This is the place-
A cyber space,
For
Your
Weekly
Statement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog has been created as a forum for students at the University of Michigan enrolled in a course titled "Technology and The Environment", designed by Professor Joe Trumpey within the school of art and design. This section is lead my graduate student instructor Ashley L. Lieber
18 comments:
When Trumpey spoke about coffee and the relationship between the average American consuming Starbucks and the Ethiopian coffee bean producers, I could not help but think of scaling economies.
For instance, the GDP per capita of the United States is now around $40,000 USD a year, whereas an average Ethiopian makes around $800 USD a year.
Naturally, $4 for a simple drink to an Ethiopian seems like an enormous sum of money. It makes up .5% of their yearly income, just a few weeks of such spending habits would deplete their income quickly. Yet for an American, this same cup of coffee would cost just .01% of their income.
In a basic economy scale though, the Ethiopian would be paying roughly the same percentage of their income given market factors. So take that .01% and they would be paying about .08 cents for a cup of coffee, which is actually much closer to what is paid in Ethiopia—ten cents as Trumpey mentioned.
It's rather simple, if they made coffee for $4, no one there would buy it. The prices reaches its equilibrium with the purchasing power of the local economies.
Also what must be considered, four dollar coffee at Starbucks is not your black-like-the-night-sky variety. Rather, it is the intensely sugared treat known as 'candy coffee.' This is not typical of what an Ethiopian would do with their drink, nor is it reflective of every day consumption.
Those sorts of 'treats' are not purchased on a daily basis. Coffee itself is with more regularity, but a small or medium coffee at most places costs between $1 and $2.50. Even the heart palpitating, caffeine bender inducing large drinks are at a max of three dollars. So the figure to begin with is misleading.
What would be a better use of statistics is to say, essentially we pay the same percentage of our income for the same drink, despite the fact ours travels from an entire world away. Clearly, someone is being cut out of the equation.
It's hard not to think twice about that cup of coffee; it is so enmeshed and ubiquitous in our society there's hardly incentive to question that abundance. With Trumpey's statistics on coffee and farmers around the globe, I realized our dependence on coffee goes far deeper than just a caffeine addiction.
It's incredible to think that the fair trade organization has benefited 7.5 million farmers and producers in its #3.62 billion sales, approximately a 42% year-to-year income raise. But it is only a fraction in the scheme of physically traded merchandise.
But since I don't personally drink coffee, all this information felt coldly impersonal, and remained merely statistics, albeit important. I looked into other fair trade organizations, and came across Ten Thousand Villages. Here was the personal impact I was looking for--I've been inside Ten Thousand Villages, looked through the traded goods, seen pictures of families producing these merchandise. This is a store unlike any of its neighbors down on main street (and it happens to be across the street from a Starbucks) for its volunteer-run and fairly traded items.
What's unbelievable to me is that this production was started over 60 years ago by one woman, from the back of her truck, and has now become the successful non-profit enterprise that supports over 120 artisans in 35 countries. It now has over 80 retail store locations, and uses their profits from sales to increase purchases from artisans. In the 2006-2007 fiscal year, they did this by increasing their purchases by one million dollars to artisans.
Although Ten Thousand Villages is mainly handicrafts, they too sell fairly traded coffee. What if we could make that nationwide?
Betsy Peters
I was relieved to hear this week that something is being done somewhere about the problems facing our world. Although Latin American coffee farmers are not making nearly what they should be for their crops, I was gladdened to hear that organizations such as Fair Trade are working to correct these problems. The statistic about what we pay for a cup of coffee didn’t really surprise me… it seems like we pay so much more in America than other parts of the world for every type of good or service you can imagine. All the same, I was happy to hear that things aren’t as futile as they could be in the coffee growing industry.
I was also fascinated by all the work Professor Trumpey showed us of artists who use food as their subjects. I particularly enjoyed Jud Nelson’s “Wonderbread.” I could hardly believe he could carve something so realistic looking out of marble! After seeing that image I really wanted to see more of Nelson’s work, so I went online and searched for him. I came up with these links- his work just gets more and more incredible!!
http://www.artsconnected.org/toolkit/images/jud_nelson.jpg
http://www.meiselgallery.com/LKMG/nelson/nelsonImagesFrameset.html
Karin Alpert
ADP III
Weekly Response #4
This past week a lot of new information was being discussed in lecture, however still mostly staying on the topic of food. There was a little bit of a refresher regarding the fishing farms from the week before, but other than that, Trumpey moved on to discuss eating of season or from a distance, coffee in relationship to fair trade, and a little bit about Cuba’s organic revolution as well as Wal-Mart as the nation’s largest grocer store. Although, what caught my attention the most were all the artists and different art work Trumpey introduced to us in class. It was refreshing and very interesting to finally see how exactly this course related to art and design and why it is required for an art school student. Up until this point I never truly saw the connection or understood why as art students it was important for us to take a course on environment and technology.
Trumpey showed as many incredible images and a big variety of concepts and mediums all of which were in some way related to the environment. The artist Banksy caught my attention the most. The British graffiti artist’s stencil images were incredible and I loved that they addressed such important political issues and on such a large degree in terms of location and scale, and of course the fact that his work was all graffiti rather than a canvas painting in a gallery. His chose to do so makes him extremely controversial but also in my opinion an exceptional artist who is truly stepping over the line to get his thoughts out into the world. Using such public as well as prominent spaces makes sure he reaches out to all viewers rather than just art viewers who walk into galleries. His ideas are all well thought out and executed causing much debate over subject matter and raises the question of is this art or is this graffiti and vandalism. The importance is that Banksy is successful at confronting the world with major political issues about our world that everyone should be aware of and concerned of.
I am fascinated by Banksy and love his work! I am extremely excited to try and see some of his work in person, as I will be spending my second semester of this year abroad in London. Hopefully I can go on a Banksy scavenger hunt.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/menu.html
Sean Thompson
Environmental problems are often closely linked to economics and business. Big businesses concerned only about their bottom line can often cause a lot of damage to the environment but this same greed can also do some good. For instance Wal-Mart, one of the largest, most bloated, super retailers, has begun to see the economic advantages of going green in order to cut done on energy use and thus save money. Also seeing the trend of public opinion shifting towards environmental awareness, Wal-Mart is stocking more organically grown produce as well as stocking compact fluorescent bulbs that are more energy efficient. This shift reminds me f the ways in which McDonald’s influenced the practices of livestock feed lots for the better. It is rather ironic that corporations that many are so critical of have started a great trend; one, which I hope, will continue to spread as a model to other corporate super powers.
Yet another industry that is having a damaging effect of the environment is the coffee business. In order to increase yield from their plots of land many coffee farmers are growing intensified coffee crops. The problem is that unlike traditional coffee that grows in the shade of a forest canopy, the new crop grows in the sun. This means that a lot of deforestation is happening to make way for the intensified coffee and whenever you destroy a forest biodiversity takes a dive. This is not to mention the new crop requires much more pesticides, fertilizers and other toxins that are being released into the ecosystem. Unfortunately for the farmers, this way of farming is much less resistant to climate change and drought due to the fact that the stabilizing forest canopy is gone. Also the large yields tend to flood the market making the price of coffee drop. It all seems quite useless and ultimately destructive for coffee farmers to practice this type of farming. If people are going to continue to live on this planet we are going to have to adjust the way we think and look to the future.
Last week was very refreshing in the fact that we were finally introduced to works created in response to the environment and food. It was interesting to see the vastly different approaches to the issues at hand. I know this wasn’t in our lecture with Trumpey, but one item I found particular interest in was those prefab houses we saw briefly in discussion. What was most interesting about it was the fact that these designers took something typically known for its low quality, bad fitment, poor design, etc. and took it out of the trailer park and brought it back to life in the 21st century, retaining the low cost, but greatly improving all the other aspects of prefab housing. I just can get over how beautiful these homes are and the benefits these must have with housing construction in regards to the environment. With these homes being “pre-calculated”, materials can be used much more efficiently than with custom homes and not to mention the choice of materials seem much more recyclable/removable than the typical wood frame ranch houses builders make everyday in Michigan subdivisions. Their compact design also allows them to fit into tighter spaces in urban settings, and between trees in rural landscapes. I realize you can’t completely standardize these houses for the various climates in the U.S., but models for specific regions could reduce the consumption of traditional housing materials, especially wood.
P.S. Drink fair trade coffee too…
http://www.kierantimberlake.com/pl_sustainability/cellophane_house_10.html
I had never really thought of coffee as a naturally occurring plant before. In my mind it has always been produced much like our apples or cherries. Now that I know the plant can be grown in a forest setting I feel as if the larger, more efficient plant is betraying its own kind. It out produces its shade loving kin, and destroys their habitat so that it can have a plain to grow in. I feel as if this is a running theme throughout ADP III, all of our crops and animals are grown on land that once had an abundance of diverse life, but now are replaced by the crop that we believe is valuable. Our ignorance of native species doesn’t end at the farm; our cities are an example of our apathy. We are able to poor concrete over miles of land and not even think about what used to inhabit the place, or how we might be impacting them and any species connected to them. Not only are we killing of our immediate surroundings, we are also affecting the chain that connects them to the rest of the world. For example; if you kill all of the insects in a given area, then you will also be getting rid of the animals that eat those insects. This is illustrated in the government’s attempt to exterminate the Native Americans by killing their livelihood: the bison. To me, this part of the lecture was particularly horrifying. Knowing what has been done, and what is still going on, is hard for me to take. I now feel extremely guilty for living the way I do. I know that I personally did not make these choices, but my lifestyle allows for these acts to continue.
Erin Murray
What caught my eye most about the lecture last Wednesday was the British “reverse” graffiti artist, Paul “moose” Curtis. At first I did not understand what I was looking at, and just thought it was a bunch of trees painted on the side of a wall next to a highway. When Professor Trumpey explained what I was looking at, I was really intrigued. I thought about a couple of things. One, I realized how dirty that wall must have been, the color change between the positive and negative space is very distinct, and it was shocking at how dirty that particular wall was. It interested me that the artist was making art by cleaning. His methods are not harmful to the environment, it is not permanent, and it is enjoyable to look at. He is actually helping out the environment by cleaning the grime off the underpass, as long as he is using environmentally friendly cleaning products. I would be interested in seeing more of his work, and at what scale it is done.
The lectures each week, make me question what it means to “go green” or eat organically. I try to buy foods locally, I drink fair trade coffee, but I still feel like it is not great for the environment. For example, cleaning products. There is a “green” line of cleaning products, but what makes it green, besides that the packaging is made from recycled products? And is this product actually better to use, and is it more environmentally friendly? The reverse graffiti artist is making a statement about the environment, but are his practices environmentally friendly or is he sort of a hypocrite?
Finally. We have started to discuss people who respond to our diseased world: Jasper John, Wangari Maatnai, Jud Nelson Shehzad Noorani, even Dr. Seuss! Last Wednesday was a breath of fresh air. Professor Trumpey introduced us to artists and every day people that are addressing environmental issues rather than focusing solely on the negative matters on Earth. However, Monday’s lecture was less than optimistic. Once again we are told that the efforts we are putting in to contribute to a better world are, in actually, still horrendous acts that cause pain and suffering to otherwise imaginary individuals thousands of miles away. On one hand we are told to recycle. On the other hand we are told that by recycling we are exposing poor women and children to extremely harsh and toxic chemicals. This makes one ponder the thought of doing away with recycling all together: it is a lose/lose situation. Don’t get me wrong, I have tremendous sympathy for these women and children, and I am grateful for the fact that it has been brought to my attention, for now I am able to contemplate what I can do to help and then act upon it. Most of our society, even in light of this information, would merely proclaim “aww… that’s sad” and continue on with their ways. But really, what are we to do?
In more positive news we have been shown artists and designers reusing old cargo containers for home construction. I find this to be very creative and a nice solution to the disposal of these large bins. Why is it that in today’s technologically advanced society we are not able to come up with more creative (or even just plain practical) ways of dealing with unwanted items? The issue of batteries seems fairly simple to me: rechargeable batteries! This would significantly reduce the amount of batteries thrown away, meaning much less toxins that go into the earth and less women and children harmed by them. Then again rechargeable batteries means more energy is used by charging them, the battery companies are making a considerable amount less in earnings and the women and children in Bangladesh are out of jobs. Oh, the never-ending circle.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Recycling-Gone-Bad-Where-Does-Our-High-Tech-Waste-Go-38885.shtml
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.04.27.RealRecycling-X.gif
In the last few lectures Professor Trumpey began to integrate more and more artists into the discussion of technology and the environment. This has been enormously useful for me in terms of understanding how these issues that seem very distant and out of our control often can be in our control in small ways. From today's lectures especially I found that the architect's solution to reusing old storage containers to be very intriguing-- a great way to respond to the issue of where the containers should end up while still creatively using one's own skill set. But the most striking example for me was Dr. Suess's the Lorax. If my parents read Dr. Seuss to me as child, I don't really remember-- so I wasn't familiar with the story in class. Hearing the synopsis of the story was somewhat frightening. While children's stories do definitely deal with somewhat tough issues at times, I felt uneasy about this story. It seems slightly unfair to, in a sense, burden young children with that kind of issue. But this definitely falls into a gray area with me, especially after hearing the timber industry's response to the Lorax. Perhaps then having the Lorax is a positive thing. Regardless I suppose children will eventually be influenced in terms of the environment-- I remember receiving seeds and small plants in elementary school that we were told to plant to "help" the environment. It has really opened my eyes in terms of realizing how some of our artistic decisions might impact potentially impact our audience in all types of art-- beyond the scope of the class discussion of the environment.
I feel like todays lecture gave very mixed messages. Trumpey has always stressed the importance of recycling and how important it is for the environment. So I was very confused when he went over slides showing where all of our e-waste and recycled materials go, and how it is hurting people overseas. It makes me feel like there is nothing that I can do. In one hand, if I don't recycle, Im polluting the world and slowly stripping the environment of its materials, but if I do recycle, I'm feeding mercury to children in China.
Same goes with the containers being remade into homes. It's awesome that the containers are being remade into something functional, but as Eric pointed out, they could be recycled and put back into circulation.
The same goes for the slide which presented things like disposable diapers vs. cloth, or paper vs. plastic. It makes it seem as if there is no right answer.
Working across the street at Beanster’s, I often encounter many a caffeine addicted character. After all, we are a society of addictions and coffee is a very common one. I’m happy to say that our coffee is fair trade at Beanster’s. Believe it or not, people do care. I’ve had a range of customers. One, thinking we were still an Espresso Royale, told us angrily that he refused to drink our coffee because it wasn’t fair trade. He seemed quite pleased and taken aback when we told him we were not Espresso Royale, but Beanster’s and DID serve fair trade coffee. I greatly respected his insistence on drinking only fair trade products. On the other side of the spectrum, one crazy customer once asked if we served anything that wasn’t fair trade. When we told her no, she replied, “Oh, I just like to taste the blood and sweat of laborers.” Perhaps this was a joke intended to induce laughter, but it is in fact a serious issue.
I do find it all a bit ridiculous sometimes - the amount people are willing to pay for caffeinated drinks. I myself occasionally enjoy them, but it’s hardly anything I would entertain on a frequent basis. What really gets me is when people order decaffeinated drinks. Call me crazy, but regular coffee does not taste that fantastic. (I prefer sugary versions of coffee myself, if I need the caffeine). I believe it truly shows how addicted people have become when they want a bitter taste without the lure of caffeine. You might as well drink the sugary syrup instead and just leave out the middle man. I suppose it is all just part of the novelty that has become coffee.
I was also pleased to see the work of Bansky featured. I found out about his work last year and was quite captivated by his powerful images. I suppose one could argue that spray paint may not be the most environmentally friendly medium, but I admire that much of his work provokes thought and criticizes our current, often rather disturbing, society and it’s problems. I feel all too often we are too far removed from harsh bits of reality, and we need to see images like the ones we do in class to shake ourselves out of our happy ignorant lives. The lecture this morning affected me deeply enough that seeing a commercial for batteries made me flash back to the image of the woman and her child recycling batteries in Bangladesh. I usually just throw old batteries away, to avoid the acid. It never occurred to me that batteries would end up in third world countries where people endangered their very lives to salvage parts that could be reused and resold. When these images stay in our minds, we are more likely to take an action to change. I do believe Banksy, on a smaller scale is providing similar thought provoking images to his audiences.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm
Wednesday’s lecture focused on “green” acts, which have taken effect. Walmart has put more and more organic foods on the shelf, along with energy efficient fluorescent bulbs. These acts are bringing more awareness to the public about saving the environment and little changes we can each make. Trumpy also showed us artists who have brought awareness to the problems in our environment. The artist that I found most interesting was Paul Curtis. He made a landscape on the side of a wall by simply removing some of the dirt and grime in the shapes of trees. His work was so intriguing, and he also did a favor in cleaning the wall. Passing by this work would definitely take my attention and make me think twice about our environment and the problems it is facing. Another issue affecting the environment is the coffee industry. Americans drink so much coffee and don’t ever think twice about where or how it was grown. Because the coffee demand is so high these days—Ann Arbor, alone, has 10 Starbucks—the farming processes are taking a toll on the environment. Trees are being destroyed in order to open up more land for farming. This eliminates the shade, under which coffee naturally grows. More herbicides and fertilizers are also being used, putting more chemicals into the environment, and furthering environmental damage. However, there have been improvements to the system, such as the Fair Trade. Coffee with this label means it was produced by a small family, based operation, without the use of environmentally harmful chemicals. These farmers also receive more per dollar on sold coffee. Overall, I am relieved to see actions bringing more awareness to the environment, but not everyone in the world is going to change their lifestyle by being more green. Are these actions even making a noticeable difference to the environment? Or are the products labeled “green” in Walmart, and the coffee labeled with a Fair Trade sticker, just a way to make us feel better about the damage we do to the environment each day?
Last week’s lectures grabbed my interest in the discussion we had on Walmart and it’s practice. From previous knowledge, I know Walmart as a corporation that is bad for local businesses. Walmart typically moves into a new town with low prices and begins to raise the prices as local competition goes out of business because they cannot compete with Walmart. While I believe it is up to consumers to make good choices in the product and businesses they support and buy, it is hard to watch local economies crumble because there are many other negative consequences that come with this situation. Not only do locals loose jobs, which ultimately leads to a lower economic status of the given location, but also we begin to consume goods which are transported from farther away using more of our already scarce fuel which drives up the price of our own oil. So in this case are we really saving money? While we may pay less for our groceries and goods, we have fewer jobs in the local economy, which means we have less money with which to be supported by and we also have a higher price to pay for the energy that we use on a daily basis.
Because of these issues I have a hard time believing Walmart can be good for our country, but some interesting ideas came up in lecture about the “green” movement. The idea of one stop shopping is not all bad because we save fuels because we aren’t getting goods to multiple locations and getting goods from multiple locations. Also, as Walmart understands the need to reduce it’s overhead costs in order to offer consumers the lowest prices possible, they have begun to implement new energy efficient practices within their stores that may cost more up front but which, in the long run save energy and therefore cuts costs.
In considering the practices of Walmart, the paradoxical nature of the balance of economic and environmental efficiency is conveyed. Like many issues we are facing today it is quite difficult to find the lowest price, that allows a broad, fair job market, but which is also environmentally safe and friendly.
Kelsey Sovereign
Last Wednesday’s lecture definitely sparked my thoughts on the quality of organic products, and the difference between local and organic items. I have always thought that organic was the way to go, and that any product that had an organic label was significantly better than those that lacked it. However I am now starting to question if the quality is that much better. On recent trips to Whole Foods, I have come across a lot of locally grown products that differ in taste and in appearance than the items labeled “organic”. For example, I bought a bag of apples that were picked in a nearby orchard, and they seemed more untouched and more authentic than the organic apples sitting next to them. We are definitely seduced by labels. These organic apples may have been grown hundreds or thousands of miles away, and transported under less than excellent conditions. Professor Trumpey mentioned “innocent labels” that entice us, that present their products in a more pure and more healthy light, that may or may not be as good as they seem. We never question if these messages are actually authentic. Persuasive visuals have a huge impact on what we consume. I am starting to question where my food is actually coming from, and I am starting to gravitate towards items that are more locally grown. It is also inspiring me to grow more of my own produce at home.
Caroline Aulis
For the group project, my group is making a website specifically for college students. We will be going to popular restaurants on campus and interviewing students, workers, and managers of the restaurant and finding out the nutritional facts about the food they serve. There are five of us in a group and we are each focusing on a specific type of food. The five types are chinese, sandwiches, pizza, soup and salads, and ice cream/frozen yogurt/soft serve. We will be comparing the different restaurants and it will be a positive and useful resource. We do not want this to be a negative website, saying that all food on campus is bad for you, but we will state what is healthier, or the better option. I will be focusing on ice cream/frozen yogurt and soft serve. I will go to an ice cream plant, and talk to employees there, as well as going to places on campus that serve these desserts, including the dining hall. I will also go to a grocery store, and see the ice creams students can buy.
When we have completed our individual research we will all come together and create the website together. We have talked about including video interviews as well.
Lecture reaction 10 04 It’s clear that there is no one answer to the problems our planet faces. In fact, the problems and their solutions seem to be mixed up into one-another. Today we looked at the organic market and how the term and meaning has become bastardized into a marketing tool. It brings up the question: is nothing sacred? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no, illustrated by the large companies that have introduced organic food to their shelves that does not meet organic standards, or the fact that to get a USDA Certified Organic sticker on your product, you have to pay a certifier, which puts smaller farms at a disadvantage, drives the cost of organic food up, and makes it harder for consumers who want organics to make the buying decisions that reflect their desires. Ironically, the best organic foods are probably the ones you can purchase at your local farmer’s market, the market where nothing is labelled as organic. Maybe the best thing we can do is get to know the people who grow our food?
Post a Comment