The Grand Scheme of Things...

I didn't get the chance to speak with my Mother about the environment, and I really wanted to because she is a staunch Republican and pretty much gobbles up everything she hears from her favorite Republicans, and views the Republican platform as gospel truth. Although I didn't get to speak with my Mom, I had a discussion with someone who holds similar views, my boyfriend.

We've had arguments about pretty much every topic you can imagine. It has gotten to the point where we try to avoid major topics like religion and politics, because we are both set in our ways, nothing is going to change our view points, so it's useless getting into an argument for nothing. The same goes for discussions about the environment. It's not that he doesn't believe that there is an environmental problem, he just doesn't care about it. He thinks that any actions that could be taken to help the environmental crisis, isn't going to matter in the "grand scheme of things".

During our discussions in class, Prof. Simon has brought up several times that there are people who really don't care about the environment, and who will belligerently go out of their way to not recycle, and will leave the lights on, etc. I would always feel embarrassed to see other students' reactions to Simon's statement, because I know someone like that, and he happens to be my boyfriend. He doesn't go out of his way to not recycle, but whenever I save bottles to recycle them, or turn off the lights before I leave, he always jokes that he has to go outside and litter, and drive his car more to counter what I've just done. I've never seen him actively litter after I recycle something, or go for a quick drive (because he hates driving), but it just goes to show that he really doesn't care.

I've even tried to talk about green jobs and green architecture, and all the amazing possibilities that are available, but it's futile. He respectfully listens to what I have to say, but he refuses to agree with it and take action.

I come from a big fat Greek family, and let me tell you it was quite difficult to get a conversation going during Thanksgiving dinner. Everyone was loud and talking, but I managed to get everyone to quiet down for a few minutes to hear me out. I knew I wouldn't face much opposition from my family, everyone is pretty concerned about the environment and the impact we as Americans have on it. My aunt and uncle were especially passionate, and everyone expressed hope for the future with the Obama presidency.

One thing I found that did not work was using the argument "it might already be too late" to try and get people to act now. My mom's response to that was, "if it is too late what is the point?" Talking to people who haven't necessarily studied the subject is interesting, because they have certain assumptions that may or may not be true. But I found that being positive about the future while still condemning the current wastefulness of our society was the best way to bring up environmental issues with them.

Though I didn't face any opposition from my family and most were eager to learn ways that they could help, not everyone was actively interested in the subject. Apathy is just as bad as opposition in my opinion. My 90 year old grandmother and even older great aunt were not interested at all, and after ten minutes of them listening to us, they started having their own little conversation... "this family eats so fast", "i know we have always been fast eaters..." to which my apathetic cousin replied "now that's my kind of conversation!" I told him I would quote him on that.

My Thanksgiving Row

I didn’t actually leave town to end up in an argument about the environment with a family member, well argument is too strong, my brother and I had a lively discussion about Michael Crichton and his novel State of Fear. On a slightly strange side note, did you all know that he just died, I mean like a month ago from throat cancer, he lived in Los Angeles so I guess there must be something to breathing in pollution all day long. Anyways, as I said it was not so much of an argument as my brother defending one of his favorite authors. He claimed that the novel wasn’t anti-environment at all, just making the anti-environmental arguments look ridiculous. I said that even if that were true, it wasn’t working. Bush had Crichton to the White House for a pow-wow and he is constantly being used by the right-wing media as a really smart guy who also doubts the severity of the problem.

As the semester is coming to an end, and I am reflecting on all I’ve learned about environmental issues, the big take away may not be that we all need to do our little part to change things, the SC or Social Change part of the Trinity of Despair, but what we can do is talk and talk to everyone around us, if we can push towards that critical mass stage where, whatever it is 50-51% of people are on board with the big changes needed then, hopefully, we can begin to begin to truly change.

Eco-Turkey

On Thanksgiving I talked with my cousin and uncle about the environment.

My cousin Danielle, 10, is doing a project about organic dyes for her science class in New Jersey. Her task is to use various fruits and vegetables to dye cloth and see which one stains or causes the darkest shade on fabric. In her class, she’s learning about dyes that contain dangerous chemicals, especially for kids, and how it affects overall health and the clothes we wear. At the end of this term they’re going to use the natural dyes on organic cotton to create something wearable. She explained some of the hazards they’d learned about and how she thought it was connected to the environment – I felt optimistic after talking with her. Her teacher has the right idea to integrate the material it in a way that will stay with them after the class is over.

My conversation with my Uncle Dean didn't leave me as optimistic. My uncle is a big fan of Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton, and likes to say that he saves energy by turning off the T.V. when Al Gore’s on. We talked about McDonough's idea to rethink design and “Cradle to Cradle” but his response was always the same: “this is going to cost a lot of money.” I showed him how the book is made of polymer but he wasn't impressed. The only thing he said was, "okay...but how much did that book cost?"

Since our polymer/design conversation was headed in the...wrong direction, I brought up an article we had both read that morning about the opportunities President Obama will have to invest in clean energy technologies. Although he agreed that there are definitely good options for clean energy, he didn't think that addressing climate change should be our first priority, or even a top priority. Issues of national security and the economy (ironic) were first on his list.

Talking about the environment with people who disagree about the severity of the situation can be frustrating. I think it’s a good idea when you’re talking about controversial issues to respect people's opinions (esp. if you disagree) but also be provocative (without patronizing) although managing this is a challenge in itself.

An Island State of Mind

I'm sitting writing this blog post from the tiny state of Rhode Island. I can see the waves crashing in from my adirondack chair on the porch. It's a bit chilly outside, but it's a coldness I can take if it means being able to watch the high and low-tides during the day. Sitting here and being able to feel the ocean breeze hit me is something that I never will take for granted. I never get sick of it--it's pretty amazing to watch the waves crash over and over again, no matter what time of year.

Last night at Thanksgiving dinner I had a conversation with one of our family friends about the environment. Ironically the conversation started following a game of "Apples to Apples" (quite possibly one of the most entertaining games) with the 16 people who came over for Thanksgiving dinner.

For those of you who are not familiar with the game: Each player receives 7 cards (random nouns) and the judge places a card in the middle that is an adjective or noun, etc. The object of the game is for each player, for example, to lay a card down face-down in the middle that they believe relates to whatever the adjective or judges' card that has been played. Then, the judge chooses which player has the "best" card that relates to the judge's word. Usually the judge chooses the "funny" word that has been played that relates nothing to the actual judge card. Anyway, that was an awful explanation of a great game, but hopefully you get the idea.

So, the word that was played in the middle was the "ozone layer," and it was interesting to see what people placed down in relation to it. Some of the words were "amazing," "useless," "disturbing," etc. I was surprised by how many of the words relating to the "ozone" were negative ones. There were a lot of people playing the game who were of all different ages and genders, yet the overall consensus was that the "ozone" was something negative. Following this game I started talking to our family friend about the environment. He is only 2 years out of college and studied IR in college as well. I asked him what he thought about the environment and he immediately rolled his eyes. He started talking about how much the environment is obsessed about and how it doesn't seem like much of anything can fix the current state it is in now.

Just outside of our window the coastline reflects how well the community of Newport has taken care of the coastline and beaches. As a newcomer to this beautiful beach town it was hard for me to believe that the coastline, marine life, water quality, etc., was something that some people could view as something that was not good enough to merit our time. Yet, I can see how much money has gone into protecting the coastline and marine life here. Even the Navy has worked on protecting the coastline in addition to many individuals within the area who donate time, money, and energy to environmental issues that face the island, such as air quality relating to smog, toxic waste, pollution, and many other issues. However, after talking to my family friend about the environment, I started to think more about the uniqueness of being on an island when it comes to the environment.

If only we had more money or time to direct our actions toward the environment in other areas of the world. In Newport it is much easier to talk about the environment and take real action not only because the island is inhabited and controlled by less than 25,000 people, but more importantly many of these people are well-educated (or at least in theory) and have a lot more money to spend on things such as environmental protection and policies. They are around it, therefore, it is something that ultimately affects them every day they get up for work and walk outside. I just wish there was something more we could do in other places in the world, so that more people could benefit and see the positive effects of spending money on the environment and improving environmental standards now so that our future generations can benefit as well. It is too bad that so many people are turned off from the environment, i.e. the eye-roller, because it is really something that needs to be talked about.

We have come to a point in which the seriousness of the situation makes it hard to not be serious when talking with another person. However, I realized after talking to my family friend, who did not share the exact same environmental views as me, that the very idea of talking about the environment in a friendly and inviting way is a great way to engage people about the environment. It should not be about trying to make the person feel like an outsider or less informed about the environment, but instead open discussion and forums in a positive setting is the only way creative ideas and genuine collaboration will occur. Sorry to ramble...just thought it was something worthwhile to think about. Have a good rest of break. Safe travels.

On the Trinity of Despair...

The Trinity of Despair attack on mis-assumptions people have towards the environment is both useful and hopeful. The HN for Human Nature, I must admit that I have always assumed people were at least somewhat selfish, but having that re-stated a different way, that people are self-interested not selfish is both more accurate and less obnoxious. I can see that people are self-interested, naturally people are focused on their little part of the world, but to say that they are completely selfish, all people, all the time is definitely going to far.

The SC for social change, I was a little confused about this idea at first, yes of course everyone needs to get it together, it won’t work with a few of us. However, you can see that at some point a sort of critical mass of people’s accepting of ideas and opinions can really change everything, it will take a significant amount of the population though. The good news is that I think people are finally dismissing the idea that the scientific community is debating the issue of climate change, as we know they clearly are not!

ES for Environmental Strategy, or Easy Stuff. I knew this one already, that if everyone simply used the right light bulbs or used paper instead of plastic (or is it the other way around?), that all our problems would be solved, but I think it is even more pernicious than that. It is the corporations that are switching the blame on the consumer, by making everyone believe they have the power to affect change by doing small things, not only are you not allowing people to really be involved in the bigger things that could actually change the planet, but somehow taking the responsibility away from the worst of the environmental offenders by placing blame on people not using the right kind of light bulbs is absurd.

Radical Social Changes.

Professor Maniates' "Trinity of Despair" serves as an example of the kinds of underlying assumptions that often times prevent individuals from deciding whether or not to take action in regard to helping to improve the environment. I cannot even count the number of times in my life that I have heard people say "turn off the lights when you leave a room" or "RECYCLE, RECYCLE, RECYCLE." Yet, this class has taught me that maybe this is not enough. Perhaps we need to search for more radical changes. Protest. Campaign. Lobby, etc. If a few of us work together, then we can accomplish more things instead of waiting for the rest of society to jump on board.

I'm not sure if it was the fact that I was born on April 22, coincidentally Earth Day, that I have always been interested in the environment, or what it was. But, to this day I can still remember my first grade birthday with freakish accuracy. A boy named Jonathon who happened to ride the same bus as me was littering out of the bus window. Immediately I thought of Earth Day at this time. I remember thinking, "Hey, you can't litter on EARTH day!!!!!" I'm not sure who ingrained that in my head...whether it was the result of what my parents had taught me about respecting the planet, or even a combination of both family values and values acquired through my schooling and education (in this case, kindergarten and first grade). Regardless, I have since taken on the idea that "one person can change the world." If it means not littering on Earth Day, then so be it. We can each do our own little part in the world.

However, I have come to the understanding that "individual action" is not going to save us (at least not in the case of environmental destruction and climate change). But, that does not mean that we should give up. As stated by Laura, social change was never a result of "everyone jumping on board." Instead, history reveals to us that radical social change, from the abolitionist movement to Seneca Falls, from immigration to health care reform, is something that is worth fighting for. We may not always be in the majority, but that does not mean we should wait around until that happens. The little voices, the grassroots organizations, the town halls, and hard work and dedication will get us there.

Often times people speak of our generation---the Millenials...Gen X...Y...Z...whatever you want to call us---and that we do not care about the issues enough to take to the streets like our ancestors did. We did not live in the 1960s, nor the 1970s. However, I do not believe that means that social action does not occur from youth movements. We may not always be protesting in the streets, but we have incredible access to education and jobs that allow us to discuss environmental issues and lobby Congress. The reality is that we have to demand change in order to get it, and it is not always going to be easy. Of course there is always room for improvement, but what we must realize now is that just because we cannot fix everything about the environment now, does not mean that we should turn in our badges or sit back and enjoy it while it lasts. Instead, we need to take action now and continue to educate others about the current state of the environment.

New Angle

Prof. Maniate's “trinity of despair” has helped me to think about being an effective environmental change agent in a different way. It integrates a lot of the themes and ideas we’ve talked about in class this semester with a firm message to challenge conventional assumptions.

Prof. Maniates hit the nail on the head when he said, “we are telling people that they can consume their way out of the environmental crisis.” Advertising (in the states) is directed at consuming your way in and out of everything. It’s very clear that doing “easy things” like turning off the water when you shave your legs (sorry Dave and Greg) is not going to save us from the crisis or allow us to be effective environmental agents. If this is what Hollywood is telling our celebrity-obsessed society, can we blame some people for thinking this is effective action?

The social change angle is very interesting. Maniates argues that getting everyone on board is not necessary to effect the change we need with respect to the environment – I agree with him here. It is disempowering to think about getting 300,000,000 + people living in the U.S. on board to pay attention and be effective environmental change agents – unless we defy our social history, we know this will not happen. Instead, we need to figure out the keys to make the environmental movement more effective. I couldn’t tell if this was Prof. Simon and Prof. Maniate’s example, but women suffragettes like Alice Paul worked (extremely hard) to secure women’s voting rights despite extreme opposition and a war by persistence and sacrifice... it can happen.

In terms of getting the general public to pay attention to the environmental crisis, I disagree – if you consider public opinion or mass public opinion in this country, something devastating will need to occur to get people involved. Maybe I’m underestimating the American public, but as far as I’m concerned, people hold coherent attitudes with very little information to back it up and like to reject information that means changing their beliefs (i.e. most environmental issues if it means giving up your SUV). People are likely to continue to ignore the environmental crisis until something catastrophic happens.

But to end on a much happier note...happy Thanksgiving everyone!

We can do it!

Finally! A book that shows environmental friendliness instead of solely preaching. As soon as I picked up the book and noticed that it was not made of paper I knew that reading this book would be a different and positive experience. McDonough and Braungart urge us to reconsider the traditional "cradle to grave" mentality and begin to look at new ways to make old things new again.

I like how McDonough and Braungart are not afraid to be explicit when describing the dangers of pollutants we have produced throughout history. Even from the startling introduction that features a peaceful family residing amongst deadly toxins, the authors use a mix of harsh reality and optimism for the future to get the point across. "So much for trying to maintain a healthy environment, or even a healthy home. So much for peace, comfort and safety." They urge us to look at everything around us and do two things. One is to realize the dangers, and the other is to realize the solutions. We have the capabilities to waste less and recycle, we just need to focus greater attention on doing so. Nobody wants their child to be surrounded by harmful chemicals, and nobody wants to be told that everything they buy is full of these chemicals. But McDonough and Braungart are not saying what people want to hear, they are telling us what we need to change.

This has been my favorite thing we have read so far. It encourages me to be creative in how I reuse things and helps me to come up with new ideas on how to spread the word to others. I've been showing my friends this book (and how I can read in the shower!) and they've all been impressed with, not even the content, but the mere fact that it is printed on something other than paper. With what I have learned about William McDonough he is not afraid to think outside the box and come up with new and more importantly realistic ideas to help the environment. This inspires me to do more than what I thought I could before. Instead of being "less bad", I know strive to be good, or even more so excellent. Instead of me recycling, turning off lights and water etc., I am now encouraging others to do so as well. I realize that the path to environmental salvation is not impossible, and though it is going to take a lot of effort, we can do it!

The Importance of Creativity

I believe Cradle to Cradle did a remarkable job in illustrating that there is still hope for the future, despite all of the negative things that are going on in the world. One of the major problems with fighting to improve the planet and the environment in the first place is that it is hard for many people to jump on board.

Through Cradle to Cradle the authors reveal to us that being less bad toward the environment in our daily lives is simply not good enough. Instead, through innovation and creativity in various industries we can have a shot at improving the environment, even if that means we cannot fix everything.

I agree with Laura's point about Cradle to Cradle serving as a positive example for us to look to in comparison to the other viewpoints we have been dealing with in class. It was interesting to hear what the authors of the book had to say about individuals such as Malthus, who for many years served as primary voices on this kind of negative emotion in relation to the environment that the authors try to stray away from. Yes, the world is in bad shape, especially when it comes to a lack of individual action in regard to saving the environment, but we can still work to improve it.

One of my favorite parts of the book dealt with the Ford Plant where the engineer came into the office and was not convinced in the beginning that new creative ways in dealing with the environment were practical or even sensible. However, this particular engineer later contributed to the effective changes that were made to the Ford Plant. If anything, this example shows how much creativity can inspire anyone to seek change in the world. Even though something such as restructuring the Ford Plant can seem out of reach and sometimes impossible at first, there are people out there who are ready to make sacrifices and develop new ideas in order to improve the current system. It is not something that is not going to be easy, but it is still worth a try.

Overall, I thought this book was very successful in showing how 'being less bad is not good enough,' but instead we must work together no matter our different backgrounds or interests, in order to use our skills and expertise together in a way that can benefit all of us.

Cradle to Cradle

I am impressed with the concepts in the book Cradle to Cradle. It is hard to choose which area to talk about as there are so many new ideas that I must admit to never having thought of before. I will discuss two, eco-effectiveness and using Corporations and business rather than Government and regulations to address environmental problems.

I have always been guilty of thinking in an eco-efficient manner; the only solution lies in producing and consuming less. Improving the environment will take sacrifices and people are not willing to make such sacrifices, therefore the prospects for any real environmental change remains remote. The idea of eco-effectiveness or designing a more environmentally friendly world is a fascinating new way of looking at the problem and, it seems to me, a realistic way to slove these problems. I think people would be excited to support (consume) many shiny new eco-products with the same vigor as any other product and that they would even have a “trendy” quality to them. It is clear that taking things away from people will never be a lasting solution, but re-designing the things people want in a way that is not environmentally destructive could be the answer.

I must admit that my first reaction to involving Industry and Corporations in the solution to the problems of the environment turned me off. After all they are the enemy and cannot be trusted! The Corporations are the greed-mongers whose only ambition is to make more and more useless stuff, and then convince us that we cannot live without this stuff. However, I can see that the best way to truly address environmental problems is not solely through Government and regulations, but through the producers. True environmental change must come from those that are causing the majority of the problem in the first place, the Corporations. McDonough and Braungart are truly sensible to realize that if change does not come from the manufacturers that it will probably not come from anyone.

Cradle to Cradle has definitely made me think in new and positive ways about how our environmental problems can be fixed. They will not be fixed by essentially telling everyone to stop consuming; they must be fixed through innovations of design and a new paradigm of thinking.

Good Thinking

McDonough and Braungart’s work to redefine and rethink design is incredibly creative and thoughtful. I am easily convinced by optimistic people with creative ideas – and in that respect have a difficult time being objective enough to foresee potential failures or flaws of their model. Isn’t it hard to discredit the ideas of people who want to design in a way that replenishes, restores, and nourishes the rest of the world?

The idea to rethink design is brilliant. Of all the “options” we’ve studied in class so far, I think there are more opportunities for success under the model that McDonough and Braungart propose than anything else. Perhaps this is because of the optimism with which they approach the challenges of industry and protecting the environment – may sound cheesy, but it’s pretty inspiring. Their design plans seem to be intricate and thorough, they aim to collaborate with members of the international community, and their integration of different academic areas suggests the kind of partnership we need to effectively change broken systems that are hurting the environment.

I really like how McDonough and Braungart challenge our current notion of efficiency. There is definitely a drive to be efficient in the U.S., not only in industry but in our daily lives. Living life at a rapid and “effective” pace is the norm in some parts of the country – for those of us who grew up near cities in the Northeast, you assume living life at 100 mph is the way to live. But they’re right – we don't have to accept that or believe it to be an end -- who wants to live a life of complete efficiency? And if we rely on technology to get us out of this environmental mess, is that where we are headed? By using nature as our model for design, we are more likely to effectively signal and meet the interests of industry, environmentalists, and workers, protect our planet, respect biodiversity, and seek fulfillment from the natural world.

My lame Dr. Seuss poem...

I’ll go to Whole foods to help the environment.
I’ll buy bushels of organic in all their refinement.
Carrots, and cucumbers, and all the right stuff.
I’ll fill up my basket, will it be enough?
But the problem, you see, is not in organic.
It is buying food that was grown in Chile, Nepal, and all the Slovanics!
Shipping it here uses so much gas.
That at the end of the day, it would be better to fast!

Ok, I'll do number 2. See you guys in class!

Thanks Rachel!

I'll research #1 Efficiency-Dave

Lorax part deux

If the Earth could speak, what would it say?

What would it be like to walk in Earth's shoes for a day?

Is it impossible? A feat only to be imagined within our minds?

No! it's quite easy. You only need to understand Earth's language: signs.

Take the ocean for instance, a liquid enigma once vibrant and alive;

is being over-fished, making it difficult for these ecosystems to repopulate and survive.

The ocean is viewed as a profitable territory that humans believe they inherently own;

and through careless irrigation techniques, their pollution has turned it into a dead zone.

Tuesday's Class.

Hi everyone...we need to split up the research for our Tuesday, November 11th class.

Here are the directions, again:

The simulation is about climate change policy and action. You will be asked in your blog groups to weigh up 15 or so different policy and technology options for tackling climate change. You will then be asked to choose (and justify your choice of) 7 of those options.

The 15 different options are grouped into 4 categories:
1. Efficiency
2. Decarbonization of power
3. Decarbonization of fuel
4. Forests and agricultural soils

Each member of your blog group to take responsibility for researching one of these categories. That way, when we get together on Tuesday you will be able to have a detailed, informed discussion of our different choices.

What this means is that you should:
1) decide who in your group will research which category (if there are 5 in your group, just assign 2 people to one of the categories);
2) watch this short flash movie describing the exercise and the different options (www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Stab_Wedges_Movie.swf); and
3)go to this website and read the information about each of the options in your category (www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/wedgesumtb.htm)

I am researching #4 Forests and Ag. Soils, so we just need people to sign up and research #1-3. 1. Efficiency
2. Decarbonization of power
3. Decarbonization of fuel

Feel free to comment on this post on which one you will be researching. Good luck with your papers, and see you tomorrow!

Lorax

It’s time to step up as citizens and act,
As consumers we are on the wrong track,
The Oncler wants us to purchase those thneeds,
But the planet cannot survive without presence of trees!

What does purchasing thneeds mean anyway?
Do they make us happier, day by day?
Our value should not be determined by buying,
Let's listen to the Lorax and stop our denying

The structures of the world may perpetuate the issues,
But now is not the time to sit and sniffle in a tissue,
Together, as citizens, we can lobby the Senate!
Make the public aware, with cartoons by Clay Bennett

Your voice is powerful; don’t listen to the nay-sayers,
The skeptics, the deniers, and the delayers,
Let’s consider science carefully and not just reject,
The figures that the IPCC projects,

We can set up farmers markets in our hometowns,
Support local farmers from tumbling down,
Into a market system that will make you frown,
Together we can protect our planet from the North, South, all-around!

Global warming is not a partisan topic,
It’s an issue for Washington, Beijing, and the tropics,
No longer the days of President Reagan,
President Obama, let’s get on the road to Copenhagen!

Environmental Wake-Up Call

I was really impressed by Van Jones' idea to aggressively fight environmental problems through coming up with real solutions that are both practical and reasonable for every individual to partake in. The reality is that saving the environment is not always about making sure that the international organizations and structures are doing their part, but also the individual needs to contribute in whatever way possible, so that living green is something that we can all work on.

Jones speaks of potential green jobs that can be created in order to effectively address the issue of climate change and to make sure that people are actively taking part in the fight toward saving our planet. Saving the planet through the creation of green jobs that bolster the economy and contribute to positive environmental progress can be attained, and it is still possible to make a difference. Many people are drawn away from environmental issues because they take on a kind of mentality where it is often times possible to detach oneself from the severity of the environmental problem. People don't want to believe that one day they could wake up and the world that they have lived in for so long is turning into an environmental war zone. It is hard for many people to care about the long-term effects of environmental problems, especially when that means making changes and sacrifices now that do not necessarily serve their self-interests in the present day, but instead focuses on future generations and sustainable development.

It is extremely scary to get caught up in all of the "what ifs" that may or may not happen when it comes to the state of environmental issues around the world. But, if we look at the hard facts on climate change issues specifically, we can see that the world in the past few decades has not gotten any better. The environmental issues have gained even more momentum as the Earth's temperatures continue to rise, the number of endangered species increases, and our willingness to take action still remains at a mediocre level as a global society. We speak of economic meltdowns on Wallstreet and the government comes to the rescue, yet when it comes to combating environmental issues many people choose to ignore the situation at hand. What does it really take to make a difference? What we do know is that we, as global citizens, must actively and aggressively lobby Congress as much as possible, so that our leaders look toward environmentally friendly solutions that are beneficial to us all. For example, increasing the amount of green jobs, as mentioned in the reading, as well as lessening our dependence on fossil fuels.

There is no one solution to global climate change, but one thing that is for sure is that sooner or later there will be an environmental wake-up call in whatever catastrophic form it may take. However, instead we must listen to the wake-up call now! We cannot afford to wait any longer. The optimist in me believes that we can change the future, but at the same time I do not ignore that the environmental situation cannot fully be fixed at this point. That does not mean we should give up.

I fear that the real environmental wake-up call will come later when it is too late to change the current state of the environment. The only thing that will be left is that scientists, environmentalists, and others fighting for environmental change, will agree on one thing:

"I told you so."

Unleashing Green at the bottom

I thought the ideas that Van Jones presented were brilliant. Something that has been heard time and again from politicians is the need for job creation. I have yet to see them do anything about it. Van Jones proposes a solution with benefits that are twofold: create green jobs, save the environment. His idea proposes a job training program, that would teach people from low income areas to install solar panels and other green technologies in homes and businesses. I also liked how he said that he wanted to target younger people. So many people from my high school never go to college, either because they think they aren't good enough (Clark County is one of the worst school districts in the country) or they can not afford it. Many of them find jobs working in the casino industry, or join the military. As much as I want everyone to get their education and I always try to encourage everyone to go, the reality is, is that school is not cut out for everybody. I know there are nursing programs and paralegal certification, but sometimes that option may be too difficult for people. Providing jobs that are more manual labor intensive, can appeal to almost everyone.

There is always talk about how we need to save the environment, and no one ever does anything about it because they don't really see how they can benefit from it. Van Jones proposes training people in the green trade, and then they are using their knowledge to transition homes, and are getting paid for it. He also brought up the point that it is nigh impossible to outsource to China, so it creates more job protection at home. I like his approach to going green because he incorporates the business aspect of it. Which I think is more effective than passing out pamphlets and telling people that they should care about the environment.

Blue to Green

I’m glad it was brought up in the discussion question post -- I was definitely down after our intro to climate change on Friday. It’s hard to be optimistic about the planet’s future when you consider how many resources and systems we’ve altered and destroyed in a very short period of time.

There was a quote in one of the readings about concerned people who keep the environment in mind. For those who are looking for reasonable ways to effect change – those who are looking for some “sort of medium” – where do they start? If effective environmental action is what we’re after, I think Van Jones has the right vision.

I’m impressed by Van Jones and his work: address two of the biggest problems in the U.S. in order to change the reality of both situations. He’s exactly right, if you’re worried about putting food on the table, it’s unlikely that building solar panels and protecting coral reefs are items high on your to-do list. But instead of focusing on the bleakness of the situations Jones sees opportunity: what if addressing such environmental problems enables you to put food on the table? I hope that his work is met by some success – I am a little skeptical that blue-collar can become entirely green but will remain optimistic. At the very least, the growing green collar job movement challenges the rest of us to think of creative ways to protect the planet. What other creative ideas do people have (or could we think of) in order to address climate change?

**I clicked on the "Dot Earth" section of the NYT and came across this: if you haven't seen it, you may want to check it out. http://www.350.org/

Ideas from TED

Activist Van Jones has figured out the most important idea in politics, George Lakoff’s notion of framing a political argument. In this case that “going green” is more important than merely saving the environment, something that is understandably obtuse for someone living in the inner city, and framed it to be about creating a wealth of new job opportunities. The kinds of arguments, such as green jobs and climate change as a national security issue, are the ones that are going to change public perceptions and encourage genuine action on the part of the public and government.
While climate change does represent an extraordinary threat I have just begun to learn, in this class and my Energy Politics class, about all the ideas that are out there trying to solve these problems. It seems to only be a matter of political and public will to demand changes. Some cool examples of ideas floating around out there can be found on an amazing website called simply TED for Technology, Entertainment and Design:

www.ted.com

Specifically, Paul Stamets on 6 ways mushrooms can save the world:

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html

Also, controversial but fascinating ideas from David Kieth on slowing global warming:

www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html

I believe that ideas such as Van Jones’ addressing climate change in terms of job potential to lower income sectors is a positive way that allows for real change in people’s lives and can only bring about the kind of political and public will needed to create genuine action rather than just rhetorical hand-wringing.

GBR and the Ocean

Like Rachel, I’ve been fortunate enough to travel to Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef; a day trip my family and I took to snorkel changed the way I view the ocean forever.

The forecast for that day was heavy rain and predicted large swells in the ocean, but the tour group encouraged us to give snorkeling on the reef a go. Snorkeling on the GBR is incredible and I am happy that we went, but the decision to take the trip despite warnings is an instance where we paid little respect to nature.

To say that we encountered incredible weather is an understatement. I can’t think of a time where I had been more terrified, although it's comforting to remember that even our Australian friends (who are always calm) seemed anxious. The winds were so strong and the waves so enormous that the captain essentially lost control of the vessel to the ocean. Sitting in the cabin felt like being on an uncontrollable roller coaster ride. Instead of cutting across the waves, we crashed over them and rolled in between them for the entire trip. Water came into the cabin, people were screaming, lights shattered on the ground, and we were definitely air bound at one point, too.

It's a mistake to underestimate the power of the ocean. In retrospect, the decision to continue with the tour despite "warnings" of swells was made from an anthropocentric standpoint: both the tour guides (interested in the money, too...) and my family assumed that a large boat with the latest technology would protect us and allow us to be a greater force than the ocean. As we talked about in class today, we cannot see ourselves as above nature. Changing our attitudes from maintaining control over nature to engaging with and respecting it will be important for our overall experience with the non-human world.

Essentially, nature enables us to live on this planet and it should be our goal to protect and conserve as much biodiversity as possible (easier said than done.) Saving nature is/will be a process and the first step is to promote eco-literacy and educate people about biodiversity and environmental issues. As Emily said on Friday, environmental issues always come down to biodiversity, and environmental issues affect us, so it’s important that we care about biodiversity. The example she mentioned about how water became clearer after the re-introduction of wolves into Yellowstone Nat’l Park really emphasizes the importance of saving and protecting nature.

Save the Dirt!!

I can't sit here and say I have some remarkable experience with nature every day, but I do try to sit outside for five minutes, and just close my eyes and listen. Of course this requires me to drown out the sounds of humanity, but some times it is good to just feel the sun on your skin and the breeze dancing across your face. One experience that stands out in my mind is when I first came to Washington, DC when I was 12 years old. It was a school trip, and we arrived in Dulles at 5am. While everyone was passed out on the bus, I sat there in the window seat amazed by all the trees on the 495. I know, trees, big whoop. But when you grow up in the dirt bowl of Las Vegas, you come to appreciate the sight of a little green, and what I saw, was A LOT of green. I didn't think it was possible to have so many trees. I thought it was the most beautiful thing, and after being awake for almost 24 hours, I couldn't imagine taking opportunity to sleep on the bus because I didn't want to miss it.
Now that I live here, I am still taken aback by all the green, and now the leaves are all changing colors and it is feast for the eyes. However, I do at times miss the openness of the desert. I have only seen a sunset on the east coast comparable to a Vegas sunset once. I definitely miss being able to see the whole valley and the surrounding mountains highlighted by oranges, yellows, and pinks. I miss the summer thunderstorms, where you can almost feel the electricity riding in the air. I miss being able to just drive some place where it is completely open, not enclosed, and where there are no people. The desert has its own beauty, even though it doesn't have trees :)
I definitely think it is important to try and conserve nature. In Vegas for example, our city basically consists of the strip and housing developments. There are a few parks here and there, but the desert is mainly viewed as a potential strip mall, casino, housing development, or as a storage for nuclear waste. Just because it isn't a Yosemite, doesn't mean that it isn't worth preserving.

"Slow Down Everyone, You're Moving Too Fast"

I have to be honest and say that it was rather hard to think of one most enchanting/magical experience I have had with the non-human world, since the reality is that I have had many in my lifetime already (practically everyday). Like Dave's post demonstrates, even relaxing at the beach on a random day can lead to amazing encounters with the non-human world, especially when it comes to the amazing marine life that exists such as dolphins, whales, jelly fish, sharks, etc. It was nice to hear Dave mention Blacks Beach in particular, because I spent a week there over this past Spring Break and couldn't help but hear my friends and others talk about the whale sightings, dolphins, etc. At Blacks, however, I only experienced great surfing weather, the occasional avoidance of ripcurls, and hippies enjoying huge bonfires at midnight on the day of a full moon. Don't ask, I guess its a Blacks Beach tradition? Dave, you can correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, my point is that whether it has been a reef shark sighting in the Great Barrier Reef seven years ago, offroadin it in an SUV through the Daintree rain forest with my family, or even spotting deer the other day on Mass. Ave. as I was walking home, nature is everywhere, and you cannot avoid it! Therefore, it is extremely important for us to take care of it, because it is not always a guarantee in life. At another level, the most/enchanting experience I have encountered is that no matter what, nature is always there to remind us that we are not the only ones inhabiting the Earth. From watching bald eagles, birds, loons, or even my Springer Spaniel Picasso run around near my lake back home, I continue to appreiate what nature offers us.

Its the peace and tranquility of nature, though not always the case (i.e. hurricanes, cyclones, etc.), that provides us with a place where we can relax, enjoy life, and share good times with friends and families. We just need to stop and recognize this world that exists around us, but this requires one to slow down and not move so fast when it comes to going about our daily routines. Nature and the non-human world can teach us a lot about what life is really about, and it can also offer us a way in which beauty and diversity can be illustrated throughout the world.

On Dolphins and Dennis Miller...

I have two most thrilling /magical/enchanting engagement experiences I have had with the non-human world. The first was when I was bodysurfing at Black’s Beach in San Diego and a pod (flock? Gaggle? I guess it is pod) of Dolphins started bodysurfing in the waves right near to me. At first I saw the fins in the water and thought I was surrounded by sharks, but then I saw one closer and realized they were Dolphins. It was amazing they moved so fast and were so elegant in the water, simply spectacular. The second is just daily interaction with my Cat; she is so smart and curious that everyday I am enchanted by her.

As for whether or not we should save nature, the answer cannot be summed up in the usefulness of it, yes I could argue about all the potential medicinal finds we are losing in the Rainforest everyday do to de-forestation, but I believe nature is important to save not for the narrow concerns of humans, but for the intrinsic value of nature itself. I once saw the comedian Dennis Miller, someone I used to respect, arguing for drilling in ANWAR, and his well thought through line of debate consisted of the fact that he probably would never go and see these Caribou in the Alaska wilderness so why keep it around? So basically his argument was that since ANWAR was not ever likely to contribute to his own personal enjoyment of life that there was no reason to keep it around, and he said this with a straight face! I guess it is the same mentality that would cause someone to chant, “Drill baby, drill!” A mentality pinning an imaginary “us” versus “them,” where the “them” are environmentalists and not the environment, because as has been demonstrated many times through Hurricanes and Tsunamis, you cannot beat Mother Nature, Mother Nature will always beat you. However, more importantly it is not necessary for something to be used or enjoyed by humans for it to have value, nature needs to be saved just because we have no moral right to destroy it.

If Elected...

Article about McCain, Obama, and climate change...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19climate.html?hp

Processed. Mmmm mmmm Good!

Is it even possible to eat without damaging the environment? I can't think of any agricultural method we could adopt to prevent environmental damage. Hmmm. Well I can't say that I think too much about the environment when I make food decisions. I eat out ALOT. And when I don't eat out, my diet basically consists of ramen noodles, quesadillas, turkey sandwiches, canned soups, and cereal. I know I'm not exactly the pillar of nutrition, but it's pretty much how I've eaten my entire life. I went from nursing to ramen noodles and Taco Bell. My mom worked all the time so every night was "yoyo" night aka "you're on your own". So instead of your standard meat and potatoes, I ate processed and processed. I have tried to eat healthy, but organic foods tend to be way more expensive, and I don't have the time to make myself a decent dinner. Unfortunately, quick and easy does not equal healthy, but it does equal more environmental damage. Everything comes in a package, and most of the time, it's a single serving package within a larger package. Most of the food I eat is packaged in plastic, which definitely isn't biodegradable. My diet basically consists on what is convenient at the time. Even worse, I drink ALOT of bottled water. Today in my marketing class (as I sat there with my 1 liter Dasani), my professor was talking about bottled water and how much environmental impact it causes. Apparently it takes 1.25 gallons of water to produce a plastic bottle that holds .25 gallons. All that water wasted for my convenience.

The food item on my list that probably had the most environmental impact was my three taco platter from baja fresh. It had one beef, chicken, and shrimp taco. Probably one of the most environmentally damaging meal ever. I don't even want to imagine how much of the cow was wasted so I could have a few cubes of beef. Let's skip the meat and get to the packaging. It was a plastic platter with a plastic cover in a plastic bag. And of course, none of them are recyclable, and the bag would have been reusable if the salsa hadn't leaked all over it. I have been trying to cut down on the fast food, for health and environmental reasons. But it's really hard when that is available. I mean, look at AU, your healthy choice is SubWay. Yuck.

Chickens at the Gate...

The subject of food choices and the environment has always interested me, not only because I like to think of myself as being somewhat careful about what I eat, but also because in my former life I was a Chef. I remember many times, usually when opening an enormous box of cleaned chicken breasts, pondering just how so many of animals it took to produce this one box of food, and how relatively inexpensive it was. I always joked that if I ever got to the gates of Saint Peter that a long line of chickens would be waiting to have a little chat with me. In the “Story of Stuff,” from class I learned about externalized costs and the true costs of eating, especially meat, to our diets.
I would have to say that in examining my food list, I would say that the greatest environmental impact was on the amount of meat I eat. I tell myself that I do not eat as much meat as I used to, especially beef, and I try to eat more chicken and fish. Yet I still can see that even in doing this I still use up a proportionately larger amount of the planets resources than I could or should. For example, from the reading, “The Oil We Eat: Following the Food Chain Back to Iraq” Richard Manning illustrates how eating tuna is maybe a thousand times more wasteful that eating plants as tuna is so far up on the food chain, simply due to the multiplier effect of fish eating fish going up the food chain. I guess the lesson is to become a strict vegetarian, yet here too are problems, as Manning also points out that most of the crops we eat start out as unprocessed and require enormous amounts of energy to turn into edible food. It seems the way we eat in our society today is so geared away from the environment, so completely divorced from the way we should be feeding ourselves that it is difficult if not impossible to not have a large environmental footprint no matter what personal food choices we make on a day to day basis.

Coffee with Guilt

It reflects poorly on me, but I’m inconsistent about keeping the environment in mind when making food choices. I try to be conscious of where my food comes from and how much energy it takes to get there, but I always end up feeling guilty, and wonder if there is much I can do to change this on an individual level.

One way might be to start with the beverage I depend on the most: coffee. As a coffee drinker, I wonder what initiatives I should take to have less of an impact on the environment. Should I only drink organic coffee? What if I bought from a local roaster? Another question I ask is how to go about this without being hypocritical: what good is it to bring a mug for coffee if coffee production is destroying natural eco-systems that will never fully recover?

Although coffee has a tremendous impact on the environment, beef has the greatest environmental impact. Eating beef is costly: deforestation, water scarcity, soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity are all results of cattle and beef production. And to think that beef is produced in abundance for the West…while millions of children and adults suffer from malnutrition and die from hunger. Based on my little knowledge on this issue, I'm going to cut it off here for now. Hope to add more after our next class.

"I'm not a plastic bag"

I would like to think that I have the environment in mind when making food choices. After all, we can all agree that when it comes to food, most people would like to know where exactly their food comes from and how did it get to them in the first place. Personally, I'm a nerd when it comes to food items such as fruit and vegetables and actually enjoy reading the little "Made in Guatemala" stickers or whatever country it may be. With geography and in particular geo-politics in mind, I wonder what exactly it took for that Granny Smith to make it to me in the first place. Is the apple from some tiny, quaint rural Guatemalan town or is it more likely to be from the outskirts of a place like Guatemala City and simply thrown onto the back of a truck? My guess is Option 2: Guatemala City, but your guess is as good as mine.

Regardless of what type of environment the apple came from, it is even more interesting to wonder who exactly was responsible for picking the apples, managing the orchards or farms, and ultimately who is in charge of the overall operations that allowed me to purchase the apple in a grocery store thousands of miles away from its birthplace. This is where the labor issue comes into the story.

If we are talking about keeping the environment in mind, then it is important to keep the workers in mind. Is the worker being paid a decent living wage on the apple orchard? How are the living conditions on that same orchard? Perhaps questions like these have encouraged some people to opt for organic foods in grocery stores such as Whole Foods, where they are more likely to know where exactly their food items come from. Yet, just because a product was grown locally, does not always mean it is environmentally or ecologically friendly. I have nothing against places like Whole Foods and Trader Joes. I love them, especially because I live above a Trader Joes at home, but I wonder sometimes why people shop at these places so much? I have come to realize that a lot of the reason has to do with the culture that comes along with shopping at trendy grocery stores like these. Being a Whole Foods shopper does not just mean you are buying groceries, but instead it comes with a type of progressive culture that is aimed at the "saving the planet" type of crowd. The people who truly believe they "do their part for helping the environment" through buying organic foods, using their "i'm not a plastic bag" to carry their items home, and maybe even opting for that $4 Odwalla every once and awhile. There is no problem with this kind of lifestyle, even if it means spending a few more dollars on a Granny Smith that was locally grown on an orchard in the town over. But, it is still important to make an effort to take this type of mindset with a grain of salt. Yes, maybe it is trendy or more liberating to shop at Co-Ops or Whole Foods instead of the overwhelmingly large and crowded Sam's Club or Cub Foods. But, the real question is related to whether or not your food items have had a greater environmental impact on the social, political, and economic systems of where and who it came from in the first place.

I have to admit, if we're talking about the food or drinks we have consumed in the past few days, then the eco-footprint for my choices would not be the greatest example of what to do right. I eat a lot of chicken, vegetables, and fruits, but even more so I drink a lot of Chai tea and coffee products. If anything, I pay closer attention to the types of wasteful containers, plastics, and styrofoams that are used everyday so that I can have my coffee or tea. I have started to use my own mugs and containers more, but the reality is that it is very convenient to order a drink at places like Starbucks where you don't have to always worry about bringing your own cup, especially if you're in a rush. I know this may seem trivial in terms of one coffee cup, but I think it's important to think about how your eco-footprint can affect the environment in relation to waste. Just think of the thousands of others out there who are consuming the same types of coffee or tea drinks each day. Where does that waste go? Luckily, I believe our generation is more socially conscious of environmental effects, but we still have a problem with actually taking action to solve many problems. Maybe that Granny Smith was from the neighboring town, but does that alone make it better and more environmentally friendly than the Guatemalan apple that was shipped over a few days ago? It is definitely a question worth investigating.

The question of whether or not technology can save us is not the type of question that has a simple answer. I can see arguments for both sides - viewing technology as both destructive and constructive. Whether or not technology can save us from an environmental holocaust, now that all depends on how we utilize it.
If we were to spend billions of dollars in research for greener technology and had millions of people working on that project, of course technology could have an incredible effect on the environment. We could do more to save precious wetlands and rainforests, or create machines to purify the air. What we can do to the environment with technology is still relatively unknown because technology is always changing. But we need be smart with our new technology and not waste research on things that might hurt the environment more, like how to build new factories ten times faster (causing ten times more pollution), or build robots that could destroy us all (or at the very least steal all our jobs!). It is scary to think about what some technology could mean for the human race, but it's also fascinating. Thing of all of the things we have yet to discover because we don't have the technology. Maybe we will discover that people can move to Mars and live there, or that there is another galaxy out there with thousands of hospitable environments. But even moving to another planet would not solve our problems, just move them around. Until humans learn how to live less wastefully, technology will not be able to help that much. We need to learn how to work with technology and our lifestyles if we want to truly make a difference.

“I unplug stuff more…”

This intentionally “folksy” and grammatically awkward line is appearing all over the city on bus stops in an advertisement for Chevron. The words are supposedly coming from a nice looking youngish woman who is presumably letting us know that she is doing her part to help the environment and to get us off foreign oil. This goes to the heart of one of the debates we have been having in class, that our government and the corporations are, through advertisements such as this, trying to make the consumer feel personally responsible for the environment and dependency on foreign oil. By assuming that all it takes is a little effort by each one of us, rather than a wholesale societal change, to stop climate change and that change is well within our reach, all we have to do is “unplug stuff more.”

Okay, I got that small tangent out of the way, now on to technology and a little more positive outlook this week. I have been firmly in the camp that believes we are fooling ourselves if we think all we have to do is wait for a technological solution out of our current problems concerning the environment. However, that being said, there are interesting ideas that, if implemented, could help to solve climate change to some degree. For example, this video by Amory Lovins discusses new conservation technologies that are truly astounding:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html

He has bold claims that the United States can break the oil habit and revitalize the economy through using light-weight carbon composite materials to build cars.
While certainly this is not a complete solution to all the problems one can foresee, given a rather large problem of mustering the financial backing, that a combination of technologies coupled with grand societal changes on an international level could go a long way in beginning to address the issues of climate change towards a more positive future.

Riding Mankind

Will technology save us?

Are we willing to depend on anything else?

We tend to think of technology as a positive force because it make life easier. Most of the things we depend on are a product of technology, stuff created to make our lives more efficient, and stuff that has arguably put us in the current environmental crisis. If the power of technology is so irresistible to us, do we expect it to help guide us to a better future and resolve our environmental crisis?

If we expect technology to save us, we should think about an Emerson quote we talked about in class: “things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” Consider how this applies to current technology like the iPhone. The iPhone is impressive: one tiny device makes it possible to call, check e-mail, read newspapers, play games, listen to music, find restaurants, and even provides directions when you're lost on E Street. It's great and may make life more organized, but dependence on it quickly crosses the line from organization to control. For users, the iPhone is in the saddle, riding mankind. Consciously or not, we’ve accepted this.

Although environmentalists know solutions to our environmental crisis can come from sources other than technology, I’m afraid we’re not willing to change our lifestyles enough to invest in other options.

Sorcerer's Apprentice

I'm kind of sitting on the fence on this question. I generally think that yes, technology will save us. Technology is continuously getting better, there are so many things that are in the works, that I'm sure we don't even know about. If we are supposed to have intelligent robots by 2030, imagine all of the other advancements we will have made by then. Maybe we will have a cure for everything and we will all just live forever and ever!!! Juuuust kidding. Could you imagine the Paris Hilton's and Britney Spears' of this planet living forever? I know, it's the kind of things nightmares are made of...Ok, back on track. I'm just saying that, with the way technology is progressing now, it's hard to think that there won't eventually be some kind of technological solution out there that will preserve us AND the planet.

BUT...I also think that while we are trying to create new technologies to save us and the environment, that we'll end up screwing ourselves over before any good comes from all of these tecno advancements. For example, a grocery store in Canada offered five cents for those customers who brought back their used bags. The store would then recylce those bags and create a sturdier bag that would last longer. Yay green livin'! Well, later the store found out that it caused more environmental damage to create the recycled bag than it did just to create your average grocery bag.

I think that technology has the potential to do a great many things offer us, but it's almost like "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" from 'Fantasia'. We are currently in the apprentice position. We run amok with our master's wand, making magical mops and buckets to our chores, creating all sorts of instruments that do our work for us and make our lives easier. Yet, there will come a time when we can not control our instruments that we created any longer, and then we're in BIG trouble. We will only be saved if we can learn to control our wand (technology) and learn to become the Sorcerer who can tame it.

Subsidies and High Crop Prices

Here is the link to the US NEWS & WORLD REPORT article on ethanol if you're interested:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/01/24/subsidies-and-high-crop-prices.html

Technology: A Necessary Evil

The question as to whether or not “technology” will save us is one I have asked myself before. It is important to look at how much we have advanced as a society because of technology, but it is also just as important to realize that with great advancements and improvements to society emerge other kinds of problems from the same types of technologies that benefited us in the first place.

In order to accurately address the question "will technology save us," we need to define what technology really means. If you turn to Merriam-Webster, one definition of technology is "the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area." Therefore, in terms of the environment, technology is the practical application of knowledge in relation to the environment. Without getting too caught up in definitions and words to describe technology, this kind of practical application of knowledge has a significant meaning to the fate of environmental problems in the future.

For example, as we have discussed in class earlier, the technologies that have emerged in order to solve problems have the potential to actually hurt or harm other aspects of our environment just by simply "helping" to solve the other problem. An example of this can be seen through the technologies that have been heavily implemented around the United States in hopes of lessening our dependence on foreign oil. Many individuals, especially farmers, have focused on ethanol research as a means to fix the oil problem. As a result, many farms have simply focused on their cornfields, because it is here that they believe they can make a profit since there is such a high demand for ethanol research, specifically in relation to U.S. government subsidies on corn-based ethanol. The fields, however, are being destroyed. Farmers are relying too much on one crop and trying to make a living as it has become harder and harder to keep the American farm alive and functioning. Here, the issue of the role of the government comes into the picture. Should the farmers receive agriculture subsidies for their ethanol production?

The following is an excerpt from US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, January 2008:

"What's causing grocery bills to rise? Some blame policies that have made it especially profitable for farmers to divert their crops into corn for the production of ethanol. "The ethanol industry is hogging more and more of the corn supply, and that is squeezing ranchers and dairy farmers," says Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank.

The federal government gives preferential treatment to domestic, corn-based ethanol in the form of a 54-cent-per-gallon tax on imported ethanol, which largely affects Brazilian producers of ethanol from sugar cane. That tax comes on top of a 51-cent exemption from the federal excise tax on gasoline that goes to fuel mixed with ethanol.

These subsidies raise the demand for domestic ethanol. That drives up the price of not only the corn used to produce the ethanol but also of wheat and soybeans, which farmers plant less of because they switch to corn. That, in turn, translates into a scarcer supply—and higher prices."

Although this is only one example of the types of problems that arise from technology, especially in regards to the involvement of government in problems, it seems to accurately illustrate how technological improvements can affect individuals, specifically ourselves as consumers, at a more personal level. If the price of food increases, what does that really mean for us? More importantly, how does that have an effect on individuals living in poorer nations who could barely afford the high price of products such as rice in the first place? We have talked about the food riots around the world since Day 1, which reveal to us that technology is not always effective in many cases. Yet, it is important to believe in technology and the fact that it can have a significant effect on the population.

The practical application of knowledge means that we not only learn from our mistakes as we continue to search for answers to solve problems, but it also means that because of the spread of knowledge around the world, technology and the flow of information and awareness regarding environmental issues have a positive effect on our global society. The fact that we can discuss these issues within the blog world and share with others is only one example of how important the spread of knowledge and increased discussion is for the future of environmental progress.

Slate article

Hey Everyone,

I think this is very relevant to what we're studying in class. Check it out: http://www.slate.com/id/2200911/

We need to start somewhere!

Professor Maniates has valid points - it's true that we are being lazy as a global community when it comes to the environment. But Americans seem to be lazy about everything these days. Look at the wars we are fighting in the middle east. If this were the 1960's or 70's you would see thousands of protesters with signs concerning the troops, economy, and gas prices. Today, though there is significant turmoil in our economy and we are facing one of the biggest financial crises in history, you barely hear a peep. Don't get me wrong, I truly believe that the environment is just as, if not more important than the economy, but if we can't even get an uprising over significant current events, how can we get people all excited to make large changes concerning the environment, a much slower disaster? While Professor Maniates is quick to criticize the "easy way out" when it comes to helping the environment, his solutions are hardly anything to write home about. Sure the general public being lazy environmentalists wouldn't be as effective than if everyone was a hardcore environmentalist, but we need to be realistic here - that would never happen. If everybody started somewhere, doing easy things to help out our planet, it would become second nature to recycle or turn off the water when brushing teeth. Once people realize that they actually can make a difference, perhaps there would be more public interest in the subject matter. And yes, a strong environmentalist leader (The MLK Jr of the environment?) would help as well. Americans are not willing to make big steps at this point, though it pains me to have to say this. I think that we should encourage everyone to do at least something, and then we can go from there!

What then?

While I agree that leadership is necessary to effectively confront global environmental change, I’m not so sure it starts with government. If coordinated action from government and individuals is what we’re after, or, if action by the government is the end goal, the potential for INGOs as a means to be effective is huge.

International organizations force states to do things they wouldn’t necessarily do, and in this respect, I think that citizens can actually make a difference. INGOs allow so called “non-state actors” to rally around and alter policy preferences. If we’re going to talk about history like Maniates brought up in his article, why not consider the success and influence of citizen activism more recently: case in point, the activism of Jody Williams in the 1990s against land mines not only challenged US interests, a review conference at the UN ended with a partial ban. Also, since the primary goal of INGOs is information, “frank talk” about how to best confront situations in ways that are “rewarding, confusing, and creative” is possible.

Someone brought this up in class today and I think it's a valid point: maybe American citizens are apathetic towards environmental change and policy because it’s perceived as an abstract thing that it is out of our control. Not in the sense that we have no control over our impact, but in the sense that no matter what small eco-friendly actions individuals take, recycling, driving a hybrid car, etc, it’s unimportant. Like Rachel mentioned, examples of successful IO initiatives may entice more people to get on board for environmental activism.

Leadership required

Hi again! While I agree with Professor Maniates argument that we, as Americans, are only asked to make the easy choices as far as environmental degradation, I do not quite share his optimism that when presented with the truth, and when that truth involves drastic lifestyle changes that Americans will stand shoulder to shoulder and readily accept the challenge. After all, when was the last time we as Americans truly banded together and sacrificed to solve a problem, WWII? I may be pessimistic, but our consumer based culture is not geared for sacrifice. Granted we have generally not been asked to, all that was asked of us after 9/11 was to go shopping, but if we were asked, more than likely the response would be a mass withdrawal into our ever-spiraling consumption shells.
When confronted with the fundamental societal changes and upheavals that are truly required in order to put the environmental situation in the world right would require drastic elite leadership, the kind that drug the country kicking and screaming to the issues of racism and integration. Maniates is correct that we do need true governmental leadership on these issues. Leadership who will guide us and do what is right regarding the environment even when it goes against corporate interests and public outcry and involves the possibility that they will not be re-elected. If I ever see even a glimmer of such actions, then perhaps, I will not be so pessimistic.

Is Easy Good Enough?

I was very impressed by Professor Maniates article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." I agree with him that Americans do in fact work best when we come together as a nation during times of crisis and search for solutions in order to solve problems. It is hard not to get wrapped into believing that simple, easy individual changes to our daily lives can be the answer to the "planetary emergency." Part of me has always thought of Professor Maniates point about large environmental agencies such as the EPA and even the American Association for the Advancement of Science truly believing that small, individual changes are "all they think we'll go for."

However, at the same time, I believe these particular agencies try to focus on what is practical for the American citizen. It is sad to think that we haven't done more as a nation to fight environmental dangers, but the fact of the matter is that Americans don't know how to address the issues in a way that is beyond what they can do individually. The issue, for many, becomes far too abstract and overwhelming if we always look at the "big picture," and therefore miss the opportunity to convince Americans that they can help the environmental challenges at a personal level. I agree that there should be more done on the part of the nation as a whole to address these issues, but I don't think it is productive to always blame Americans for being lazy or not caring enough about the environment, because there are many hard-working Americans who have made an effort to better the environment around them. Yet, the number of hard-working Americans who do actively campaign against climate change and other environmental issues is still not high enough. We need to get more people on board to fight this. It's true that it won't be easy to do so, but I still believe it is a fight worth fighting.

Going Green..

I apologize if this blog seems a tad pessimistic, optimists beware.. I generally liked Professor Maniates' article: short, sweet, and too the point! I also thought that it was interesting that he posted it on one of the holidays where Americans consume the most. On Thursday, we stuff our faces, watch some good ol' football, then stuff our faces some more. This gluttonous day is followed by another day of over-consumption: Black Friday. If shopping malls are America's temples (as Professor Nicholson so wonderfully put it), then Black Friday is the holiest day of all. It's a day where Americans wake up early to take advantage of extreme discounts. And what do discounts mean? More consumption, if you can get more bang for your buck, Black Friday is your opportunity to "go out with a bang". I know that Maniates accuses many authors giving advice that is "private, individualistic, cost-effective, and easy", which is definitely true. But what else should these authors do? It isn't easy to permeate America's cult of consumption. If someone goes all out and tries to tell your Average Joe to stop using his H3, recylce everything, take 5 minute showers, etc., this person is going to be viewed as a crazy hippie and no one is going to listen. So it makes sense for authors and those who call themselves environmentalists to appeal to America's cost-effective side. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans are selfish, and everyone is out for number #1, so it isn't surprising that everyone isn't pouncing on the opportunity to recycle or save a little energy.
I do agree that we need to band together as a nation and address the issue of our affects on climate change, but the problem with trying to find solutions is that not everyone agrees that we have such a significant impact on the Earth. We all know that the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. This is definitely hard for Americans to admit to because we don't see our impact on the environment, we ship our waste else where.Then, it's not our problem anymore. I do appreciate Maniates noble proposition for us all to come together and save the world, however, the reality is that people just don't care.

Environmental Perspectives

Good points Dave and Rachel! I agree with your categorizations: Senator McCain – market liberal, Senator Obama – institutionalist. As Rachel mentioned, it can be difficult to fit the candidates into a specific category since some of their platforms have more than one focus. According to Clapp and Dauvergne, neither market liberals nor institutionalists believe that we are “officially” experiencing a global environmental crisis. To me, this suggests that market liberals and institutionalists question the merits of environmental change such as global warming, which doesn’t seem to be the case for either candidate.

One of the main instruments of liberalism is international institutions, so it’s not surprising that Obama wants to re-engage with the UN on climate change issues. Although McCain also states that he will “actively engage to lead UN negotiations,” Obama is more specific. For example, Obama states that he will focus on working with institutions such as the UNFCC and ultimately create a Global Energy Forum.

McCain’s focus seems to shift out of the international arena. He claims that economic growth domestically will help to improve the environment by implementing such policies as “Cap-and-Trade.” According to his website, “Cap-and-Trade harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels.” Such policy highlights his focus on economics through promise of financial incentives: if you participate in this program and invent a way to reduce emissions, you can “sell [your] extra permits for cash.”

Overall, it appears that Senator Obama is more environmentally-oriented. Obama’s focus is on sustainability and global environmental cooperation: to borrow from Hardin, instruments necessary to save our global commons. One final thought -- Obama and Biden currently co-sponsor the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, a bill to amend the clean air act and reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. What do you think about the bill? Link to the summary is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-309 .

See you in class!

McCain vs. Obama; Old Guard vs. New Guard

After looking over both Obama and McCain's environmental platforms, I agree with Dave's perspective on the Clapp and Dauvergne's categories. McCain seems to be more of a market liberal; whereas, Obama seems to be more closely linked to the institutionalists. Obama speaks of consuming foreign oil faster than ever before, and that "energy independence" has been an issue with every single president since Nixon! In terms of global warming, Obama speaks of melting glaciers and dangerous weather patterns. "Global warming is now a fact!"

Both McCain and Obama believe that the U.S. relies too much on foreign oil. Yet, like Obama states, McCain voted against energy bills, against solar power, against wind power, etc. McCain speaks of the "failure of Washington to address environmental issues," but Obama brings up the fact that McCain was part of the problem in Washington for 26/30 years of failure.

I don't believe it's easy to always use Clapp and Dauvergne's categories in order to classify each of the candidates. Obviously every idea concerning environmental improvement will not always line up with only one of the groups. Obama seems to be more for stronger institutions (institutionalist), yet he also addresses the importance of saving the environment (bio-environmentalist) through strong institutions AND government regulation.

I thought Obama's environmental platforms were far more direct than McCain's. It was easier for me to understand after a couple of minutes of reading or listening to one of Obama's environmental speech, that he was for or against certain environmental policies or changes. In terms of McCain's platform, although I could tell that he was for an increase in things such as alternative fuels and new technologies, it seemed that Obama was more up front about the fact that the environmental is in tough shape. As a result, I was far more impressed by Obama's environmental platforms than McCain's. Obviously I am bias toward Obama, since when it comes down to it, I still think McCain represents an old guard as well as representing the "Washington" that has not effectively addressed the environment in the past! Obama is right, no matter who is at fault, something has got to change. If McCain did not do much about the environment in the past, then what makes people think that he will once he is president?

More thoughts from Dave...

Hi all! Looking at Clapp and Dauvergne’s typologies from Paths to a Green World to characterize our two wonderful presidential candidates did not seem too difficult, as they seemed a pretty close fit in their respective categories. While both agree on the cap and trade issue, that is setting a limit or cap on carbon emissions with incentives and credits industries can sell or trade, but there are some clear ideological separations from there. Speaking broadly, I see McCain as a near verbatim Market Liberal, while Obama seems much more of an Institutionalist. Of course, there is room for argument on this.

My reasoning is that, in general, a Market Liberal tends to see the woes of the environment in terms of lagging economic development, and that the free market, if given free reign can solve these problems on its own. McCain also puts an emphasis on new technologies to solve climate change while strengthening the economy.

Obama as more of an Institutionalist, while being similar to Market Liberals in terms of economic growth and a reliance on technology, his differing focus lies in the utilization of international institutions rather than the free market as a means. Obama’s platform suggests he is more of an Institutionalist in that he wants to use government institutions to initiate changes to the current system. For example, new job training programs for clean technology and federal investment in plug-in electric vehicles.

I must say that to me Obama makes more sense on environmental issues, his plan calls for much needed infrastructure investment. He also embraces more long term energy strategies such as and at least a call for ending our dependence on foreign oil from the Middle-east and Venezuela and, albeit the rather modest reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

As for McCain’s proposals, it seems to me that we have tried the free market as savior many times over, such as a war run with private, some would call mercenary, soldiers from Blackwater, or by a de-regulated finance system that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is “to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.” This seems to be a great deal of the McCain plan, letting the wolves guard the henhouse some more since it has always worked so well in the past. Also, the last time I checked Halliburton doesn’t have a bill of rights!