When it comes to Climate Change, technology consistently receives some of the most mixed reviews. It is, in the same breath, condemned for pollution and then vaunted as the only hope of our salvation in the form of wind, solar, and hydro energy as well as greater efficiency. How is it that our feelings towards technology are so mixed? We are alternately Luddites and technophiliacs, slandering technology one moment and then praising it the next.
If we take a moment to review some technological advances, and see if there is a common trend shared among them, we might get a better understanding of what our future holds for us.
The wheel: It think we could put this solidly in the "good" category, though in recent times the things we've begun to attach to wheels (namely, motors) are somewhat more objectionable.
The hammer: Though helpful, the hammer is as much a sign of destruction as growth. The same hammer could one day construct a house and the next, a gallows. Next, it could be put to work tearing both down.
Nuclear energy: Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned this. A bit polarizing. Let's just say that no consensus has yet been reached by environmentalists, but the possibility of good is likely outweighed by the possibility of nuclear winter.
Things to think about as well: Nuclear waste, Nuclear weapons, North Korea
Wind Turbines: Most would argue to place this one in the good category—finally true cheap and clean energy. Yet I feel that we must ask, what will we use the energy for? We could use it to power homes, or factories spewing smog into the air. We could charge electric cars or power gas stations continuing to pump out fuel.
And this then, is our answer. Technology is not an answer in itself. We must ask, what will we use it for? It is just a tool, to use for good or ill, with fine or hurtful intentions. Technology could save us, if we found out how to best implement it and did so for those purposes alone. However, it could just as easily (and much more quickly) destroy any hope we have of continuing life on this earth as we know it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
A Matter of Proportion
The gains that the stimulus pain make for the consideration of the environment's future are rather difficult to define so close after its passage. Certainly that money has been allocated for tax credits for greening the economy is a wonderful sign that even at the highest levels the crisis of climate change is one that cannot be denied. Obama had continually mentioned as part of his platform a drive to reinvigorate the power grid and to open up opportunity to innovate in the use of renewable energies. The focus it seems of Obama's plan is a sort of opening-up to the adoption of further renewable energy. So looking optimistically, we can see that the government is starting to embrace the fact that renewables are the future. Thinking critically, we see that there is still a lot of money used to continue clean coal technology. Why is this is significant? Well, many might think that clean coal being a myth is the real issue. That wasting that money is the folly. Frankly, though, it is the motive of supporting clean coal that is most bothersome. Politicians, it seems, are still beholden to powerful special interests, and there are few stronger special interests than oil and coal. Thus, rather than looking critically at the science behind clean coal, we are continuing to support it.
Another issue with the plan is simply the magnitude of support for energy and pollution correction versus the myriad of other causes that get much larger amounts. I suppose that that contrast in support coupled with the open-to-but-not-necessarily-pushing-greenness approach with tax credits make me worry about the administration's sense of the immediacy of the problem.
Another issue with the plan is simply the magnitude of support for energy and pollution correction versus the myriad of other causes that get much larger amounts. I suppose that that contrast in support coupled with the open-to-but-not-necessarily-pushing-greenness approach with tax credits make me worry about the administration's sense of the immediacy of the problem.
Environment: 1, Economy: 70,000,000,000
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill could be a step in the right direction for America. Yet, it is important to realize that, at best, it is a small step. It allocates a large sum of money to “greening” the economy: by making our energy usage more efficient, by improving mass-transit systems, and by increasing the amount of alternative energy we use. It sets aside funds to improve energy infrastructure, and to further research global warming and technologies to deal with it.
However, it has many downsides. Money is granted to NASA for further space exploration, which, though intellectually stimulating holds neither promise nor chance to solve our current environmetal crises. Almost 30 billion will go into the improvement of our highways and bridges, so that our cars can continue to pollute the enivronment. Another 2 billion will go into airports and airplanes, ensuring that we will be able to release those harmful greenhouse gases high in the atmosphere.
As Doug stated, 5% of the Bill will support environmental measures. That is simply not enough. The Introduction of the Bill states, “Our short term task is to try to prevent the loss of millions of jobs and get our economy moving. The long term task is to make the needed investments that restore the ability of average middle income families to increase their income and build a decent future for their children.” Nothing about the environment is mentioned. Instead, it is imperative that we work to increase our affluence even more. This Bill, at best, nods to the need to address environmental issues. However, as long as the environment remains on the fringes of our policies, we have no chance of effecting any meaningful change.
However, it has many downsides. Money is granted to NASA for further space exploration, which, though intellectually stimulating holds neither promise nor chance to solve our current environmetal crises. Almost 30 billion will go into the improvement of our highways and bridges, so that our cars can continue to pollute the enivronment. Another 2 billion will go into airports and airplanes, ensuring that we will be able to release those harmful greenhouse gases high in the atmosphere.
As Doug stated, 5% of the Bill will support environmental measures. That is simply not enough. The Introduction of the Bill states, “Our short term task is to try to prevent the loss of millions of jobs and get our economy moving. The long term task is to make the needed investments that restore the ability of average middle income families to increase their income and build a decent future for their children.” Nothing about the environment is mentioned. Instead, it is imperative that we work to increase our affluence even more. This Bill, at best, nods to the need to address environmental issues. However, as long as the environment remains on the fringes of our policies, we have no chance of effecting any meaningful change.
Environmental Prominence in an Economic Act
The Stimulus Plan passed last week, named The American Resource and Recovery Act, has both positive and negative aspects when viewed through an environmental filter. The Act takes an unprecedented level of action on the environmental front, but then again, much about the ARRA is unprecedented. The total allocation of funds for the environment is different depending on the source you look at, but the general consensus is that a great deal of funding has been appropriated. Reinforcing the Act's environmental credentials is the fact that several of the core tenants and stated intents for the Act are labeled as development of clean energy, environmental protection, etc. The funding labeled as Environment and Energy is often not as environmentally friendly as one might assume. For instance, a greater amount of the provisions for transportation are going to expanding and fixing the Nation's highway and road system than to development of much more environmentally conscious mass-transit systems.
That said, the prominent standing the environmental issues have in this Act bodes extremely well for the future of environmental policy. This is fundamentally an economic recovery act. In past administrations, economic interests have come at the expense of environmental imperatives. The prominent standing of the environment in this bill signals a great departure from policies of past administrations.
If this administration gets its way, I think environmental interests will come to play a huge role in determining the future of our nation. I hope that Obama hasn't bled away all of his political and financial capital with this Act. The fate of his first term rests on the success or failure of this bill in turning around the economy.
That said, the prominent standing the environmental issues have in this Act bodes extremely well for the future of environmental policy. This is fundamentally an economic recovery act. In past administrations, economic interests have come at the expense of environmental imperatives. The prominent standing of the environment in this bill signals a great departure from policies of past administrations.
If this administration gets its way, I think environmental interests will come to play a huge role in determining the future of our nation. I hope that Obama hasn't bled away all of his political and financial capital with this Act. The fate of his first term rests on the success or failure of this bill in turning around the economy.
The Green Package
With $5 billion set aside to make homes and buildings more energy efficient, it is hard to argue that Obama's stimulus packages has not taken the environment into consideration. This money will go towards not only saving energy but also creating new jobs for people in need during these times of economic crisis. In fact, according to President Obama, the plan would allow for the creation of 460,000 jobs as well as double the amount of alternative energy produced over the next three years.
Another initiative taken in this plan towards greener energy is to move 3,000 miles of transmission lines in the attempt to use electricity from wind farms and solar installations in the West and the Southwest to consumers living in the rest of the country. Although this action might take longer to implement, it is, nonetheless, one that will aid in out fight against further deterioration of our planet.
With all these things considered, I would have to say that the package can only be a good step towards correcting our errors. Environmentalists have been demanding that the government take more responsibility and it looks to me like the United States government, with this package, has done just that. At such a hard economic time this action is really great, for not only will attention be given towards bettering the environment, but other governments will look at this and might be convinced to do something similar in their own countries. In this way, more efforts like this stimulus could occur around the world resulting in a global response to this global problem we are in danger of facing.
References:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101059253
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99895320
Another initiative taken in this plan towards greener energy is to move 3,000 miles of transmission lines in the attempt to use electricity from wind farms and solar installations in the West and the Southwest to consumers living in the rest of the country. Although this action might take longer to implement, it is, nonetheless, one that will aid in out fight against further deterioration of our planet.
With all these things considered, I would have to say that the package can only be a good step towards correcting our errors. Environmentalists have been demanding that the government take more responsibility and it looks to me like the United States government, with this package, has done just that. At such a hard economic time this action is really great, for not only will attention be given towards bettering the environment, but other governments will look at this and might be convinced to do something similar in their own countries. In this way, more efforts like this stimulus could occur around the world resulting in a global response to this global problem we are in danger of facing.
References:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101059253
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99895320
Monday, February 16, 2009
My Color Green
What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?
I am conflicted about the most enchanting experience I've had with nature. It is the most vivid memory in the entirety of my experience; almost too vivid for me to think it's real. I think and dream about it nearly every day (or night as it may be). I also have no context in which to place it. That said, it has a kind of grip on me that won't let me write it off as the work of a fanciful imagination.
The memory is always the same. The same duration. The same smell of moisture laden air blanketing my body. I awake, my eyes remain closed. A sense of completion, satisfaction and unity unparalleled by any other experience courses through my veins. I am intensely conscious of every slow breath. In. Out. I move ever so slightly and my eyelids part, early morning rays spill in the widening crack. My pupils adjust to see a dazzling forest. I stare straight up at the most intensely lit green forest canopy overhead. This green has become my mind's definition of the word green. A soft wind stirs the dew-soaked bed of leafs I lie upon. One of the leafs twirls in the eddying wind and soars up and over my face, blocking the sun's streams of light, illuminating the leaf's vasculature. It ends right there. Everytime, the same place. The same length.
This experience has instilled in me a profound love of nature. It is perhaps my favorite of all my memories.
And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Saving nature is an important issue because so much of the human experience is based around nature. If future man is to understand his past, he must know nature, and the only way to know nature is to experience it personally. Appreciation of the beauty and magnificence of nature is a uniting force. Like music - it breaches barriers between people.
I am conflicted about the most enchanting experience I've had with nature. It is the most vivid memory in the entirety of my experience; almost too vivid for me to think it's real. I think and dream about it nearly every day (or night as it may be). I also have no context in which to place it. That said, it has a kind of grip on me that won't let me write it off as the work of a fanciful imagination.
The memory is always the same. The same duration. The same smell of moisture laden air blanketing my body. I awake, my eyes remain closed. A sense of completion, satisfaction and unity unparalleled by any other experience courses through my veins. I am intensely conscious of every slow breath. In. Out. I move ever so slightly and my eyelids part, early morning rays spill in the widening crack. My pupils adjust to see a dazzling forest. I stare straight up at the most intensely lit green forest canopy overhead. This green has become my mind's definition of the word green. A soft wind stirs the dew-soaked bed of leafs I lie upon. One of the leafs twirls in the eddying wind and soars up and over my face, blocking the sun's streams of light, illuminating the leaf's vasculature. It ends right there. Everytime, the same place. The same length.
This experience has instilled in me a profound love of nature. It is perhaps my favorite of all my memories.
And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?
Saving nature is an important issue because so much of the human experience is based around nature. If future man is to understand his past, he must know nature, and the only way to know nature is to experience it personally. Appreciation of the beauty and magnificence of nature is a uniting force. Like music - it breaches barriers between people.
Before most people are awake
As both John and Supriya have emphasized, nature's influence is so pervasive it may be impossible to nail down a definitive "most magical" moment. After all, nature was once the whole world, and even considering how difficult it is to channel all the drone of mankind there is a eminence to the creeping growth and swirling winds that surround us. Perhaps my fondest memory of nature's intervention though in my life occurred this past summer. I worked at two sister summer camps with a mission of inspecting our religious views emphasizing the message of stewardship in the Bible. Rather than the exploitative interpretation that many people have mistakenly carried out, the camp was a lovely opportunity to come with creation. To get the counselors to more deeply experience the vitality and majesty of the environs that North and South Carolina could afford the camping program, we were made to hike up Rockface. Beginning at 4 AM in the cold of the pre-dawn, the first group began our ascent. The beginning of the trip was a virtually pitch black scrawl over hilly moss with the sounds of insects and the dewy persistence of life that goes on long before most people are awake.
Little were we warned that our resolve would have to match such persistence as miles into the trek when we took a break at a large root structure, we were told that we were a bit over halfway and the rest of the trek would be exceedingly steep. Sensing the coming of the sunrise, we rushed to reach the summit in the ever-increasing light. Finally there, many who found the trip had pushed them to the limit broke into tears as a sort of release(I was later to find out that this was a common practice of this particularly person, but I certainly appreciated the gravity of the situation). The pinnacle provided a natural clearing upon which we watched the sun break the horizon miles away over sprawling green foothills and peaks. I could not muster a word until we were back at camp. I pondered literature, art, architecture, love-- the entirety of man's most treasured exploits-- and could not find one thing to contend with what consumed my vision and what I knew was only the smallest section of what nature could put forth.
I suppose it is with this statement that I make my case for saving nature. Humans toil to keep intact so many of the inherited accomplishments of artists, writers, craftsmen, and thinkers that came before us. If these can still manage to pale in comparison to nature's beauty, and were you to have been on that mountain on that morning, you'd know that they can, then preserving nature is just as vital a pursuit. In many cases, nature is the source of innovation and introspection in poetry, architecture, and in relationships. To see it disappear might certainly mean that the scope of our abilities to produce these essentially human exploits might also dwindle to nothing.
Little were we warned that our resolve would have to match such persistence as miles into the trek when we took a break at a large root structure, we were told that we were a bit over halfway and the rest of the trek would be exceedingly steep. Sensing the coming of the sunrise, we rushed to reach the summit in the ever-increasing light. Finally there, many who found the trip had pushed them to the limit broke into tears as a sort of release(I was later to find out that this was a common practice of this particularly person, but I certainly appreciated the gravity of the situation). The pinnacle provided a natural clearing upon which we watched the sun break the horizon miles away over sprawling green foothills and peaks. I could not muster a word until we were back at camp. I pondered literature, art, architecture, love-- the entirety of man's most treasured exploits-- and could not find one thing to contend with what consumed my vision and what I knew was only the smallest section of what nature could put forth.
I suppose it is with this statement that I make my case for saving nature. Humans toil to keep intact so many of the inherited accomplishments of artists, writers, craftsmen, and thinkers that came before us. If these can still manage to pale in comparison to nature's beauty, and were you to have been on that mountain on that morning, you'd know that they can, then preserving nature is just as vital a pursuit. In many cases, nature is the source of innovation and introspection in poetry, architecture, and in relationships. To see it disappear might certainly mean that the scope of our abilities to produce these essentially human exploits might also dwindle to nothing.
Natural Beauty of Nature
I agree with John in that is really hard to think about one specific magical moment that I have had with nature, because there are so many. However, the most recent magical and thrilling experiences I had, occurred over this past Christmas break. I was in the tiny island of Mauritius for two weeks, and, simply put, it was amazing. I have two top highlights from this trip (I say top because there were many highlights!), so I will share both, because I cannot choose between the two. The first is when I got to do what is called an "Underwater Walk", where you wear a breathing apparatus that looks like a big glass helmet on your head, and you are dropped into the sea and you actually get to walk around. I got to interact with the beautiful different varieties of fish in their own environment, which was just absolutely unbelievable. I got to walk between a school Zebrafish as well as touch a live octopus, experiences I will never forget!
Another fantastic and magical moment that I got to experience with the non-human world while in Mauritius was at a wildlife sanctuary. On this occasion, I got to interact with the Queen of the jungle herself, an incredibly beautiful lioness. This was such a thrilling experience, it is just hard to describe. Its one of things where you just have to do in order to really understand just how amazing it is to be in such close proximity to those magnificent animals. Another moment I will cherish forever!
But, you do not need to travel half way across the world to observe and experience a magical moment with nature. It might be hard to see it, living in the urban jungle that we do, but it is still there, and it is our job to ensure that it continues to exist. There are so many reasons for why we would want to do so. For one, it serves as a reminder for where we have evolved from, and destroying it would result in a loss of our very connection that we have with this planet that we reside on. Secondly, there is a reason everyone likes to get away from the big cities so often and that is because nature soothes us and cures us of our stress and other illnesses we tend to accumulate while living in the polluted cities. Lastly, although these are by no means the only reasons we should save nature, the very beauty of it should be enough incentive to save it.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Nature Good. Period.
To name just one magical experience I’ve had with nature, and then to have it be the most magical, is most definitely not a simple task for me and quite possibly not possible. When it comes to nature, I’m still a little kid full of wonder. My most recent magical moment happened just yesterday. A couple close friends and I biked down to the Potomac and worked our way up its bank to a lot of big rocks sticking out into the river. We worked our way out to the edge, and then the sun set and the sky was pink and orange and blue and yellow and the clouds were purple and yellow, and the river was rushing around me and if I concentrated hard enough I couldn’t hear the traffic from the highway across the water, or the planes overhead. It was really windy, and as each gust blew by us it whipped up the waves. We sat and watched gusts race down the river until it got dark and then biked back. Last weekend, a friend and I biked through Rock Creek Park and skipped stones on the creek. A couple weeks before that, I took a walk through a park to the river, and the creek flowing through it was half frozen, and I spent hours following it. Not too long before that, I was cross-country skiing along the St. Croix River in two feet of snow. I’ve done my best to have magical moments as often as I can.
Of course, my anecdotal evidence might not convince anyone else that nature is worth saving. Some people not acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature. For those kinds, there are valuable economic roles that the environment plays. Besides doing a lot of work for us behind the scenes (like carbon sinking and filtering water sources), nature is beneficial to our health in a lot of ways. This link and this link tell you why nature keeps people healthy, and helps them heal faster. Did you know that indoor air pollution is often higher than outdoor pollution? What more do you need to know? Nature good. Period.
Of course, my anecdotal evidence might not convince anyone else that nature is worth saving. Some people not acknowledge the intrinsic value of nature. For those kinds, there are valuable economic roles that the environment plays. Besides doing a lot of work for us behind the scenes (like carbon sinking and filtering water sources), nature is beneficial to our health in a lot of ways. This link and this link tell you why nature keeps people healthy, and helps them heal faster. Did you know that indoor air pollution is often higher than outdoor pollution? What more do you need to know? Nature good. Period.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
On the Slow Path to Change
While I do not think that many can quite contradict what Mr. Maniates has to say in his article, I think it is important to note just how comfortable we have become to our current ways of living. Consumption is now more than just a luxury, its a religion and its going to take something drastic to occur in order to see some major changes in the way we live.
In that case, we cannot truly blame the politicians and environmental activists to tread the ground carefully in their attempts to convince people that going green is not too complex of a process. Their task as enforcers is to try and get as many people on board as possible, which is why they emphasise the “ease” through which one can right our past wrongs. Lets face it, the majority of us are very happy with our consumerist lifestyles and are not going to weaned off of it anytime soon, especially if it is clear that it is also going to take a lot of effort to do so. Why would anyone get on board that wagon, especially when there are still skeptics in the world who think that the world is fine and that global warming is just a myth?
It is unfortunate that in order for the message to really hit home that severe changes need to be made today, and not delayed until tomorrow, something truly drastic needs to occur, before everyone will be convinced. Unfortunately, that drastic event could also signify that we are too late and that we have reached the end of the road. This is indeed a predicament.
And who is to say that drastic event has not come already? With the occurrence of the Tsunamis as well as Hurricane Katherina, we have already received eminent signs that our planet is undergoing some major changes, in big part due to our actions. One would ask: how many more signs do we need before we take real action?
To conclude, I am not contradicting Mr. Maniates when he says that big steps need to be taken to solve this issue and simply screwing on twisty light bulbs is not going to save us all. In addition, he is indeed right in saying that politicians and activists need to put on their thinking hats and think of new and hopeful ways of reaching out to the public, without shying away from the truth of how dire a situation we are in now. The pessimist in me just thinks that it is going to take an incredible event to truly convince the non-believers, and then it might just be too late.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Idiocy of Easy
Some of the rhetoric that Mr. Maniates reflects an element of society that I believe I have seen growing ever increasingly over the last few decades. It starts with a sense that we have achieved, at least in developed countries, a level of education that allows to analyze critically the world around us. Certainly, we can consider ourselves lucky to be wealthy enough to get educated in a system that allows for and even upholds critical thinking skills rather than prescribed knowledge. Thus, when Mr. Maniates states, "we cannot permit our leaders to sell us short," he is declaring his and our curiosity, inspiration, criticism, and indignation.
We are and must be curious, as this is human nature. Ironically enough, it is this very part of our human nature that has perhaps led us to environmental crisis. Our curiosity has led to us to innovate, to grow, to consume. Whether it be knowledge or resources, we have sought to progress and delve deeper in spite of our questions and in search of our answers. Should curiosity then be considered our undoing? My answer would be absolutely not. Curiosity is not the evil. It is the blinders placed upon on our curiosity that is against our nature. Why should we be pushed to innovate microchips or mining practices? Develop faster modes of travel or stronger building materials? And yet, when we seek to find alternatives to outdated ( in that they are finite and destructive) modes of providing energy, we are encouraged to cut corners? We do not need to have our minds shaped to think that environmentalists are doomsayers. We do not need to be given platitudes about simple answers to the great problem facing in the environmental degradation we carry not, and we certainly do not need to be told that no problem exists. As Maniates states, we can struggle together. Furthermore, we are at our best when we do so. Therefore, we cannot let lobbyists and leaders mislead us with thinly veiled rhetoric that serves to protect their interests. We simply must continue to foster the curious questioning spirit that we all have naturally. It is this that must be protected at all costs. Interestingly the cornucopian/malthusian debate may in fact be moot. Limits may almost certainly exist to our sources and sinks, but no limits appear to exist to the innovation of the human mind. Our recent elections have shown that ideas and excitement can become dollars and power. And they do not need to be spoonfed simplistic ideas. Can we not use this as proof positive that we can overcome the idiocy of easy?
We are and must be curious, as this is human nature. Ironically enough, it is this very part of our human nature that has perhaps led us to environmental crisis. Our curiosity has led to us to innovate, to grow, to consume. Whether it be knowledge or resources, we have sought to progress and delve deeper in spite of our questions and in search of our answers. Should curiosity then be considered our undoing? My answer would be absolutely not. Curiosity is not the evil. It is the blinders placed upon on our curiosity that is against our nature. Why should we be pushed to innovate microchips or mining practices? Develop faster modes of travel or stronger building materials? And yet, when we seek to find alternatives to outdated ( in that they are finite and destructive) modes of providing energy, we are encouraged to cut corners? We do not need to have our minds shaped to think that environmentalists are doomsayers. We do not need to be given platitudes about simple answers to the great problem facing in the environmental degradation we carry not, and we certainly do not need to be told that no problem exists. As Maniates states, we can struggle together. Furthermore, we are at our best when we do so. Therefore, we cannot let lobbyists and leaders mislead us with thinly veiled rhetoric that serves to protect their interests. We simply must continue to foster the curious questioning spirit that we all have naturally. It is this that must be protected at all costs. Interestingly the cornucopian/malthusian debate may in fact be moot. Limits may almost certainly exist to our sources and sinks, but no limits appear to exist to the innovation of the human mind. Our recent elections have shown that ideas and excitement can become dollars and power. And they do not need to be spoonfed simplistic ideas. Can we not use this as proof positive that we can overcome the idiocy of easy?
We are by no means all, maybe no more than a few
“The time for easy is over. We're grown-ups who understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices. We're ready for frank talk about how we best confront -- in ways rewarding, confusing, creative and hard -- the planetary emergency before us.”
—Professor Maniates
Personally, I share Professor Maniates’ enthusiasm to tackle the central issues of global warming instead of settling for limited individual choices of consumption. I don’t want to just change the lights in my lamps, I want to change the ways those lamps were made, transported, advertised, bought, and will be disposed of. Additionally, I would like to change the source of the electricity to power those lamps, and the mindset that requires more than one in each room.
Yet, though I know that he and I are not the only two Americans who feel this way, I think we are in a small minority. I get the feeling that most people go along with the idea that they can easily solve the problems that stem from climate change because they wouldn’t bother if it was any harder or if it subtracted from their perceived well-being. We have a culture that prides itself on being fast-paced, individualistic, mobile, and rich. This is not conducive to green-living.
I don’t know this for sure. The only proof I have is anecdotal, limited to my experience with a small number of people. Yet, from the interactions I’ve had, I would conclude that the majority of people, as of now, would reject the sweeping reforms that would have to be enacted in order to cease harming the environment further than what we’ve already done. Far from ready to spring up into the ranks of environmental stewards and activists, they are either skeptical, apathetic, or convinced that recycling plastic bottles and using CFLs is the answer. Before we have a frank talk about confronting the environmental crisis, I think we need to have a frank talk about the existence of the crisis, and the lengths that we will have to go if we are to meaningfully address it.
—Professor Maniates
Personally, I share Professor Maniates’ enthusiasm to tackle the central issues of global warming instead of settling for limited individual choices of consumption. I don’t want to just change the lights in my lamps, I want to change the ways those lamps were made, transported, advertised, bought, and will be disposed of. Additionally, I would like to change the source of the electricity to power those lamps, and the mindset that requires more than one in each room.
Yet, though I know that he and I are not the only two Americans who feel this way, I think we are in a small minority. I get the feeling that most people go along with the idea that they can easily solve the problems that stem from climate change because they wouldn’t bother if it was any harder or if it subtracted from their perceived well-being. We have a culture that prides itself on being fast-paced, individualistic, mobile, and rich. This is not conducive to green-living.
I don’t know this for sure. The only proof I have is anecdotal, limited to my experience with a small number of people. Yet, from the interactions I’ve had, I would conclude that the majority of people, as of now, would reject the sweeping reforms that would have to be enacted in order to cease harming the environment further than what we’ve already done. Far from ready to spring up into the ranks of environmental stewards and activists, they are either skeptical, apathetic, or convinced that recycling plastic bottles and using CFLs is the answer. Before we have a frank talk about confronting the environmental crisis, I think we need to have a frank talk about the existence of the crisis, and the lengths that we will have to go if we are to meaningfully address it.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Treat the Disease, Not the Symptoms
the 'lazy environmentalist books' like our current medical practice of treating the symptoms instead of treating the disease, or better yet, focusing on prevention
In short: I agree completely.
The Extended Edition: Maniates gets at the heart of the problem with the environmental movement. Few leaders have emerged in the environmental movement over the past couple decades. This, coupled with the poor efforts of environmental elites to frame the issue in the way that it must - as a matter of utmost importance. I recognize that environmental issues took the last seat on the bus during the Bush administration, but the environmental elites did not respond maturely. They felt defeated and let their defeatist attitudes handicap them more than the Bush administration ever could have. Perhaps they thought that framing the issue as one which can be solved by the aggregate effects of each and every individual doing their part (as professor Nicholson has noted, this for Cameron Diaz means simply turning off the water in the shower when she shaves). Put simply, this will not work. Even if everyone does their parts (and this is a BIG 'if'), the results would come nowhere near to solving global warming or restoring the world's fisheries. The books Maniates offers as evidence of the faults of the environmental elite, ""It's Easy Being Green," "The Lazy Environmentalist," or even "The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time."", are for the environmental movement what the modern practice of treating the symptoms but not the disease are for medicine. Such books do have some value; they get people to think about their impact on the planet. But, these books go terribly wrong when they convince people that they can save the world simply by turning off the water when they shave. Environmental problems are much, much bigger than that, and these books delude people into thinking that they are saving the planet, when in reality they are still killing it by driving their big-ass suburbans hours every day to and from work and by flying in private jets. This strategy played right into the hands of the engine that fuels the destruction environmentalists should be fighting against. Chevron has "gone green" in its new greenwashing campaign, where they spit out the exact same lines that environmentalists have been about the green lifestyle: "Iwill unplug stuff more", "I will think about buying a hybrid", etc...It took them surprisingly long, but they realized that they can embrace this new, wimpy environmentalism without actually changing any of their practices and get great positive PR. The environmental elite went wrong when they stopped focusing on the disease and just tried to alleviate the symptoms. Such a practice does not cure, it deludes. New leaders are emerging with real power to redirect the focus of the environmental movement. They would do good to treat the disease instead of the symptoms. They would do even better to prevent new ones from taking hold at the same time they work on the old ones.
In short: I agree completely.
The Extended Edition: Maniates gets at the heart of the problem with the environmental movement. Few leaders have emerged in the environmental movement over the past couple decades. This, coupled with the poor efforts of environmental elites to frame the issue in the way that it must - as a matter of utmost importance. I recognize that environmental issues took the last seat on the bus during the Bush administration, but the environmental elites did not respond maturely. They felt defeated and let their defeatist attitudes handicap them more than the Bush administration ever could have. Perhaps they thought that framing the issue as one which can be solved by the aggregate effects of each and every individual doing their part (as professor Nicholson has noted, this for Cameron Diaz means simply turning off the water in the shower when she shaves). Put simply, this will not work. Even if everyone does their parts (and this is a BIG 'if'), the results would come nowhere near to solving global warming or restoring the world's fisheries. The books Maniates offers as evidence of the faults of the environmental elite, ""It's Easy Being Green," "The Lazy Environmentalist," or even "The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time."", are for the environmental movement what the modern practice of treating the symptoms but not the disease are for medicine. Such books do have some value; they get people to think about their impact on the planet. But, these books go terribly wrong when they convince people that they can save the world simply by turning off the water when they shave. Environmental problems are much, much bigger than that, and these books delude people into thinking that they are saving the planet, when in reality they are still killing it by driving their big-ass suburbans hours every day to and from work and by flying in private jets. This strategy played right into the hands of the engine that fuels the destruction environmentalists should be fighting against. Chevron has "gone green" in its new greenwashing campaign, where they spit out the exact same lines that environmentalists have been about the green lifestyle: "Iwill unplug stuff more", "I will think about buying a hybrid", etc...It took them surprisingly long, but they realized that they can embrace this new, wimpy environmentalism without actually changing any of their practices and get great positive PR. The environmental elite went wrong when they stopped focusing on the disease and just tried to alleviate the symptoms. Such a practice does not cure, it deludes. New leaders are emerging with real power to redirect the focus of the environmental movement. They would do good to treat the disease instead of the symptoms. They would do even better to prevent new ones from taking hold at the same time they work on the old ones.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Global Equity Issue and Stanley Fish
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
The most pressing challenge facing the global environment is the structure of the global economy. The West largely spawned this system with no regards to the ramifications such a globalized economy would have on the world. This is not so much their fault. They did not know that the population explosion would have such wide-reaching consequences. They did not expect that their colonies would one day want equal status within this global regime. They could not predict global warming or climate change. That being said, they are not blameless. The intentions they had in setting up the globalized economy weren't malicious towards the earth. But the ramifications this system had were, and as such, they must take responsibility for it. The West has largely recognized that its resource consumption is unsustainable, and efforts are already underway in much of the West to reduce carbon and ecological footprints. But, the new members in the global economy do not want to restrain their pollution. Their argument of equitable opportunity for economic development, through whatever means they choose, is a good one. The greatest issue we face is bringing these developing nations into the fold on addressing global climate change. If we do not do so, our own efforts at reduction will be negligible compared to their consumption.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Stanley Fish's article reflects a big issue regarding environmental attitudes in the US. Much of his generation is still skeptical that global climate change is anthropogenic. They do not want to make drastic changes in their consumption. His complaining attempts to disestablish his responsibility for the way he consumes. Many of all generations in America do this. Even when we recognize that our consumption is an issue, we frequently convince ourselves that someone else will do something about it.
To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US today, often means simple adjustment of which brands to consume, instead of the more important task of consuming less. People want to be eco-friendly, but they frequently don't change levels of consumption, as they should.
The most pressing challenge facing the global environment is the structure of the global economy. The West largely spawned this system with no regards to the ramifications such a globalized economy would have on the world. This is not so much their fault. They did not know that the population explosion would have such wide-reaching consequences. They did not expect that their colonies would one day want equal status within this global regime. They could not predict global warming or climate change. That being said, they are not blameless. The intentions they had in setting up the globalized economy weren't malicious towards the earth. But the ramifications this system had were, and as such, they must take responsibility for it. The West has largely recognized that its resource consumption is unsustainable, and efforts are already underway in much of the West to reduce carbon and ecological footprints. But, the new members in the global economy do not want to restrain their pollution. Their argument of equitable opportunity for economic development, through whatever means they choose, is a good one. The greatest issue we face is bringing these developing nations into the fold on addressing global climate change. If we do not do so, our own efforts at reduction will be negligible compared to their consumption.
2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
Stanley Fish's article reflects a big issue regarding environmental attitudes in the US. Much of his generation is still skeptical that global climate change is anthropogenic. They do not want to make drastic changes in their consumption. His complaining attempts to disestablish his responsibility for the way he consumes. Many of all generations in America do this. Even when we recognize that our consumption is an issue, we frequently convince ourselves that someone else will do something about it.
To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US today, often means simple adjustment of which brands to consume, instead of the more important task of consuming less. People want to be eco-friendly, but they frequently don't change levels of consumption, as they should.
Old Man and the Sea...Rising
I would begin by conceding to all of the arguments of my fellow authors. They innumerate a myriad of the most immediate obstacles. They range from lack of concern for the "negative externalities" of our "never ending appetite" to sheer apathy. Certainly Dr. Fish displays a stubborn reluctance to sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evidence-- evidence with which he admits he is intimately familiar. However, this may just be the way of an old soul. When enough dust has accumulated and our perspective has become sufficiently murky, cannot the urgency of necessary action seem to diminish? Moreover is not the wisdom of this measured, reflective approach the very source of esteem for experience in our leaders? It comes as little surprise then that a paradigm for such experience as part of leadership rather than some alternative, new ideas per se, represents one of the most intrinsic and systematic challenges facing the global environment.
Simply stated, people may not become aware that they are capable of autonomous thought until it is too late to have any. Can we be expected to shake ourselves from the traditional paths of accruing clout and serving our due time before we take our seat at the table when these paths are a part of our values and our values an integral (often unchanging) part of our identities? Progress, and further the idea that idolness is regression, has settled into the mind of humans around the world as a value. Actually returning to past maxims, an act more severe and sinful than settling into the current way of life, is unthinkable and precludes much hope for sacrifice-- a word I see as sometimes synonymous with truly being "environmentally friendly". It begs the questions: is farming "un-American"? Is craftwork "un-American"? Could young people ever be expected to settle for these alternative (certainly a good deal more sustainable) ways of life? We are subject to the will of trends and prescribed choices. While our options are considerably more vast than ever before, we simply have no sense of where any of them originate or how deep (not necessarily sinister) the system of providing those options to us runs. To be so much a part of a system's proliferation and to be so complacent would then seem logical. The sheer difficulty of grasping its entirety is monumentous enough to discourage most people from ever pondering to change it. Thus, American "environmentally friendly" living typically prescribes to the options our trends permit while our values never permit us to sacrifice our defunct practices and revolutionize our decrepit paradigms.
Simply stated, people may not become aware that they are capable of autonomous thought until it is too late to have any. Can we be expected to shake ourselves from the traditional paths of accruing clout and serving our due time before we take our seat at the table when these paths are a part of our values and our values an integral (often unchanging) part of our identities? Progress, and further the idea that idolness is regression, has settled into the mind of humans around the world as a value. Actually returning to past maxims, an act more severe and sinful than settling into the current way of life, is unthinkable and precludes much hope for sacrifice-- a word I see as sometimes synonymous with truly being "environmentally friendly". It begs the questions: is farming "un-American"? Is craftwork "un-American"? Could young people ever be expected to settle for these alternative (certainly a good deal more sustainable) ways of life? We are subject to the will of trends and prescribed choices. While our options are considerably more vast than ever before, we simply have no sense of where any of them originate or how deep (not necessarily sinister) the system of providing those options to us runs. To be so much a part of a system's proliferation and to be so complacent would then seem logical. The sheer difficulty of grasping its entirety is monumentous enough to discourage most people from ever pondering to change it. Thus, American "environmentally friendly" living typically prescribes to the options our trends permit while our values never permit us to sacrifice our defunct practices and revolutionize our decrepit paradigms.
Waste more, Want more!
The biggest challenge that the environment faces currently revolves around an issue of equity combined with man's never ending appetite, which wants to consume more than it can actually handle. As Conca and Dabelko explain in "Green Planet Blues", if you give a man a pasture and cattle, it is only a matter of time before he starts to crave for more: additional cattle and land space for the cattle to graze. While this can be looked at as "progress", it continues to degrade our environment, yet we are nonchalant because of the various personal benefits we gain from it. Then, it hits us that we are actually harming our planet, and that if we continue to do so, we will not be able to reap any more profits from it. And this is where the equity problem comes in, where the more developed nations impose their concessions on the less developed ones, expecting them to comply. Unfortunately, the latter nations view this whole situation as entirely unfair, due to the amount of restrictions constrained on them for merely imitating the former countries' actions to reach similar goals in terms of development. While these actions need to be taken in order to protect the planet, how exactly must they be carried out in as fair a manner as possible? Everyone wants to be able to have the same comforts and luxuries as the next person, so why are restrictions suddenly coming up that will inhibit people from certain nations to achieve that level of comfort? Or, at least, not gain it as easily as certain other nations have.
Fish's article definitely articulates the mindset of the majority of the people in the world, let alone the United States. While people are definitely getting more responsible for their actions and becoming more eco-friendly, it is still quite clear that we all could be doing so much more, but we are just not bothered enough to do it. And the little bit more than we can do, probably would not impose too much of a burden on us; we just could not be bothered to do it. I applaud those who go out of their way to make sure that every action they commit is the least pollutant to the environment, but the majority of the population is more concerned in their comfort and would not really go out of their way to ensure that their actions are more earth friendly. Maybe if we start with the little things, the bigger actions will begin to look attainable.
Fish's article definitely articulates the mindset of the majority of the people in the world, let alone the United States. While people are definitely getting more responsible for their actions and becoming more eco-friendly, it is still quite clear that we all could be doing so much more, but we are just not bothered enough to do it. And the little bit more than we can do, probably would not impose too much of a burden on us; we just could not be bothered to do it. I applaud those who go out of their way to make sure that every action they commit is the least pollutant to the environment, but the majority of the population is more concerned in their comfort and would not really go out of their way to ensure that their actions are more earth friendly. Maybe if we start with the little things, the bigger actions will begin to look attainable.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
As skepticism becomes rarer, global climate change (and the drivers behind it) find a new friend: Apathy
To address both questions at once—I believe that addressing the attitudes espoused by Stanley Fish and some of his followers is the most pressing challenge facing anyone looking to affect positive environmental change. Fish’s apathy is a scary thing to face; how could one engage him in meaningful discourse when all he wants to do is complain? Proving that his way of life is unsustainable and contributing to climate injustice isn’t hard—he’s already admitted it. What one has to do is convince him that it matters. Too many can ignore that fact because they can so easily displace the negative environmental effects of their lifestyle onto other people.
Fish refuses to accept the trivial aspects of environmental responsibility because he feels that they might subtract from his quality of life. He is comfortable, and chooses not to give it up, though its continuation is being bought at a dear price. Perhaps if being environmentally friendly were easier, or profitable, he would reconsider his actions.
One of the supportive responses to this blog concludes with the erroneous declaration: “There are many ways to helping the environment without degrading quality of life.” Out of context, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but the author of the post (“addicted”) meant to say something much different. “Addicted” would purport that people can help the environment without sacrificing their material quality of life. They could find ways to continue living how they’ve always been and still meaningfully address environmental issues.
I would argue that helping the environment would entail redefining our concept of “quality of life.” If we shifted our focus and energy from material accumulation to environmental stewardship and found more meaning in real relationships and less in artificial interactions, we could much more easily find happiness in living sustainably. What would be so much more effective to change in Mr. Fish’s life is not his actions—what would have much further reaching consequences would be to change his values. If only it was as easy as giving up was...
Fish refuses to accept the trivial aspects of environmental responsibility because he feels that they might subtract from his quality of life. He is comfortable, and chooses not to give it up, though its continuation is being bought at a dear price. Perhaps if being environmentally friendly were easier, or profitable, he would reconsider his actions.
One of the supportive responses to this blog concludes with the erroneous declaration: “There are many ways to helping the environment without degrading quality of life.” Out of context, I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but the author of the post (“addicted”) meant to say something much different. “Addicted” would purport that people can help the environment without sacrificing their material quality of life. They could find ways to continue living how they’ve always been and still meaningfully address environmental issues.
I would argue that helping the environment would entail redefining our concept of “quality of life.” If we shifted our focus and energy from material accumulation to environmental stewardship and found more meaning in real relationships and less in artificial interactions, we could much more easily find happiness in living sustainably. What would be so much more effective to change in Mr. Fish’s life is not his actions—what would have much further reaching consequences would be to change his values. If only it was as easy as giving up was...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)