastic silverware. That is so much more waste than I used to produce and my roommates would have a stroke if they found out what I've been doing.
Every morning, I fix a breakfast drink in a disposable plastic water bottle (which I drank the water out of the day before, most likely). I used to rinse out the water bottle when I was done and throw it in a second trash can which I bought for the kitchen specifically to be used for recycling. But these roommates have been using both trash cans for garbage, so I've gotten to the point where I just throw away the water bottles when I'm done.
Then for lunch, I'll waste a paper plate, a plastic cup, and about two plastic utensils. Same with dinner. Probably also a to-go-box from Margarita's.
So daily, that's 1 water bottle (used twice), two paper plates, two plastic cups, and 4 to 6 plastic utensils that all gets thrown away. DAILY.
Then a twenty minute shower on top of that. Wasteful.
In a year, that would be 365 water bottles, 730 paper plates and plastic cups, 1460 to 2190 pieces of plastic silverware THROWN AWAY if I did this routine every day.
And assuming my showerhead uses 5 gallons per minute (considering it is an old house), that is 36,500 gallons of water used per year for showering alone. Not to mention brushing teeth, washing hands (which I do a lot, having pets and all), and flushing a toilet.
Basically, I'm really wasteful. But instead of trying to do better, my priority has shifted to avoiding my roommates at all possible costs, therefore avoiding the kitchen as much as possible too. I've even put a mini-fridge in my room so I don't have to share with them. More electricity being used there.
But I keep telling myself that once I'm married (2 years to go!), we will be so much more energy efficient and so much less wasteful that it will make up for my lack of eco-friendliness this past year.
Plus I'm kicking out these roommates soon, so things could change sooner than I think :)
I think in comparison to the rest of the world, I'm currently probably a little above average when it comes to being wasteful. At least other students on campus with a meal plan don't use paper products as much as I do, and people with their own homes and apartments probably don't avoid their kitchens as much as I do. So I'm sure I'm more wasteful than the general public these days. Oopsies.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Monday, March 24, 2014
What is the Value of Money?
The value of money can be defined many different ways by many different people. People assign value to things based on the worth or impact that object has upon their life. Most people in America value their cell phones more than sliced bread because they depend on it so much throughout their daily lives, whereas some children in third world countries would have a much higher value for bread because it is rare and sustaining. So for this example, value is measured by worth and is a matter of perception. The value of money may be literally determined by the government (a penny is worth a cent; if a bill displays the number 100, it is worth $100), but the value that each individual places on money is determinant of many factors. Such factors include socioeconomic status, financial stability, number of children in the family, employment, and even one's interests and preferences.
My mother, for example, LOVES to buy vases for decorations (though most end up in the garage), and would probably be willing to pay a nice sum of money for a beautiful hand-crafted, one-of-a-kind vase. I, however, would NOT. I buy cheap, and if I want a vase, I will go find myself a cheap vase to utilize. I am not interested in vases, like my mom is, and would therefore not pay as much money to procure a vase. But since she has a preference for beautiful decorations, she places more monetary value on them. Other factors in relation to this example include employment and financial stability. My mom has a job and a fairly steady income (as a flight attendant, she chooses when to work so her paycheck isn't always the same amount, but depends on how much she flies between paychecks), whereas I am a college student without a job and who is dependent on student loans to pay rent and buy food. So with less money to burn, I value $20 more than my mom values $20 because I am going to be more conscious about how much I can buy with that twenty bucks. Some value quantity over quality, and some value quality over quantity.
The value of money is also a matter of demand. As a business major, I have studied enough economics and marketing to know that if demand goes up for a particular good or service, the price for that product is going to rise as well. Business is all about making profits. Likewise, if the demand for a product decreases, the price too will decrease- and not always globally, but in certain areas. Peanut butter is really expensive in France because it is not as common there, but in America, peanut butter is its own separate food group and is a necessity for every household (except for people with peanut allergies- poor things). It is more common in the U.S. and is therefore cheaper. Another example is Rosetta Stone, which costs hundreds of dollars here, but which can be sold for $5 in some other country (mom has mentioned this a few times, I just can't remember which country it is).
Individual costs and prices of money also used to be a lot higher, and one could purchase a lot more with a dollar back then, versus a dollar today. I recently read something online that a college student posted about how tuition rates have drastically increased since the 1970s. The student posted on Reddit, "This is interesting. A credit hour in 1979 at MSU was 24.50, adjusted for inflation that is 79.23 in today dollars. One credit hour today costs 428.75." [[The rest of the article backed up these numbers and further expanded on the subject- if you're interested here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/the-myth-of-working-your-way-through-college/359735/]]
So, in short, the value of money is an individual perspective that can be assigned to an object or service or person based on the worth that each individual places on that item. The monetary value of products can be labeled by companies, countries, or the government, but the value that each individual places on an object may determine the items they place in their lives and the things they avoid. Our individual perceptions of the value of money and the things we buy with it are essential in shaping the business world and in shaping ourselves.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Machu Picchu - civilization origins
Also known as the Lost City of the Incas
Machu Picchu is a mystery. There are several different theories as to how it came about and why it was found empty centuries later.
It was build in the 1400s, but remained unknown to the rest of the world until 1911. It was inhabited by Incas and is located 8,000 feet above sea level, and is in the midst of a tropical mountain forest on the eastern slopes of the Peruvian Andes.
Many theories about the reason the city was built suggest it was for an emperor and his family, though it has enough room for a small town. " Archaeologists have speculated that Machu Picchu was a temple or sanctuary for high priests and women who have been referred to as Virgins of the Sun, though more recent research has convinced many that it was built as an estate for the Incan emperor Pachacuti, who ruled from 1438 until 1471 or 1472."
The Incas probably chose this location because it is well-hidden, and when the Spanish conquerors invaded, they never found the civilization of Machu Picchu. With a plethora of stone available, they built the city: over 170 buildings and thousands of steps. They shaped stones out of the white granite so that they fit together so perfectly and tightly that one cannot stick a knife in between the stones. In addition, they did not have chisels, nor iron, and used river rocks to shape other rocks.
Along with all the buildings and steps, they build over 600 terraces on which they grew crops (likely maize and potatoes), and which kept the city from falling off the mountain. They build the terraces in layers: first a coarse rock base (which allowed water flow and stability), next they piled on smaller stones, a layer of gravel, a layer of sand, and finally a layer of soil on top.
They also had a sophisticated irrigation system, built 16 fountains, and received about 79 inchces of rainfall annually. The system is far too complex for me to summarize (or fully understand) other than saying: They build a series of canals and channels leading from a spring into the 16 fountains that they built. Their drainage system is similarly constructed but separated from the clean water for obvious reasons (wouldn't want any accidents when it comes to clean water). A more detailed description of the water system can be found here: http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/machu/
Machu Picchu is a mystery. There are several different theories as to how it came about and why it was found empty centuries later.
It was build in the 1400s, but remained unknown to the rest of the world until 1911. It was inhabited by Incas and is located 8,000 feet above sea level, and is in the midst of a tropical mountain forest on the eastern slopes of the Peruvian Andes.
Many theories about the reason the city was built suggest it was for an emperor and his family, though it has enough room for a small town. " Archaeologists have speculated that Machu Picchu was a temple or sanctuary for high priests and women who have been referred to as Virgins of the Sun, though more recent research has convinced many that it was built as an estate for the Incan emperor Pachacuti, who ruled from 1438 until 1471 or 1472."
The Incas probably chose this location because it is well-hidden, and when the Spanish conquerors invaded, they never found the civilization of Machu Picchu. With a plethora of stone available, they built the city: over 170 buildings and thousands of steps. They shaped stones out of the white granite so that they fit together so perfectly and tightly that one cannot stick a knife in between the stones. In addition, they did not have chisels, nor iron, and used river rocks to shape other rocks.
Along with all the buildings and steps, they build over 600 terraces on which they grew crops (likely maize and potatoes), and which kept the city from falling off the mountain. They build the terraces in layers: first a coarse rock base (which allowed water flow and stability), next they piled on smaller stones, a layer of gravel, a layer of sand, and finally a layer of soil on top.
They also had a sophisticated irrigation system, built 16 fountains, and received about 79 inchces of rainfall annually. The system is far too complex for me to summarize (or fully understand) other than saying: They build a series of canals and channels leading from a spring into the 16 fountains that they built. Their drainage system is similarly constructed but separated from the clean water for obvious reasons (wouldn't want any accidents when it comes to clean water). A more detailed description of the water system can be found here: http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/machu/
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Gifford Pinchot and the Environment Movement
"The greatest good of the greatest number in the long run"
This is the principle by which Pinchot contributed the environmental movement. "Pinchot set out to prove that forestry could both produce timber for harvest and maintain the forest for future generations" (1). He studied forestry and was very adamant about conserving as many national forests as possible. While working under President Theodore Roosevelt, Pinchot was appointed head of the Division of Forestry (in the Department of Agriculture) and raised the number of conserved national forests from 32 to 149 in about twelve years time. He was later appointed chairman of the National Conservation Committee and was in charge of keeping inventory of natural resources in the U.S. When he was fired by President Taft, Pinchot created his own organization called the National Conservation Association so that he might still continue to have influence over the conservation of forests. The two main goals of this organization were: "to give the national forests over to the states, and to control power development on government property" (1).
As head of the Forest Service, Pinchot traveled all over the country educating people about the many uses of public lands, such as grazing, agriculture and lumbering. He believed that forest management should be profitable, and by teaching this utilitarian approach, he upset many environment preservationists in the process.
(1) http://www.fs.fed.us/gt/local-links/historical-info/gifford/gifford.shtml
(2) http://www.frumforum.com/gifford-pinchot-conservation-and-contention/
This is the principle by which Pinchot contributed the environmental movement. "Pinchot set out to prove that forestry could both produce timber for harvest and maintain the forest for future generations" (1). He studied forestry and was very adamant about conserving as many national forests as possible. While working under President Theodore Roosevelt, Pinchot was appointed head of the Division of Forestry (in the Department of Agriculture) and raised the number of conserved national forests from 32 to 149 in about twelve years time. He was later appointed chairman of the National Conservation Committee and was in charge of keeping inventory of natural resources in the U.S. When he was fired by President Taft, Pinchot created his own organization called the National Conservation Association so that he might still continue to have influence over the conservation of forests. The two main goals of this organization were: "to give the national forests over to the states, and to control power development on government property" (1).
As head of the Forest Service, Pinchot traveled all over the country educating people about the many uses of public lands, such as grazing, agriculture and lumbering. He believed that forest management should be profitable, and by teaching this utilitarian approach, he upset many environment preservationists in the process.
(1) http://www.fs.fed.us/gt/local-links/historical-info/gifford/gifford.shtml
(2) http://www.frumforum.com/gifford-pinchot-conservation-and-contention/
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Capitalism vs. Communism
Which would better facilitate a sustainable future?
Quick definitions:
Capitalism- competition between sellers to get more money from the buyers. A free market economy in which sellers are usually operated by private sellers.
Communism- equal work, equal pay, equal tax, and equal distribution of everything for everyone. Government is in control of the economy.
Pros for Capitalism in maintaining a sustainable future:
-Due to their free market economy, sellers are in competition with each other to have the best product for the best price. In accomplishing this, sellers learn to use their resources wisely, trying not to spend too much in making a product so that they can still sell it fairly cheap to attract customers.
Cons for Capitalism:
-Also due to the competition between sellers, there will inevitably be winners and losers. And over time, the winners win big and the losers lose a lot, and the end result is a large gap between the wealthy and those who did not benefit as much from the competition. In other words, resources are very unevenly distributed among society and successful competitors reflect the allocations of resources.
Pros for Communism in maintaining a sustainable future:
-As the book describes, "sustainable development" is about both equity between generations and equity within generations. If the government is in control of the distribution of wealth and resources, there is the possibility that they will allocate everything wisely and conserve enough resources for future generations, while still providing ample amounts for the current generation to survive peacefully.
Cons for Communism:
-The government decides what is fair, including the distribution of resources, and therefore companies do not exactly get to decide the amount of specific resources they are allowed to use, but have to make do with what the government allows them to use. Sellers are more limited in improving the quality and price of their products when their use of resources is limited as such.
In Conclusion:
Concerning the preservation of resources for future generations, the communist approach is probably more appropriately suited for sustainability because the decision would be in the hands of the government, and hopefully they would elect to allocate available resources sparingly, allowing future generations to do the same. This way, natural resources would last for a long time, hopefully long enough to find suitable substitutes to use in our daily activities.
However, with the large number of companies and industries that use natural resources, it is considerably difficult for the government to accurately allocate sufficient resources to certain companies. If this is the case, the resources that are being put to use for the current generation, may not be utilized wisely or efficiently. Therefore, the resources that are being used could be wasted if not in the proper hands- those being the sellers that keep striving to make their products better while also using less resources (the winners).
Quick definitions:
Capitalism- competition between sellers to get more money from the buyers. A free market economy in which sellers are usually operated by private sellers.
Communism- equal work, equal pay, equal tax, and equal distribution of everything for everyone. Government is in control of the economy.
Pros for Capitalism in maintaining a sustainable future:
-Due to their free market economy, sellers are in competition with each other to have the best product for the best price. In accomplishing this, sellers learn to use their resources wisely, trying not to spend too much in making a product so that they can still sell it fairly cheap to attract customers.
Cons for Capitalism:
-Also due to the competition between sellers, there will inevitably be winners and losers. And over time, the winners win big and the losers lose a lot, and the end result is a large gap between the wealthy and those who did not benefit as much from the competition. In other words, resources are very unevenly distributed among society and successful competitors reflect the allocations of resources.
Pros for Communism in maintaining a sustainable future:
-As the book describes, "sustainable development" is about both equity between generations and equity within generations. If the government is in control of the distribution of wealth and resources, there is the possibility that they will allocate everything wisely and conserve enough resources for future generations, while still providing ample amounts for the current generation to survive peacefully.
Cons for Communism:
-The government decides what is fair, including the distribution of resources, and therefore companies do not exactly get to decide the amount of specific resources they are allowed to use, but have to make do with what the government allows them to use. Sellers are more limited in improving the quality and price of their products when their use of resources is limited as such.
In Conclusion:
Concerning the preservation of resources for future generations, the communist approach is probably more appropriately suited for sustainability because the decision would be in the hands of the government, and hopefully they would elect to allocate available resources sparingly, allowing future generations to do the same. This way, natural resources would last for a long time, hopefully long enough to find suitable substitutes to use in our daily activities.
However, with the large number of companies and industries that use natural resources, it is considerably difficult for the government to accurately allocate sufficient resources to certain companies. If this is the case, the resources that are being put to use for the current generation, may not be utilized wisely or efficiently. Therefore, the resources that are being used could be wasted if not in the proper hands- those being the sellers that keep striving to make their products better while also using less resources (the winners).
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Place of Interest to Me
I love Australia and have always been interested in that area of the world, though I've never been there. I wanted to post something from Australia as my place of interest, so I did some research and discovered how rich Australia is in minerals. In fact, in 2011, Australia had the world’s largest economic resources of gold, iron ore, lead, rutile, zircon, nickel, uranium and zinc. However, what then caught my attention did not have to do with the minerals (though I would still be interested in learning more about their place in the global economy), but with the Murray-Darling Basin and its water issues. For a long time, the main purpose of the water from the basin was for domestic and agricultural needs, and became over-allocated for human use. This impacted the environment, and became even worse due to droughts, decreasing the amount of water in the rivers and increasing the salinity of the remaining water. As a result, there are now many endangered animal species in the area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)