JC Calso

I was very eager to donate to the Native American Rights Fund, especially this year as I am taking a course about pre-Columbian America and the colonial paradigms that exist today as a result of the racist and supremacist views that crossed over from Europe. I learned that most American Indian and Indigenous cultures held the earth in high respect; the Inka saw everything from the Earth as a gift from Pachamama, and most Sioux speaking cultures (such as the Omaha and the Osage peoples) regarded the Earth as the "First Woman/Old-Woman-Who-Never-Dies." It's important to understand that American Indians maintained huge metropolises across the American continents, sustaining cities that rivaled contemporary European metro centers. And yet the concept of giving back to the Earth, in gestures and ceremonies of gratitude, was so ingrained in the culture that many of these cities did not detract from the landscape. Balance is achieved by giving back to the Earth and tending for it so that it will continue to yield full crops, maintain adequate water supplies, and provide stable soil for building grand structures on top of. The concept of balance gives us, the humans that mine and sow resources from the Earth, a quantifiable goal. The American Indians and Indigenous cultures were not in the business of rhetoric and "whoo-whoo" gestures; their culture of balance meant taking intentional and actionable measures to put resources back into the Earth. They maintained cleansing fires in forests so that there wouldn't be an overgrowth of invasive crops, they practiced early forms of silvopasturing so that the soil would not be taxed heavily (unlike modern agriculture), they recycled consumables like wood for rebuilding structures instead of razing forests immediately. American Indians actively changed the environment around them, but a culture of balance ensured that they did not remove more than they could give back, maintaining a stable environment that was rich with resources for the thousands of years they were here. 

I haven't heard of silvopasture before, but I have heard of something very similar (that was actually mentioned in one of the Drawdown articles) called a milpa. I am currently reading 1491 by Charles C Mann, which outlines the Americas before Columbus' arrival and takes on problematic paradigms regarding American Indian/Indigenous groups. Mann dedicates several pages to the practice of growing complementary crops such as maize, beans, squash, peppers, and avocados within the same plot of land. This crop system is known as a milpa and is a sustainable practice that does not require as much crop rotation and does not tax the soil as much as modern farming. It has been practiced for millennia in the Americas and is still a common practice in Latine households. Like silvopasture, the biggest advantage to growing complementary crops together is the varied produce that can be efficiently and sustainably yielded from the same plot of land. In some silvopastures, tree nuts, foraging (for livestock), and mushrooms are obtained together. In milpas, avocado trees provide shade, a carbon sink, and lipid-rich avocados, while squash and maize grow in the surrounding soil. In both milpas and silvopastures, a rich and plant-based diet could be obtained without taxing the earth's resources.

Concrete was a surprising example of a material that had a large carbon footprint. I had initially thought that its carbon footprint came from the large trucks I used to see that would come pour it, but it turns out the curing process alone is responsible for up to 60% of the carbon emission. In a similar vein, I wonder if other ubiquitous building materials have a similar hidden carbon footprint. One that comes to mind is the other stuff that coats our highways and roofs: asphalt and tar. Tar was an easy question to answer (it literally is a fossilized carbon product) but asphalt had a surprisingly mixed result. Because it is partly concrete, it would be difficult to delineate how much extra carbon emissions come from asphalt itself. Asphalt can actually be recycled, BUT when used on roads, it will retain heat and contribute to rising local temperatures. Asphalt also needs to be regularly maintained by big trucks, contributing to its larger carbon footprint. I would be interested in having a talk with a local civil engineer to find out more definitive answers about asphalt. 

Consumer electronics like smartphones, computers, and televisions must have a large carbon footprint, not just from their energy usage but also in their manufacturing. Most electronics are a hunk of plastic and rare earth metals. Some of these metals may be mined in unsustainable (and sometimes inhumane) conditions, yet our rapidly technology-dependent lives and society cannot do without these consumer electronics. Additionally, the practice of "planned obsolescence," or the practice of intentionally releasing software updates that require consumers to upgrade their devices (Apple and Samsung are particularly guilty of this) most definitely increases that carbon footprint exponentially.