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.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)