Now that's just my situation. If we take into account the trash compiled by the thousands of students here...let's just say that's a whole lot. We can easily recycle these items (separately if possible) and save ourselves some more environmental damage. I have noticed that the lights in the DeNeve dining hall remain lit throughout the night which is very uneconomical. Also, UCLA students are served buffet which leads to some people taking more food than they are going to eat. I think we have begun to take the limited resources we have for granted since we don't pay for the plates/cups in restaurants. If we were in fact made to pay for them or offered an incentive to bring plastics/paper cups back so that they can be recycled, then we would be contributing a lot more to a sustainable living.
Secondly, after having observed the huge amounts of paper/plastic that go to waste each day that could be otherwise recycled, I have started to believe that eating in the dining halls more often is a better idea since at the end of a meal, all plates/glasses/cutlery are placed on the trays that are sent back to the kitchen. Although it should be noted that it is more convenient for a lot of students living on campus to take packaged food back to their rooms, perhaps because the location of the cafes is more convenient than that of the closest dining hall or because of a time conflict with their classes and the opening hours of the dining halls. In either case, students should be made to take their own plates/mugs to cafes so that packaging of food can be avoided. This way, even if people are unwilling to cooperate with recycling their trash, we will be forgoing far less potential recyclabes.
Secondly, after having observed the huge amounts of paper/plastic that go to waste each day that could be otherwise recycled, I have started to believe that eating in the dining halls more often is a better idea since at the end of a meal, all plates/glasses/cutlery are placed on the trays that are sent back to the kitchen. Although it should be noted that it is more convenient for a lot of students living on campus to take packaged food back to their rooms, perhaps because the location of the cafes is more convenient than that of the closest dining hall or because of a time conflict with their classes and the opening hours of the dining halls. In either case, students should be made to take their own plates/mugs to cafes so that packaging of food can be avoided. This way, even if people are unwilling to cooperate with recycling their trash, we will be forgoing far less potential recyclabes.
I used to think that my lifestyle was a fairly sustainable one until I was made to do this exercise (Thank God.) The numbers in the trash inventory spreadsheet staring back at me were kind of ridiculous. I have definitely made it a point to up my standard of living. Merkel divides ''global living'' into material and non-material aspects and lists questions we should ask ourselves so that we can identify our actual ''needs.'' This was an eye-opener for me as some of my answers were unexpected, even to myself. For example, when I asked myself the question - ''Does my employment (which relies upon material flows) restore the Earth, further damage the Earth, or is it neutral?'' - I instantly knew that the Earth was really worse off. (In this case, ''student'' was my occupation since I don't really work.) Taking into consideration the amount of paper I use in copy machines every week and all the stationery I buy every month, the Earth couldn't possibly be better off! Living equitably wasn't a concept I was familiar with until I came across ''Radical Simplicity.'' I think Merkel brought up three excellent types of equity that can help us analyse whether we are living equitably or not - interspecies, interhuman and intergenerational. When looked into deeply, it's very clear that we ought to be more cautious for the sake of other co-existing species, humans and generations to come.
