Living Downstream First Half

It is nice with our last book of the semester Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber to move away from climate change and extinction and to have a fresh topic. However there have been some similar themes in this book that do connect with what we've been talking about all semester. For example, in the chapter about silence Steingraber talks about Rachel Carson's three views about silence, including scientists being silent and afraid to speak out. This has been a common theme in our seminar about whether or not scientists should be objective data collectors, or become activists. I do think there is an innate fear of speaking out and losing credibility, but at some point we need to get over this if it betters the world we live in. Furthermore, Steingraber mentions the idea of scientific uncertainty and how it will always be present, but that does not mean we should not act. This idea was present in Merchants of Doubt who use to uncertainty to stop action, as well as Amanda Vincent's talk about how we do know enough to act.

The topic of cancer and manmade chemicals is a scary one. The fact that there are no uncontaminated controls to use as a baseline is frightening. Even if we chose personally to not use insecticides on our lawn, residues can still be found in our house. There is not escaping this chemical warfare. Some of the cancer statistics are disheartening, knowing that almost half of us will suffer from cancer. And yet it almost feels like we have done very little to stop the use of pesticides in this country. I know that my dad uses weed killer and insecticides on our lawn yearly for no other reason than aesthetics. We talk a lot in this country about finding a cure, but you never hear much about preventing it. Like climate change we are relying on technology to put a band-aid on the problem rather than fixing the problem itself. This relates to the epigraph at the beginning of the book where people were focused on saving the people drowning, not the person pushing people in.

Steingraber gives clear evidence as to how the environment can effect cancer. The studies of people moving and how their cancer risks match that of the new location over their homeland, cancer in animals, and the correlation of chemical use coinciding with cancer rates all give evidence to this point. And yet still there are many chemicals in use. And the majority of these have not been tested and yet are still called harmless.

Despite the scientific background of the author, I think Steingraber does a good job with writing for a general audience. Most of the biology is easy to understand. However, some of the technical names for the chemicals can be confusing. However, the biological effects of the chemicals is comprehensible. I also think this book does a good job aiming for the heart as well as the head. Steingraber's personal journey with fighting cancer helps the reader feel the need for action. I thought this technique was interesting as the author clearly sees Rachel Carson as an idol, and yet Carson kept her personal battle with cancer out of her writings for fear of being seen as biased. This might be so, but I think the personal accounts help readers connect with the cancer patients and see them as people. I liked when Steingraber looked into the history of the person whose breast tissue was cultured into the cell line for research. Adding this human aspect to the story aids in showing the importance of the message.

Oil and Honey- Final Impressions

I know I'm in minority here but I didn't care for this book. The style of writing didn't do it for me. There was too much detail about things I didn't care about. I still feel like the connection between the oil and the honey was weak. I get that he was trying to show a lifestyle different from the typical capitalist lifestyle that most people live, and the growing need for small farmers, but this connection didn't permeate the whole story. Furthermore, the whole description of McKibben going on tour didn't interest me. I did not need all the details about life on the road and all the sellout venues he attended. Also I didn't understand the importance of talking about the local fair in Vermont, even though he did mention the failure of show crops/animals that year. I think these details detracted from the message of climate change.

Overall, I think this book was too much about Bill McKibben as a person and his journey as an advocate and less about the issue of climate change. Whereas the other books focused on an issue and included personal relationships to the issue, this book focused just on the personal relationship. I think this might be a contributing factor as to why I didn't enjoy the book as much.

I did like the shift in focus from the pipeline to fighting the fossil fuel industries. This seemed to be a much more important battle to overcoming climate change. Although fighting the Keystone pipeline is important, stopping one pipeline will not drastically alter the fate of the planet. Bringing the fight to the companies I think is a more effective use of time and resources. The fact that they are planning on burning 5 times the amount that the world has set as a limit is a problem and I think educating the public on this issue as McKibben has done in his lecture series. I like the idea of reframing the fossil fuel industries as radical and not having the best interests of the people. However, I do not think this message has reached all the people it needs to. This striking fact is something that can be used to sway people. Is this a risk people are willing to take, even if they do not understand all the science behind climate change?

I was also wondering what people thought about the ice sculpture that was pulled. I was having trouble seeing why it was offensive. I guess it was extravagant and the money could be used elsewhere, but it would have make a strong point. I did appreciate though that McKibben pulled the plug in order to not alienate any of his supporters, but I do agree that it might have been a missed opportunity. Is there anything like this that we could do that would make a point without being too extravagant?

Oil and Honey- Initial Impressions

I'm not sure how I feel about Oil and Honey by Bill McKibben so far. It reads quickly and has some interesting parts, but I feel like I'm just not into it. Even though he uses many metaphors to connect the bee parts to the fight against oil, I still feel like they are disjointed. In the middle of the fight against the Keystone pipeline he will randomly go back to talking about the bees. I'm not sure how they fit together in this book.

I'm also not sure of the point McKibben is trying to make with this book. Every book so far I have understood the thesis statement. The previous books have all had a intro/prologue that illustrated why the author was writing the book and the point that was supposed to come across. McKibben however does not have a intro/prologue and seems to immediately go into the story. I think this tactic was useful in the other books, which I didn't really appreciate until not having it in this book.

I have enjoyed learning some of the cool biology and behaviors of the bees. The idea that scouts go out to look for new areas for hives and then have a democratic discussion to chose a new location was fascinating. But I feel like this part of the story is detracting from the picture of fighting the oil companies. Again, maybe this will make more sense later in the book, but as of now I just don't get it.

There is a mixture of pessimism and optimism when thinking about fighting the oil companies. There seems to be some hope that a grassroots battle has stopped the pipeline. The oil companies just assumed they would win due to their political power and money, and yet the protests were able to stop them. However, it is said multiple times in the book, stopping one pipeline will not stop global warming. This is just one battle in a large war. In addition, the battle over this one pipeline has not ended. It seems doubtful that we can create the quick changes that are necessary to prevent the 4 degree increase.

The thing that struck me in the beginning of the book is how willing people were to go to jail to fight the pipeline. I'm not sure if I would be brave enough to do that. I tend to be a rule follower and although I like the tactics of civil disobedience used, I am not sure if I could do it. I really appreciated the peaceful nature of the protest, and the fact that they wore their Sunday best to show their civility. As McKibben has stated, they are not radical, but changing the composition of the atmosphere is very radical.