One of my favorite quotes comes from Confronting Consumption by Princen, Maniates and Conca. They say, "When consumption concerns are raised in mainstream environmental circles, they are too often dismissed on their own terms, readily converted to questions of production and technology." I found that this quote and the entire concept of the article really changed my perspective on the environmental movement. I guess I always knew that consumption was a problem especially here in the U.S. , but I never realized how big of an issue it was. As an environmentalist, my first thoughts in trying to attract community involvement always lead to activities such as recycling and using environmentally friendly products, but I never thought of addressing the issue of consumption. As we saw in the Story of Stuff video clip, consumption is the root of many problems such as displacement of international communities, destruction of ecosystems, pollution, etc. I think that technology and production go hand in hand with consumption for many things and therefore can't be dismissed, but the authors are right in saying that we can't blame only one or the other for all of our problems.

Another quote that really stuck with me and made me think in a new way is from the most recent book Cradle to Cradle. McDonough and Braungart explain that they, "see a world of abundance, not limits." If I was asked what I thought of this quote before class I most likely would have said that they're crazy and there's no way we can continue consuming at current rates and live sustainably. After reading their book, my thought process once again was turned around. I really love this concept of closing the circuit and producing no waste because it's one of the only optimistic and realistic solutions which we've read about. Very rarely do you hear that we dont' have to make a lot of sacrifices in order to change things. While this is a great idea, it will take some time and a lot of planning, but I think it has promise.

These two quotes may seem to be contradictory of one another seeing as one states that we consume too much and the other speaks of a world with "no limits", but I think they can work together. At the moment I don't think that we can continue with current design methods and consumption rates without harming the environment, therefore we need to start by consuming less until we can get a firm hold of a design concept which produces no waste. It's encouraging to hear positive ideas and see the environmental movement gaining attention, but I think we still need to give it a big push to get it in motion.

Interesting Quotes.

A quote from the paper by Bill Joy, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" illustrates a basic point that I feel needs to be kept in mind when discussing technology, people, and the environment. As a note, I do not agree with Kaczynski's methods either, but he has a point in that technology is not a benign force; the quote is, " Kaczynski's dystopian vision describes unintended consequences, a well-known problem with the design and use of technology, and one one that is clearly related to Murphy's law- "Anything that can go wrong, will." (Actually, this is Finagle's Law, which in itself shows that Finagle was right.)." Bill Joy goes on to describe situations where the use of technology has had unintended consequences, like antibiotics resulting in resistant bacteria. I love technology and would hate to live without the Internet, my computer, and electricity, but I also believe that technology will not solve all of the problems with the environment and has probably helped people create a few. Technology can be used to help lessen the impact people have, by being used to create renewable energy sources and things like that. We should not rely solely on technology as it can have unintended consequences. This also goes for things like GMO and things like that, as we do not know what could happen in the near and far future. It could end up being like CFCs where it is more harmful in the future or it could be a boon for humanity. 

Another quote I liked was from Cradle to Cradle:

"As long as human beings are regarded as "bad," zero is a good goal. But to be less bad is to accept things as they are, to believe that poorly designed, dishonorable, destructive systems are the best humans can do. This is the ultimate failure of the "be less bad" approach: a failure of imagination. From our perspective, this is a depressing vision of our species' role in the world."

I agree that being less bad is just as bad, but slower. People have to imagine a new world and work toward that vision. This does not mean that we have to follow the vision presented in this book, but that people need to know what kind of world we want to live in. Working piecemeal  on issues as they arise, like the polar bears or other endangered species, will not work as another problem will arise. We need to have a clear vision of what we want the planet to be like so that we can work toward it using all available means, including technology, the economy, industries, education, and the government. Hopefully, that vision of the future will include being good for the planet, but we cannot even start trying unless we know what we want the planet to be like. 

 

Cradle to Cradle is a great book which portrays optimistic and innovative thinking. McDonough and Braungart provided me with a lot of insight and I think their ideas are great. It gives promise to the environmental movement and helps us to see that things don't have to be so bleak. As the authors state, it's not necessary to go back to preindustrial times and live an uncomfortable life. We must simply use our creative thinking to reinvent the design process.

I found it especially interesting to hear the perspective that eco-efficiency is not the best idea. I always thought that the idea of efficient and sustainable buildings was a great idea, until I read about cases where sealed windows actually helped to trap more toxins inside the building and in some cases efficient meant less safe. Designing all products to be incorporated in a closed circuit system where they can be constantly recycled and produce no waste is a great idea! It would work to attract more community involvement and support for the environmental movement because people would not be forced to give up the comforts of life. This is a great book and I would recommend everyone to read it.

cradle to...?

Wow.

These guys GET IT.

I was completely impressed with the philosophy laid down by McDonough and Braungart in "Cradle to Cradle". They take sound science and environmental consciousness and attach them to a firm foundation of economic salience and money sense. Here are environmentalists who have removed themselves from the martyrdom of the movement, and are relishing the chance to get rich by getting green, and help other people do the same thing. These are the environmentalists the world will listen to: the ones who offer cooperative solutions instead of harping condescension and moral imperatives.

Their "Products plus" concept of the customer getting more than they bargained for by buying dangerous and unsustainable manufactured goods is a perfect example of how to use market forces to better environmental ends: it represents a monetization of environmental costs, and works in great concert with a natural services approach to quantify the value of a healthy environment and introduce it to the bottom line.

Their basic premise of design mirroring intent is a solid foundation for sound stewardship, and their ambition for a designed industrial revolution provides a lofty goal, the path to which is marked with incremental and tangible progress.

They sum it up best when they talk about their cooperation with large corporations. "How can you work with them?" their critics ask, and they respond just as they should "How can you not work with them?" The economy is the driving force of our society. Instead of viewing environmentalism as a drag on the economy, let's reinvent it as a way to incorporate perpetual growth and prosperity for our species, to make ourselves "native" to the planet again.

This is all the romanticism of environmentalism's past, wed to the pragmatism of its future. These guys have it right.

The ideas presented in Cradle to Cradle are quite intriguing. The stuff people can make can be just as useful after we are done with it as the stuff a cherry tree makes, to borrow an image used often by McDonough and Braungart. However, I feel that they miss the point when it comes to why nature does what it does. In order to survive in nature, you cannot do simply what you need to survive as, in nature, you compete against others and not simply just to foster future growth. The blossoms from the cherry tree may seem superfluous, but they attract animals who will take the cherry seeds far from the tree so that it can grow, without being out-competed by the parent tree. To connect this to people, its the same way studies have shown that people with a little extra body fat can better survive diseases. It is about survival and propagation of the species. 

That said, I basically agree with what they said. We should change the way we do so many things as the current ways we do things harm us and the planet. Basically, in the long run, we are decreasing our chances for survival and propagation of our species. That is pretty stupid. People are using things that we either know or suspect may be bad for us and then do nothing to prevent these same toxins from affecting future generations. A little, or a lot, of planning and forethought can help change the way people build houses, make soap, and do plenty of other things. Granted, localizing our actions isn't a revolutionary idea as people were doing it for generations. Not that long ago, much of what people did and used was tailored to their specific location and situation. People didn't essentially live the same lives in Miami, Mumbai, and Munich. People couldn't hold the same jobs, live in the same homes, and use the same methods of transport, but you can now. People should not be able to live the same lives in these very different parts of the planet. Trying to ignore the differences that exist on the planet just hurts the planet and everything on it, eventually. If we don't change what we do, there won't be anything left on this planet. Given what people are capable of, in terms of intelligence and imagination, it saddens me to think that ants are better stewards of the planet then we are. Given what people are capable of, we are also capable of being as good for the planets as ants are. 

My most thrilling experience with nature was when I studied abroad in New Zealand. I've always been a big fan of the outdoors and for this reason I chose to travel to New Zealand because of the country's beautiful scenery. Everything there was breathtaking, but the place I remember the most is my trip to Able Tasman National Park. My friends and I took a 4 hour hike through the forests and the views were absolutely amazing. The water was bluish green and the sand was a yellowish color. At various points throughout the hike it would rain and five minutes later it would be warm and sunny. One of the best parts of the hike was one of the side trails which lead to the beach. It was there that I was able to take in how wonderful nature really is. Something about being by yourself on a vast stretch of land with the sound of waves crashing in the background allows you to completely relax. Nature allows our imaginations to grow and provides a place where we can escape from the difficulties of the real world. In a way it allows us to slow down time and appreciate life's beauty. For these reasons, whether you're an environmentalist or not, I think nature is something we should value and work hard to preserve. Whether you simply like to take a break from a hard day at work and go for a walk in the park or you're an avid hiker, nature fits into everyone's daily routines.

Nature

There are many instances in which I have marveled at nature's wonder.  Being from a small town in Nebraska and also living around the mountains of Wyoming, I have seen open spaces instead of cities, all of the stars of the night sky, and the Northern Lights without any interference from city lights.  The instances that stick out most in my mind are the nights spent camping in the Snowy Mountains outside Laramie and the night my friend and I went to the Box Butte Reservoir to watch the Northern Lights.  Because of times like these, where I am able to revel at nature and appreciate all she has to offer, I hate living in DC.  Rarely can I see the stars here, which really sucks.  Night skies are amazing and the lights from cities ruin it all.  I love the mountains, the clean air, the view, and everything else Wyoming has to offer (except the people, Wyoming people are insane).  To pick one specific instance that made me love and understand why nature should be protected is impossible.  I grew up living around nature; every day was an appreciation of nature and natural beauty.  After living in a city for 2 years, I now understand why hermits live alone in the mountains.  They just really love the natural environment and hate people and what people have done to the environment.

nature

Confession time: I'm more at home in the woods than the city, these days. As some of you know, I spent 6.5 months hiking the Appalachian trail last summer. I am an avid long distance backpacker and canoeist and have been fortunate enough to spend a lot of nights under the stars in various parts of the country.

That said, I have a hard time isolating a single experience outside of human civilization that has been particularly high-impact for me. Probably my favorite recent experience was the 100 Mile Wilderness in central Maine. The Wilderness is the last section of the Appalachian Trail, a remote stretch of woods with no roads, buildings, or other traces of civilization for a hundred miles (about a week of hiking).

I was fortunate enough to hike through the Wilderness in early October, when the leaves were changing and the crowds were nonexistent. Seeing as it was the tail end of my long journey, it was especially profound for me: the silent beauty of Maine's evergreen woods and emerald lakes was the perfect backdrop to contemplate what my next step would be, when the trail ended. The woods taught me to quiet my mind, and humbly appreciate my place within something bigger than myself.

This is why it is absolutely imperative that we not rest until we have guaranteed the safety and integrity of our wild places. They are our oases, places we can go to get in touch with our true selves, to recognize our role as tiny, short-lived creatures drifting in infinity. This revelation may sound depressing, but for me it is liberating and awe-inspiring. The woods are proof that we are all immortal, even if that immortality is no more than the humble carbon cycle that recycles our bodies into new life. Our species, for all its technological prowess, will be a grim failure indeed if we manage to complete our destruction of the grander world around us.

I can't think of one event or situation in particular that has made me marvel at the beauty of the planet or the environment. It is sort of the opposite that has affected me most. Seeing beautiful, majestic scenes marred by the touch of people and technology has had a greater impact on me than simply the environment alone. It is jarring to be out in the middle of nowhere and still get cell service or to see trash cans. People seem to impact every square inch of this planet and this impact is largely negative. The impact of people on this planet needs to be limited, not just so there will be untouched wilderness in the future, but because people are not the only one's on the planet. When the planet becomes less and less habitable to people, it is just as deadly for every other living organism on it along with us. 

The wild is worth protecting and saving. It should be one of the chief concerns of environmentalists, but not the only concern. Environmentalists also need to be concerned about people and the impact we have as people on the planet. Focusing on the wild and protecting species there is important, but so is minimizing the impact people have by living their lives.   

During spring break, I had a talk about the environment with a friend of mine from high school. My friend is going to college and pretty smart, but our discussion was frustrating. He felt that there was no need to be concerned about the environment because the impact people were having was small and easily managed by reducing pollution. He also believes things  global warming is simply a result of the ending of the previous ice age, meaning people are not having an impact. 

Trying to talk to him about the environment was hard as it seemed like we were living on two different planets. He lived on a planet with few environmental issues that was simply exhibiting cyclical weather changes. I was living on a planet were people are having a detrimental impact that was starting to wreck the planet. Granted, I have gotten used to conversations like this with him as there is almost nothing we agree on so we just talked, respecting each others view points. 

I couldn't help but think that this must be part of the reason why the people do not do more to lessen the impact of people on the environment. Not everyone seems to think that we are having an impact; though, my friend holds this view, in part I feel, because he likes to drive his huge SUV and blast his AC all year round. People can live considerable more comfortable lives if they ignore the impact their actions have on the environment as most of the costs are not felt by the person enjoying their life, but by people far away. This is not to say that people trying to lessen their impact on the planet need to live like hermits or pretend electricity was never discovered; you simply need to pay a little bit more attention to what you do and how you live.  

Discussing the environment

My conversation about the environment was with my grand mom. I went to empty the trash one day and commented on the large amount of trash each household in the neighborhood generated within a week. My grand mom shrugged her shoulders and said she didn't think it was that much. From previous conversations I knew that she wasn't very interested in environmental issues, but I still like to discuss topics such as this with her to try and understand her point of view. I explained how some places charge each household a certain amount of money per trash bag in hopes to reduce the amount of waste produced each week, and that I thought this would be a good idea for our township. She simply nodded her head. But I wasn't even sure if she had listened to everything I said, so I asked her what she thought. She replied with, "Hey, it's all headed to the landfill anyway." Conversations like these are the most frustrating for me because there's nothing worse than someone who doesn't have much of an opinion about something. It really did feel like talking to a brick wall. There were a number of things I could have said in reply, but I realized that nothing I have said in the past or could say in the future would miraculously change her mind. I also reminded myself that my grandmother grew up in a different generation than my own, and therefore her concerns with the world were/are also different. Because of this I was more understanding with her than I may have been with someone else. Unfortunately this wasn't a very productive conversation, but every once in awhile I give it another try.

we are what we....

My food choices are probably among the most unsustainable choices I make, at least from an environmental standpoint. I am a big time carnivore, even though I am fully aware of the amount of energy required to create a food-Calorie of meat. This is a lifestyle choice, but also a nutritional one: I am altogether too aware of how much careful planning it takes to replace all the nutritional value in meat, and have seen first hand too many vegetarians/vegans fail to pay close enough attention to their vitamin and complete/incomplete protein intake, to the detriment of their health.

To be honest, the only real driver of my food choices is nutritional value per dollar. I lead an active lifestyle that demands proper nutrition, but have a really limited budget. Since food is just about the biggest budget item after rent for me, I have to cut corners where I can. Given a choice between eating green and eating healthy, i choose healthy, given my economic constraints.

Also, I am unconvinced by the "organic" movement sweeping our fair nation. This term is almost devoid of standard, and seems like classic greenwashing in a lot of situations. I chuckle when I see environmentally conscious people paying extra for "organic" produce that is watered with toxic Chinese groundwater and shipped with fossil fuels around the globe.

I hope to embrace local when I have the funds, if not for green purposes for quality purposes. As the Brits say, you have to "eat your view": if you want farms and rural areas in your neighborhood, support those farms at the grocery store!

No, I don't really think about the environmental impact when I buy food.  I usually just think of how long it will last and if it will be good to eat.

The thing with the highest environmental impact I buy is probably coffee, but I don't actually pay for it.  I get a pound for free per week because of where I work.  Other than that, probably Snickers bars when I buy them (every other day)

What exactly am I eating?

I must say that I really like this class because it makes me re-evaluate my lifestyle. I try and make changes in my routine in hopes that I will help the environment, but one thing that I hardly ever do is think about the food I buy. I'm fully aware of the pesticides and fossil fuels which are used to produce and transport a lot of our food not to mention the damage the involved ecosystems face including issues of species endangerment. Still, this very rarely crosses my mind when I go food shopping which is troubling to think about. The main thing which I consider when buying food is the cost, whatever is the cheapest is what I bring home. I've thought about this issue before, but it always gets brushed to the side of my to-do list because in my eyes it's inconvenient. While attending AU my parents pay for my food but that means a limited budget that I have to spend wisely. Because of this it's hard to buy organic food because nine times out of ten that means more money. I have to say that I'm not extremely educated on this subject, so therefore I don't know all of my options, but I'm willing to bet there's a middle ground that I could be supporting instead of doing nothing.
In addition to buying my food, I also have a meal plan. I don't have as many options in the dining hall as I would if I were to eat all of my own food, but I can still pick and choose. From what I've seen, the dining hall has been pretty good about switching to locally grown produce and they support sustainable fishing. Even so, I find myself not choosing food based on what's best for the environment, but just by whatever looks good.
If I had to pick something that I've eaten in the past few days which has had the greatest environmental impact I would say it's been tuna. The reason I pick tuna is because of the huge trawlers which are used to catch the fish. Not only do they use large quantities of fossil fuels, but they disturb the ocean's ecosystems. Huge nets are pulled along the ocean floor killing and capturing everything in their path. Once the nets are brought to the surface, whatever isn't needed is thrown out as bycatch.
After discussing this issue for our blog I no longer feel I can go to the supermarket without reading the labels and finding out more information on where my food is coming from. Food is a serious issue not only concerning the environment, but with respect to our own health. I'm sure many people would rather eat organic if they knew just how many pesticides and GMOs were introduced to their food!

Food

When making food choices, I buy organic, pasture raised and fed, and chemical free. Partly, I do this because I care about the environment and I can afford it. I don't pay my food bills, my parents do and they don't mind me spending twice as much for organic food. However, the main reason I buy organic food is because I can't eat a lot of conventionally grown food. I develop allergies if I eat conventionally grown food, but I have few problems if I eat organic food. Over the years, I have developed a wheat allergy, a peanut allergy, and a number of fruit allergies, but once I switched to organic, these allergies went away . I can't be the only person in this country who has issues eating foods covered in pesticides and chemicals, that has been irradiated, and shipped from thousands of miles away. 

Ideally, I would also like to eat locally, but that is really hard to do in DC. When I go to Wholefoods, almost everything is from California, with the rest of the produce coming from Florida, Washington state, and other countries. There are farms in Maryland and Virginia, some of which grow organic food, but none of it is sold where I shop. It is frustrating, especially since I used to eat organically and locally, but it is easy to do in Florida. My parent's live across the street from a farm and every town has at least one farmer's market or farmer's co-op. I could get organic, locally raised chickens, shrimp, fish, lambs, and goats that were fed what they were supposed to eat instead of the industrialized wheat and antibiotic diet that is becoming the norm. 

I think its the fact that I can't eat locally in DC easily that has the worst impact on the environment, instead of a particular food I have eaten recently. I know that there are places to get organic, locally grown food in DC, but they aren't very easy to get to considering I don't have a car so I don't go to these places to buy organic, locally grown food. I realize its just laziness on my part as I could take a cab to get the food back to my apartment. I know locally grown food is better for the environment, but the environmental impact of driving the 15-20 miles to buy it has more of an apparent environmental impact, from my perspective, then buying organically grown food from 5 states away, as I would actively be taking part in the driving. I can easily ignore the impact of transporting the food as I had no part in it, especially since it means that I can shop at a local grocery store, instead of going out of my way to be environmentally friendly. 

Technology?

I am indifferent on whether or not technology will save us.  Some new technology is greener, but other technology is getting worse.  Maybe once everything is green, technology can save us; until then, technology can only do so much before canceling itself out as good.  Newer technology means using new resources, probably recycled when technology saves us.  This is good for the environment, , using old waste.  

Technology: Friend or Foe?

Technology is certainly a contributor to our world's current state of environmental destruction, but it's not the only one. It's linked to society's demand for bigger and better things. We do have to be realistic in the sense that we won't go back to using the horse-and-buggy as Rob stated in his blog, but we also have to acknowledge that the reasoning for this is because technology has managed to set our standard of living. When we have discovered a quicker and more efficient mode of transportation, what's the incentive to move backwards?
This is my main concern. Granted, some technologies are extremely useful in the sense that they save lives and even help the environment in some respect, but is a new model of ipod, cell phone, or computer really necessary every few years? If we want to address one of the bigger issues here, I think that it's our need to consume combined with technology. It's always a rat race between industries to see who can sell more which is a problem because our limited resources are being depleted at rapid rates.
On the other hand we have made great efforts in discovering technologies which work to minimize our environmental impact. Although, once again technology is not the only thing we must consider when evaluating this issue. Technology can only do so much before societal cooperation is called into play. If we have cleaner, more efficient cars but no one is buying them, what good will they do? In this respect people must be interested in fixing the problem before technology can start to minimize our footprint. That being said, I think technology can help us fix some of our problems in the future, but more importantly there has to be the desire for change.

Technology

I have to agree with Rob about being reluctant to condemn technology, but for different reasons. I feel that considering the current state of the environment, turning away from technology would do more harm than good. The pollution resulting from human activity will not magically disappear if we just suddenly stopped using technology. However, there are known techniques for getting rid of and reducing the pollution in the air and water that has resulted from human action, with better techniques being developed all the time. Not using these techniques would probably do more harm for the planet as the pollution would just sit there and slowly breakdown, possibly creating even more harmful by-products in the mean time, as opposed to the impact created by getting rid of pollution using technology. Technology has the possibility of reducing people's impact on the planet and even reversing it. 

I do understand where people who condemn technology are coming from. There is a real possibility that people could become secondary to technology or that technology will help people trash the planet even quicker than we are doing so right now. I worry about it too, especially with the number of movies and TV shows about a post-apocalyptic future where humanity, and the planet, are dying because of something really stupid people did, like building a computer capable of artificial intelligence that decides to destroy humanity [Terminator] or where men become sterile [Children of Men]. 

You don't even have to look to fiction to see the damage people can do with technology. The hole in the ozone layer, the destruction of habitats, acid rain, and countless other problems with the environment that technology and people have caused. However, here I would have to agree with Rob when he says that technology may not be a force unto itself. Every instance where technology helps destroy the planet, it does not act by itself [yet anyway], but is directed and used by people, usually to help people have more stuff or to cope with growing populations. Technology doesn't seem to be the problem even if it does help people destroy the planet faster as people seem to be the real problem. People need to want to consume less so that we destroy the planet less and hopefully reverse our effects. Don't blame technology for the impact people have, blame people. 

Technology

I have a real problem with condemning "technology" as a driver for environmental problems. The implication is that technological progress is bad, and that by reverting to simpler, less advanced technology we would improve our environmental footprint. While this might be technically true, it is utterly impractical and socially unpalatable, and is therefore driving environmentalism farther from the mainstream. Let's be serious: No one is going to go back to horse-and-buggy and give up their electricity, even if it means less fossil fuel use.

Frankly, I'm reluctant to even view technology as a force unto itself. Instead, I see technology as a manifestation of human will: it's our ongoing search for the best possible solution to the problems we encounter. I don't think it's fair to BLAME the chainsaw for deforestation, for example. Rather I blame our insatiable lust for clear farmland and lumber. Just as this desire drove us to invent a better solution for removing trees, a desire to achieve sustainable forest products could easily lead to a technological solution such as fast-growing genetically modified trees, or use of naturally sustainable materials like bamboo.

Simply put, "technology" is nothing more than us using our greatest resource, brainpower, to develop solutions to our problem. It is completely impractical for us to have LESS technology, and arguing for that is a good way to alienate pragmatists from environmentalism.

I agree with the Maniates article.  The time for easy changes is over, what needs to happen are drastic changes.  However, I don't think the political aspect is that moving.  The types of changes he is calling for are government level, and I think the government would stand to lose a lot of money.  It needs to be a public effort, community level, rather than government level for the changes he would like to see and that are necessary to curb environmental damage.

I completely agree with Michael Maniates article on America's approach towards current environmental issues. Often we hear politicians or even the president announce initiatives for things such as a greater transition towards cleaner energy by 2020, but many times the "transition" is so small that it's unnoticeable. Not to mention the possibility of the deadline year being pushed back. It's hard to have such a pessimistic view when there are positive actions being taken such as the incorporation of hybrid cars into the market. But at the same time, such actions aren't aggressive enough. If hybrids only consist of 2 or 3% of sold vehicles, we haven't been very affective in our message that global warming is an urgent issue.

Although I agree 100% with Maniates, the environment is an extremely touchy issue. There have been people who talk of the severity of environmental degradation, but often they are ignored because they're thought of being extremists. A large part of our society turn their noses up when they hear things like the melting rates of our glaciers and the extreme changes in our weather patterns which call for action NOW. They can't visualize environmental destruction in the future, and if they can't see it many think that it's not such a serious problem.

Now don't get me wrong, this isn't an excuse to not take greater action and call upon the people for their help, but the question that I continue to struggle with is how do we do this affectively? What tactics do you use to convince families to decrease their consumption rates and get rid of 3 of their 5 cars, or how do you tell someone that they don't really need that shirt their going to buy? This is an issue that's often pushed aside, but as Maniates says, "The time for easy is over."

Response to Maniates Article

Maniates brings up a number of valid points in his attempt to start getting people to make drastic decisions to their lives in the name of the environment. Following the 3 R's [Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle] and trying to cut back on energy usage on an individual level alone is not enough. We, as a country, need to change some of the basic tenets of our society. Consumerism and the American way of life, which includes the dream of a big suburban house and a few cars, are not sustainable in the long run given the number of people on the planet, our current methods of production, and the limited resources of the planet. 

However, the small steps that Maniates denounces as easy and not enough are about as far as many people can go in reducing harm to the environment. This is not because people are lazy or don't care, but because it is hard to think about people decades from now when life seems difficult now. Given the current worldwide economic slowdown, most people are more concerned about their jobs or living expenses than their carbon emissions. In times like these, small steps are better than no steps at all. 

Granted, the very institutions that can try to help people do more, like the government and all of its associated departments and agencies, are not helping, much like Maniates says. The EPA, for instance, fought California's attempt to set lower emissions targets than the EPA. We are living in a crazy world when the Environmental Protection Agency is stopping a state from doing all it can to protect the environment. It is much like the video "The Story of Stuff" by Annie Leonard says; the government seems more interested in protecting the vested interests of corporations and businesses than of people. If the government tried dramatically change this country in an attempt to reduce our impact on the environment, and reverse it, not just within our borders but by reducing the impact Americans have in other countries via industries, businesses would be impacted greatly. 

Our economy is based on the idea that producing junk that people buy and need to replace often will make you wealthy. Change this model and businesses will shrink, which I doubt they want and they have the money to prevent the government from interfering with this model. Citizens don't. We do have the ability to attempt to hold the government accountable, by voting and agitating for change. Of course, a popular figure to become a face for this movement and to help people care about the environment, like Dr. King did for the Civil Rights Movement or FDR for the war effort would help. 

I agree with Maniates when he says that people are, to an extent, willing to sacrifice to help the planet, but I think it is businesses that will probably end up sacrificing more than the common person.  

re: Maniates

I am not sure what the reader is supposed to take away from Michael Maniate op-ed "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It". A sense of doom? A feeling of powerlessness to create change? This is, in my mind, the worst face of the environmental movement: condescending, alarmist, and calling for some mystical change to come down from the heavens and rewrite the whole way we live our lives. The only way we can even dream of seeing real progress is to move incrementally, and align peoples best interests with those of the environment.

At the moment, there is no incentive except for altruism to make environmental change. We have displaced the costs of our unsustainable lifestyle across time and space, and in doing so have moved environmentalism upwards on our hierarchy of needs. The only way to make the big changes Maniates is pushing for is to make every individual feel these costs viscerally, in their wallets and their day to day lives, and let market forces do their efficient work. When you tell someone who's paid $10 an hour to spend an extra hour commuting to work on public transportation at a savings of $5, they do a quick cost-benefit analysis in their head and say "No, thank you."

Maniates, and environmentalists who share his views, shouldn't be surprised that people are only willing to make marginal changes to help the environment at the moment. It's human nature to ignore issues that do not appear to directly affect you, and wailing about that on the op-ed page will not change anything. Any environmentalist who is hungry for genuine change needs to approach these questions pragmatically, to cooperate with people and align their interests with those of the planet. Talking down to the small minority of Americans who are willing to start making change, even if it is just a few CFL lightbulbs and recycling their cans, is counterproductive and harmful to the movement as a whole.

McCain v. Obama

I decided to compare John McCain and Barack Obama for this assignment. After reading McCain's perspective on the environment, I would say that he's a market liberal. I say this because McCain talks about how the environment and the economy are "inextricably linked" and expresses the thought that, "a clean and healthy environment is well served by a strong economy." It appears as though he feels that we should work for a better environment by means of a stronger economy, and as Clapp and Dauvergne explain in our readings, market liberals see the way forward as promoting growth. McCain also talks about alleviating poverty which is a key aspect of the market liberal theory.

On the other hand, I would have to say that Obama is the closest to being a bioenvironmentalist. This is because bioenvironmentalists support limits to growth and reduced consumption which is illustrated in Obama's plan to reduce America's oil dependence as well as his cap and trade strategy. It was hard to place Obama distinctly in the bioenvironmentalist group because he didn't quite fit all of the descriptions. For example, he doesn't talk about limiting population growth, but overall I feel he fit best in this category.

In terms of talking the most sense on the environment, I would have to say Obama did a convincing job. A lot of McCain's claims for environmental improvements are broad and sound similar to many other politicians. I personally am looking for a different candidate with more dedication. Some of Obama's goals seem to be slightly traditional such as investing in clean energy, but he also mentions supporting next generation biofuels which shows more commitment.

Ron Paul vs. Hillary, environmentally

Based on the scale from Clapp and Dauvergne, I would say Ron Paul is a social green, while Hillary Clinton is a institutionalist.  Ron Paul wants to cut the size of government and government spending while still proceeding towards a greener society.  He does not rely upon institutions and bases everything on the constitution, saying environmental issues arise from a lack of respect of property rights.  Hillary, on the other hand, bases her environmental policy around the government and the market, and it heavily relies on institutions.  Her policies would require new institutions to be created in order to make America greener.

I believe Ron Paul talks the most sense regarding the environment.  He voted against federal funds for logging, actively works against government programs that harm the environment, and pursues means to encourage sustainable energy.

Vote Ron Paul....

Clinton v. McCain

For this post, I decided to compare Hillary Clinton and John McCain. 

When it comes to characterizing these two candidates, it is a little difficult. Very few people would fit entirely into one category, especially when they are trying to get elected. Clinton best fits the category of the Institutionalists as her environmental plan includes a number of government financed plans. She has a very thought out plan, including bonds, new power grids, and other incentive plans that all rely on centralized governments on the national, state, and local level. Yet, with all of Clinton' talk of empowering local areas in order to help them make better environmental decisions, she is also a bit of a Social Green. McCain, on the other hand, can mainly be considered a bioenvironmentalist as he champions environmental stewardship. He wants clean air, clean water, and sustainable land use. However, when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, he favors a Market Liberal approach, utilizing market forces to encourage better energy and fuel efficiency. 

The two candidates are trying to do the same thing, reducing Americans impact on the environment and energy use, but they do so in very different ways. The labels provided in the reading are useful in an analytic sense, but in practice, most people fall into multiple or overlapping categories making the labels less useful. I'm sure there are instances within each candidates' plans that would place them in even more categories. 

When it comes to choosing which candidates' policies make more sense, the labels do not really help much. I do not think that McCain's Market Liberal approach to lowering carbon emissions will work that well as such policies have not faired well in dealing with current environmental emission problems. Granted, with higher energy costs and different government policies, they could potentially work. I do, however, like McCain's Bioenvironmentalist stance when it comes to the environment as we should preserve, maintain, and promote growth within our forests, rivers, and such. Clinton's plans also sound very appealing, despite being dependent on cooperation on a number of levels and with a number of parties. 

In the end, a combination of their ideas would probably be best so as to get the greatest possible effect on the environment. Simply one of the approaches given by the labels wouldn't work as each label focuses on only part of the issue, and thus only gives a partial solution. If I had to pick a candidate based solely on their environmental policy, I would have to pick Clinton's as hers does not rely on Market Liberalism as much. I just don't think it works that well, even if it is paired with Bioenvironmentalism, which I think does work. I just think that, for the US, relying on institutes and empowering people will help protect the environment and reduce emissions. 

Ron Paul v. Obama

I've been following the Paul campaign with great interest, if nothing else because he's such a perfect case study of classic Republicanism with a genuine libertarian leaning... an individual rights guy to the core.

As a free-market, small government man, Ron Paul believes that private property rights are the key to sound environmental policy. He is not for centralized federal regulation, but says that polluters and over-consumers are intruding on the rights of property owners. In Ron Paul's ideal policy plan, afflicted parties would be able to sue polluters, driving their costs up and making irresponsible resource use and polluting economically inviable. This approach makes Paul a straightforward Market-Liberal.

Obama, on the other hand, has a blend of free-market and regulatory ideas to bring environmental harm under control. Perhaps the most interesting is the carbon cap-and-trade system, which would impose a regulatory cap on national emissions but then allow corporations to divy up allowed emissions on an open market. This would encourage innovation and punish backwardness, but not as harshly as some other measures.

Aside from this, Obama is a classic scientific stimulus/regulation environmentalist. He aims to invest massive dollars into energy science while mandating consumption standards such as CAFE. All the while, he promises to involve the nation more completely in international regulation.

Such a broad approach is more difficult to pigeonhole. Cap-and-trade is a touch of market-liberalism, international involvement is typical institutionalism, and all that scientific investment sounds like bio-environmentalism.

Who's talking more sense? Even though I'm a free market guy by default, I think it doesn't work with the environment. Even staunch deregulatory free marketeer F.A. Hayek conceded that environmental issues are thorny because the costs can be displaced instead of felt directly by the problematic party.

I like Obama's plan because it focuses so much on technology, but wish he had more lifestyle statements to make, even if that isn't the direct role of the President. Maybe if he set a sound example himself, he could use his station to demonstrate how it's WE that need to change, not just our science.

To pinpoint one or even two key problems at the core of environmental issues is quite a task in my opinion. Although difficult, my thought process behind this question lead me to believe that consumption is a major concern. Originally I wanted to say increasing population was a big problem, but most of the growth is occurring in developing countries, yet they use the least amount of Earth's resources. I thought about how everything concerning environmental degradation is tied back to resources...toxic wastes, technology, global warming, environmental refugees, etc. With this in mind, I realized that the only way to produce less of these byproducts is to consume less. This leaves the issue in the hands of the developed countries.

I felt that the piece we were assigned to read called Confronting Consumption had some great insights to this perspective and it served as an eye opener. Today and especially into the future, our society is greatly influenced by the economy. We're always coming up with new technologies and advertisements are continuously convincing us that we 'need' more. This is our biggest downfall because as Princen, Maniates and Conca state, "only the individual can judge how to participate in the economy," and we seem to be easily persuaded by the market. Our standard of living is so high that the wealthy have up to 5 or 6 cars for one family, and compromising our comfort seems to be out of the question.

According to the authors, it is not in activists' best interests to pursue reform for producers because it is the consumers that drive demand of products. I couldn't agree with this more. Not that putting restrictions on producers is bad, but it's not as effective. This ties in with the second question as well because the solution comes down to an individual level. Living more efficiently and consuming less is one of the best ways to take action. It may seem like you're hardly making a difference, but once again resources are the core of everything.

As a final point, I had a conversation with a gentleman the other day who was a journalist from India. We happened to discuss these same issues, and I made mention of my concern regarding the percentage of the world's resources that the United States consumes. He said that he was concerned too. Throughout his life he has seen his country strive to have the same lifestyle as those in the US, and it saddened him that the people of India could not learn from our mistakes of overconsumption. We're moving in the right direction, we just need to assert our efforts in the right place.

I have no idea what I would say is the biggest challenge to the environment.  There are so many problems and I believe each is connected with the other (a perverse interdependence).  Global warming is due to many factors, and many claim it is the largest problem.  The hole in the ozone layer is not seen as large as an issue as it did in the 1980s, but it plays a role in many environmental issues.  Thus, I do not know which is the largest challenge or the most important issue regarding the environment.  However, I personally believe deforestation is a much larger issue than it is given credit for, mostly because there are better sources of paper and many trees are cut for paper.  Water and soil pollution are huge concerns of mine, as well.  Some of these issues of water and soil pollution could easily be changed (not necessarily fixed, but at least lowered) if those in the agricultural community would switch to a sustainable agriculture model.  In addition to lowering environmental costs, the farmers would save on pesticides and herbicides if they adopted a sustainable program.  

What's the biggest environmental issue facing us today? That's a pretty tough question to answer, when science seems to point towards a hundred different calamities that we're racing towards, and showing no sign of slowing or changing directions.

That said, I strongly believe that the overarching issue that is driving all of these environmental problems is environmental apathy. Our modern lifestyle is so frequently completely separate from the wild that many 21st century youths, even in affluent, relatively environmentally protected nations like the United States, aren't growing up with a strong affinity for nature. It's no coincidence that environmental activism and outdoors appreciation go hand in hand: People who genuinely appreciate and love our remaining wild places are more likely to be interested in preserving them.

People can only be expected to act, especially when action involves considerable sacrifice, when it is in some way in their best interest. For the outdoor enthusiast, protecting America's forests becomes not just a morally proper thing to do, or even just long-term wisdom for humanity as a race: it becomes a self-interested action aimed to preserve his or her preferred playground.

Modern environmentalists are trying, unsuccessfully, to make people care about catastrophes hundreds of years down the line. It is unreasonable to assume you can convince the plurality of mankind to make the sacrifices needed to achieve sustainability just to avoid some faraway disaster or protect some resource that appears only tangentially relevant to our species. However, if we are able to bring our children back into the woods, to show them the beauty of their natural surroundings, they will be faced with the immediate challenge of preserving and expanding those resources for their future enjoyment.

It may not be as idealistic as a crusade for the salvation of 23rd century Earth, but a crusade to protect the outdoors is more realistic. The only missing piece to the puzzle is the innate passion for blue skies and green lands that is suppressed by parents who leave their kids out of the "dangerous" woods and in front of the television.

Week 2 blog response

To be quite honest, I don't quite know what I consider to be the most important global environmental problem, in terms of the environment , to answer the first question. Clean air and water would seem to be important as both are vital to not only people, but to most of the life on this planet. Minimizing pollution, deforestation, and countless other negative affects on the planet is also important. Yet, the biggest problem isn't in the environment, its in people's minds and actions, personally. People are having an obvious negative impact on the planet. How much of one and the resulting long term implications are debatable, but people. as a whole, are harming the planet and the living things on it. 

The biggest problem is then that even those who try to minimize their impact cannot always do so. Living in a fairly small studio apartment in DC, without a car, and trying to eat mostly organic and locally grown [with most of my diet coming from fruits and veggies], there would still need to be 1.9 planets if everyone were to live like me, according to the site we were supposed to go on last week.  I try minimize my carbon footprint as much as I can and I still have an impact. 

Given the structure of life, at least within the US, it is hard to minimize your impact, even if you try. In many places, fresh, locally grown food is hard to come by even if it shouldn't be so a person has to rely on grocery stores. Getting food home requires a car in many places as public transportation may be spotty or nonexistent and the grocery store could be far from your home. There are places where organic, local food is easy to find or you can get around without a car, even in the US. Unfortunately, grocery stores with imported food and cars are becoming status symbols that everyone wants around the world. 

I am not saying that people should be denied cars or modern luxuries, but that people as a whole have to rethink these luxuries. Grocery stores should try and stock local, organic food at affordable prices. Cars can and should be made more fuel efficient then they currently are. Homes should also be made more efficient, in terms of energy consumption, heating and cooling. Some people will have to give some things up, like SUV's that get 16 miles to the gallon or the ability to eat fresh iceberg lettuce year round, but I think it is worth it. 

This sort of ties into the second about living in an "environmentally friendly" way. I think that it is trying to minimize the impact you have on the environment, on a conscious level, through the decisions you make in both the long and short term. This includes things like buying a fuel efficient car but driving it sparingly and buying energy efficient appliances to put in your modestly sized home. Of course, this also impacts the small decisions you make, like throwing the soda can out in a recycling can that is six feet away from you when you are standing next to a trash can. 

However, it is not just something you do in your life, but something you try to encourage in others, within reason. By encouraging your government or your neighborhood to be more eco-friendly, you make it easier for yourself and encourage others to follow in your smaller carbon footsteps. This does not mean that people who don't instantly adopt eco-friendly lifestyles should be made social outcasts or that all environmentalists should become eco-terrorists to persuade their government to change. What I do mean is that people are more likely to become eco-friendly if it is easy for them or if there are incentives, like a recycling bin on every corner or tax breaks for fuel efficient cars. Thus, environmentally concerned people should form civic groups or lobby Congress or talk to their town mayor in the hopes of making a difference. It will take time and effort, but in the end, it will probably encourage more people to change. 

This is an opening post for this blog. Reema, Anne and Dustin - shoot me an e-mail or leave a post to let me know the post invitation worked
-Rob