A Hard Won and Seldom Seen Victory

When i went home for thanksgiving I was excited to see my family, eat massive amounts of turkey (Which I am proud to say came from a local farm near my house free of the Industrial food chain), and generally do nothing. Yet, in the face of my potential laziness, I was charged to bring up environmental politics to my family in Kentucky -this wasn't going to go well.

First, a little backround. I come from a conservative legal family. My father has voted republican for over twenty years, he is a true small government idealist. Also, he is one of the smartest people I know. He gradutated first in his class at Georgetown, first in his class at U of Cincinnati Law School, and has over 25 years of legal experience. Needless to say, the man knows how to argue.

So, when I confronted him about the possible ramifications of human interference and overuse of the environment, he certainly had something to say. He gave me a whole slew of arguements from the idea that whats going on now is a natural phenomena, to the idea that regulation is fruitless because it would necesitate a government expansion. However, despite all his ability to manuever, I, for the first time in quite a while, was able to confront him with a range of counterarguements. From the I=PAT equation, to the idea of sustainability as defined by Cradle to Cradle to Maniates' feelings on consumption and responsible individual action.

And a remarkable thing happened, for the first time that I can remember, I changed my fathers mind, at least a little bit. He was very taken with Maniates' idea of systems of social change. I think it appealed to his logical, analytical mind to believe that a change in structures would lead to a change in action. He also seemed to like it because it minimized the role of government in regulation and replaced it with the concerted effort of indiviuals.

He was more conflicted with the idea of fivolous consumption. He has always prided himself on thrift. However, he felt that the kind of indictment that Maniates was laying out was too general an indictment of modern american capitalistic culture. He was fundementally unwilling to critique the system through which he has succeeded.

The conversation was truely eye opening. Firstly because it reinforced the idea that environmental responsibility is the only logical choice. But moreso because of the limitations my father represented. One of the major dificulties is convincing a population that has made its wealth through the American capitalist system that it is that very system that will lead to dramatic problems in the future. While he is a logical, reasonable man and is very willing to change his beliefs if they can be proved wrong, he was not willing to, in his eyes, betray the system that has brought him prosperity. That was very interesting.

So, my thanksgiving was not completely without an education. Though, I didnt bring up the idea of an industrial food system, I figured that may be too much for Thanksgiving dinner.

Thanksgiving

I found it pretty difficult to bring up environmental issues at Thanksgiving because the conversation didn't head anywhere near global issues (except for the terrorist attacks in Mumbai) and this year, no one was really fighting I didn't want to ruin a good thing! Anyway, I found my chance later in the night, when my little sister was telling me that I need to eat meat to get some protein and iron. After telling her for the 100th time that I have energy and that my iron is high enough to give blood, I realized I now how a perfect opportunity to talk about the environment.

So I turned our conversation to industrial farming. I tried my best to get a discuss going, but she just kept nodding her head and saying.. "well..... i like meat..... it's good for you." I even tried the bit about methane gas from cow excrement polluting the air. It pretty much fell on deaf ears. My sister actually kind of makes fun of my mom because she is 100% insistent that our family use all organic cleaning products and reusable grocery bags. I'm always standing up for my mom in this case, because I don't think those things are a waste of money/energy, like my sister and dad. Long story short, my attempt to start a conversation about it kind of went badly, because my sister really didn't want to discuss it.

Thanksgiving Conversation About the Environment

So I didn't get to spend too much time at home, but when I did, I brought up the environment quite a few times, and I actually referenced a lot of what we've talked about in class, like the "Cradle to Cradle" paradigm, the "Trinity of Despair," etc. Most people in my family and circle of friends, as I suspected, agree with the majority of my environmental views. They believe that we are facing an environmental crisis, that many things have to be done quickly on various fronts to prevent the worst of the damage and that the Bush administration has been a complete abomination when it comes to environmental policy making (and when it comes to most other issues as well). I feel lucky to be surrounded by environmentally conscious people.

There were a few instances, though, where someone didn't quite agree with a specific point or action. For instance, when I was talking about drastically enhancing public transportation to wean the U.S. off of our car fix, my sister said something to the effect of, "but we're so spread out and we live in cars." I told her that I thought this was unnecessarily defeatist and that we can work on revamping the auto industries at the same time, to tackle the problem from two angles. After that the pie was served so our conversation inadvertently kind of ended there...

Also, throughout the weekend I made it a point to remind my mom to turn out the lights and unplug her appliances. Although it was kind of nagging, I tried to explain to her why this is important to remember. (I still think its worthwhile for us to do the simple stuff when we can.) She is environmentally aware at heart and she was receptive to these suggestions.

So basically, since I didn't really have the opportunity to get into any sort of friendly debate/exchange with someone who drastically disagreed with me, I thought of people that I know who don't believe in global warming. My dad's best friend doesn't, and, although I didn't see him over the break, I can imagine how our conversation would go. He apparently doesn't believe in global warming because, as he says, "God promised that He wouldn't flood the earth twice." I think this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard - not because of the religious connotations (I consider myself spiritual/religious and I believe in God), but more because I think it's completely impractical. I obviously wouldn't say this to him, though - I'd say, "You know, I'm sure that God wants us to be good stewards of the land as well so that we can be more at peace with the world. Also, a better environment improves human relationships as well. To be good stewards means that we should not only recycle, but also campaign for policy changes, support homegrown food, take the metro, etc." Maybe I'll subtly broach the subject over winter break...

I love to talk about this stuff and I'll continue these types of discussions when I'm home again in two weeks and also while I'm in Thailand. (That is, if the protesters ever allow the airport to open again...)

So I figured the perfect candidate to have an environmental discussion with would be my most recent ex-boyfriend. An ultra-conservative, super Christian, staunch republican military guy with a lot to say regarding environmental politics.

I asked Alan what he felt the most important environmental issue was today and without hesitation he answered: "Nuclear Energy". Now it's been obvious in class that I am absolutely, positively, one hundred percent against nuclear energy. I hate the stuff and it actually drives me crazy when people see it as a solution to many of today's problems. But according to Alan, "We need to develop nuclear energy so we can provide renewable energy to our homes and businesses." I told Alan that my main problem with nuclear waste was that right now it doesn't really fit into any sort of reusable cycle. . . and this is where the conversation got interesting.

"If I gotta store nuclear waste 10 drums high out in the middle of Iowa, as long as it isn't creating radiation or toxic effects of other kinds, I don't really care."

So I asked Alan if he'd dump factory runoff into the ocean, to which he quickly responded "Ew, gross, hell no!"
And then I asked him how that's different from dumping nuclear waste into a mountain or into a hole in a ground.

And this is where Alan tried to convince me that what we need to do is spend time developing technology that ensures the waste won't leak and quite frankly if we could bury it a hundred feet into the bottom of the land bed he wouldn't care.
I, on the other hand, thought if nuclear waste was really something our country should consider over wind or solar power, then we shouldn't waste time trying to displace the waste, but recycle it instead.

So Alan says "If private citizens wanna do stuff I don't really care."
Alan doesn't really care. He just wants his power and will close his eyes to the possible consequences if it doesn't affect him.

What I couldn't figure out is why Alan felt this land in the middle of Iowa is useless just because it isn't being "used". We, humans, haven't found any "use" for it, so therefore it makes perfect sense to dump all of our nuclear woes on Iowa's shoulders. Forget what effects this could have on the ecosystem. . . WE COULD USE THE LAND!


Clearly, things with me and Alan could never, ever work out.

Trinity of Despair

I liked Maniates' Trinity of Despair because I thought it was a useful way to frame environmental issues.

Human Nature: I was more optimistic on this one. As Prof. Maniates said, people are inherently social creatures. We work together all the time. While people, of course, are looking out for their own self-interest, they still care about issues bigger than themselves.

Social Change: We DEFINITELY do not need everyone on board to make social change. There have been so many social movements in history that have succeeded simply because the leaders in those movements were able to make themselves heard. On that note, I think the environmental movement is lacking something important. There are lots of great people working very hard on this crisis, but there is no leader at the forefront. There's no particular environment group or, more importantly, no individual, that stands above all the others. I think developing that kind of leadership is key to spreading the movement.

Environmental Strategy: I think this is a good idea too. Obviously, not everyone who uses a green lightbulb is going to turn into an environmentalist. If education on this stuff comes early in life though, it really has the potential for becoming an issue that kids today grow up to really care about. The one or two more people who become environmentalists because of strategy, that's one or two more people that could become leaers in the movement.

So I'm not sure if his speech changed my opinions in any way, though it did make me realize that I think that a leader (a face of the movement) is really important.

"Trinity of Despair"

I really enjoyed the video conference and thought that Professor Maniates was very informative and inspiring. His "trinity of despair" is especially useful for us environmentalists.

A few thoughts:

Human Nature: Although he had some convincing arguments, I still believe that humans are, for the most part, inherently selfish. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a selfless good deed and many people adhere to the "kill or be killed" motto: Darwin's "survival of the fittest." This can be overcome, or at least compromised to a certain extent: there are definitely great people out there that care about others and big, important issues, such as climate change. Maybe working on the Hill makes me too cynical (people call and write in about the most inconsequential things and are oftentimes rude and crude), so I don't usually have great heaps of faith in the human race. I try to remain at least somewhat optimistic, though...

Social Change: I actually am in the middle on this one. I don't think that everyone has to be on board to affect change. I think that the message of a few can be very powerful. However, I think that the environmental situation is a bit different from the Civil Rights Movement, for instance. Because of climate complexities and the interconnectedness of the environment and environmental problems, I think that more than 3% or 4% must be involved to have an appreciable impact (maybe 60% or more). For instance, governments can pass cleaner, more sustainably focused laws, but more than 3% or 4% of the population must comply to carry out the spirit and intent of the law. (Enforcement is necessary in part because of my more negative view of human nature, I think.) However, I believe that it is very important to focus on civil action because, if executed correctly, a few people can get many more people on board.

Environmental Strategy/Easy Stuff: This is a great concept in theory, but I think that a necessary stepping stone for people to care about the environment is engaging in the small, everyday things, like recycling and using efficient light bulbs. Once people reach that level of awareness, I think that an important few will reach higher and farther and utilize civic action to lobby for change. (Maybe this goes back to my more cynical view of human nature: I think that oftentimes people have to be eased into things for them to get accustomed to/educated about issues and to become passionate.) I also don't think that the two approaches have to be mutually exclusive: why not advocate for devoting a certain amount of time per day to the little, easy things, and spending more targeted time on campaigns? That expands the effective umbrella of change. However, Professor Maniates makes a great point that we shouldn't limit ourselves in any sense - someone has to reach for the stars or else we'll be stuck in polluted sink holes forever.

I know that these comments go back and forth, to a certain extent, but that's because I think that these issues are very nuanced and can be interpreted in many ways. The triangle is definitely a fresh, innovative way to view the status of the environmental movement and plan effective ways to move forward, but I don't think that these categorizations are absolute.

Let's have another video conference!
Katie Suplick

P.S. I think that the Starbucks campaign sounds great and I'm totally on board to help out!

I’m happy to say that my eyes were really opened by Professor Maniates’ “Trinity of Despair”. As a green crusader myself, I know better than anyone that it’s the most difficult thing in the world to get others who disagree with the entire green movement on the same page as myself. But after listening to Professor Maniates’ discussion I’ve realized that maybe we don’t have to all jump on board in order to create change.

Many of my previous posts have been about my frustrations when others don’t participate in the tedious everyday green nuances like I do. I’ve even wrote multiple times that the solution to our global crises lie in everybody banning together to find a solution. But maybe this is and never will be possible no matter how hard we try. Maybe Professor Maniates is right in saying it takes a minority with a fixed will and determination can successfully rework the system in our favor. It’s been done before, just as Maniates said, the Women’s Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movements are clear examples to support his claim.

If you were to ask me before class what my stance on an environmental solution was I would have probably disagreed with Professor Maniates. However during class I found myself surprisingly optimistic in comparison to the rest of the class. Before Maniates even described the “Trinity of Despair” or any of his theories I said aloud “It doesn’t take everyone, because the people who are working on the issues are the most passionate and driven people. They are the people to get the job done.” So maybe Professor Maniates and I agreed on the issue even when I thought we didn’t. But I can tell you 100% he has turned me pro-Maniates after his lecture. I’m now refocusing my environmental efforts not in converting the apathetic others, but creating a larger impact on my own.

I can totally save the planet.

Cradle to Cradle

I really think that what McDonough and Braungart are trying to do is revolutionary. I like that their ideas are very practical business solutions for environmental problems. They remain grounded in the pro-environment no-waste ideas that they preach, and actually practice them.

I only worry about their effort growing. The few businesses they worked with in the video were very willing to restructure their business model around an eco-friendly platform. I am afraid that larger and more destructive companies will be completely dissinterested in following McDonough's and Braungart's ideals of waste = food. Hopefully though, they'll see the environmental (and even the marketing effects ) of being as green as possible. I'm worried that this all may not work, but I'm trying to remain hopeful that these types of plans will catch quickly catch on globally.

I truly commend William McDonough and Michael Braungart on their optimistic vision. I like to think of myself as an optimist as well when it comes to matters of the environment. I’d like to believe we can get everybody on board this revolution in time to save the planet. Reading Cradle to Cradle has provided me with insight I’ve never thought of before. I don’t normally put my faith in technology, and would rather rely on a “consume-less, waste-less, need-less” mindset when it comes to my environmental views. However in our capitalist, and oftentimes stubborn, society, this is nearly impossible. Working capitalism into greening our country by providing manufacturers with ideas to remake the way we make things is brilliant.

When I told my father I wanted to concentrate in Environmental Policy in college he said “green is very ‘in’ right now” . . . and he’s right. People who never in their life used a recycling can are cooking up ways to make a dollar on green solutions. This is why I think McDonough and Braungart’s theories will absolutely work. For example, a very conservative, very NON-environmentally friendly friend of mine one day proposed the idea of starting a company which assisted companies in going green. A sort of liaison company that did all the green work for other companies, so they can reap the benefits of going green. Needless to say, this was shocking to me. I was, of course, in full support of his decision, but couldn’t understand why he had conjured it up.

My friend is a business major, and business majors are concerned with one thing: money. Offering practical steps on how to innovate in today’s economic environment allows the re-invention of the human industry. The attitude McDonough and Braungart take is “We have created this mess, now we can create a solution.” It is very inspiring to say the least, and offers a sense of hope for a future of sustaining prosperity.

Cradle to Cradle

I really applaud McDonough and Braungart's vision because it is so holistic and healthy. Not to be melodramatic, but I've actually never heard anything proposed that is so revolutionary.

It does give me hope that we can experience real change, but at the same time it seems to be trying to accomplish too much at once. Don't get me wrong, I think that drastic change is needed, and soon, to reverse the cycle of environmental degradation. However, I'm wondering if they could speak more about gradually implementing these changes so as to get everyone involved on board and not to, "shock the system." I personally believe that the system must be shocked, but I think that, unfortunately, society is too entrenched in its own industrial and manufacturing ways, and this fixation makes change very hard to come by.

I think that this spirit of holistic change must come from the bottom-up and from the top-down. Local communities should get on board and make positive examples of themselves, which will hopefully spur meaningful policy reform from government. I hope that these practical and logistical considerations will be addressed later on in the book.

Maybe my cynicism is showing here. But I do think these kinds of fundamental changes are possible and that we should definitely reach for the stars when conceptualizing these goals. I just know that, usually, change comes slowly, which is why incremental goals must be set and met.

Lorax Verses

Wow, Dominique, great job! I love it!

Here's what we came up with in class:

Riding your cycler
Planting a tree
Not littering and recycling
Are all well and good
But working with friends
The fun never ends
Thinking of big ideas
Writing emails and making phone calls
Attending meetings and organizing events
Affecting change
Is where the most can be gained
If we want to make the world a better place
Start a movement; you and your friends need to show your faces

Maybe we could combine some of these ideas in class today or Friday?

Great work!
Katie Suplick

Every creature
Down on Earth
Liked Earth a lot...

But the Humans,
Who owned the Earth,
Did NOT!

The Humans hated Earth! They hated each season!
Now, please don't ask why, no one quite knows the reason.
It could be because they ruled above all,
It could be, perhaps, that Earth was too small.
But these Humans nonetheless were careless in fashion,
And took all they could without rhyme or ration.

So
Whatever the reason,
Their heads or their hearts,
They ran around careless using all of Earth's parts,
Taking whatever from the ground and the trees;
Even polluting the air and the seas!
For what we knew every Human on Earth
Was wasting the Earth for all it was worth.

"They're killing me slowly! This sure is not fair!
I give all they need! I wish they would care!"
And then the Earth sighed, looked down with compassion,
"I MUST find a way to teach Humans some passion!"
So Earth, said a prayer...

And SO
...All Humans, All Humans, with all of their flaws
Would wake up that morning and put life on pause!
And then! To find a cause! They'd find a cause!
That's how they'd fix Earth! With a round of applause they'd each find a cause!

Then Humans, young and old, would all volunteer.
They'd engineer! Pioneer! Make smog disappear!
Persevere! Hold Earth dear! Here Here! Here Here!
They'd start from the front, and move to the rear!
They'd do all they could to save their great Sphere!

And THEN
They patched up Earth from its wearing and tearing,
And Earth was pleased Humans finally were caring!
They stood close together, with hand in one hand,
For Earth had been saved! They saved their great land!

When they tried! And they tried!
AND they TRIED! TRIED! TRIED! TRIED!
They fixed up their Earth from the out to inside!
They came together, each one, worldwide!
All because they stopped and they stared
Listened to Earth, and finally cared,
And with just a little passion
Earth was repaired.

Discussion Question 7

I think the green collar jobs movement is really smart. Most people see the environment as something that you address when you're rich (I'll buy solar panels and organic produce when I can afford it), but this idea involves people in all economic walks of life. As a lot of blue collar jobs are being lost, green collar jobs are a great way to replace them. They not only help people who need jobs, but they restructure the entire energy industry (and other industries) to make them more green. It works with the root of the consumption problem. It also works with the current environmental problem. I agree, it definitely kills two birds with one stone. Green collar jobs use the environment as the means to economic end, but not in a harmful way

Van Jones, Economics and Infrastructure Reform

Van Jones' point seems to be self evident. In modern American capitalist society, very little change will occur without some form of profit incentive. Unless, for the majority of people, an issue is framed in terms of gains and losses to their wallet, nothing will get done. This is the innate appeal of so called "green collar jobs." That they can push forward an environmental progress agenda through the medium of profitable American jobs in a time of economic downturn. They remind me most of FDR's New Deal public works projects in that they are a government impetus to put people to work in skilled labor jobs to renew the infrastructure of the United States.

Now seems to be the perfect time to engage in this sort of wholesale infrastructure reform. Because of the current economic conditions there is a strong incentive to create jobs. Most importantly is the creation of useful, sustainable jobs.

Working for Environment America this summer really opened my eyes to the perspective of people's opinions as a whole regarding the environment. Living and working in Washington, DC is really like living and working in a bubble. Everyone is politically aware and everyone has a specific stance on each issue. So standing on street corners asking "Do you have a minute for the environment" really didn't hit home for most individuals. However when you rephrased the question regarding the issue and tailored it to the person being asked it made a world's of difference. The questions which received the most stops were "Do you have a minute to help boost the economy?" or "Do you have a minute for green collared workers?"

When it comes to issues that regular American's are concerned about, I've learned very quickly that if it affects their wallet they care much more than if it didn't. The beauty about living in a capitalist society is that if we rely on the economy, it really will fix itself because money affects each individual personally. So when campaigning this summer, the green collared jobs appeal was the most effective. Regardless of your profession or your environmental stance, every American wants our country to have an outstanding economy. And the green collared job aspect not only addresses this concern, but actually offers a reasonable solution to our environmental, energy, and economic problems right now.

This logic is one of the reasons as an environmentalist that I supported McCain. I agree with Obama who scorns consumption when we don't have the means to do so. Based on what I learned in this class, consumption will be the end of our planet. In this regard, Obama has the right idea. However, I have faith that McCain will try harder than his opponent to create more green jobs. If the wealthy spend and create jobs for the lower class, then our country could possibly be saved. We could save our environment, our economy, and our personal well being if we were to reform our economy from the ground up and create a new green collared workforce. In this sense, I one hundred percent, without a doubt, agree with Van Jones.

Van Jones has the right idea. The best way to get America sold on the environmental movement is to demonstrate how there is money to be made. Its pretty much that simple. His organization is hitting the right points, especially in a time of severe economic doubt and financial turmoil. By framing the environmental issues as those pertinent to future economic growth, Mr. Jones is opening up a vast look to the future with regards to job creation and economic development. By tying these issues hand in hand, Mr. Jones is making a challenge to the American economy to step up and be a world leader in the transformation of our economic growth. "Green Collar" jobs are the wave of the future. They allow us to no longer view economic development and environmental protection as at odds with one another. This is essential to breaking down and changing the production/consumption cycle to being more environmentally friendly while still allowing for the growth of the world economy and the development necessary to pull the world's poor out of poverty.

Discussion Question 7 - Van Jones' Work

I think Jones has wonderful and very efficient energy/environmental ideas (no pun intended) - essentially he's killing two birds with one stone (not to be taken literally, of course, since I'm an environmentalist). He's addressing poverty and job creation, economic woes, energy security, budget deficits, environmental concerns, etc. This multi-faceted approach is the best way to tackle such a far-reaching, comprehensive problem - as Jones points out, climate change has to be addressed by everyone but in different ways. Upper-middle class white collar workers have specific ways that they can help ameliorate the climate crisis, and middle-lower and lower class individuals must contribute in their own ways. The more appealing a thematic strategy becomes, the more grassroots and corporate support it garners, and the more it is effectively addressed both in policy circles and in vocational schools.

Jones' numbers also offer hope. He says that, with just $350 billion (half of the bailout sum), we could launch an all-inclusive green initiative that would save millions of dollars in energy costs, create millions of new jobs, and make the world cleaner and more comfortable for everyone. This definitely conceptualizes climate change and puts it in context so that it no longer seems to be an insurmountable problem.

The only thing I worry about is who is going to address this at this point in our history? It SHOULD be expeditiously tackled as a long (and short) term solution to many of our country's problems, but, unfortunately, I worry that most policy-makers will get caught up in our economic problems and will turn to more "traditional" ways of dealing with them, such as more regulation, more financial packages, more interest rate adjustments, etc. Of course, green measures could supplement all of these "conventional" remedies, but I'm concerned that this won't happen, if past actions are accurate indicators for future actions.

More people like Van Jones should work on this and similar plans to address climate change. Political will is necessary to make this work on a large-scale, and I hope that the American public at large will find it in themselves to rise to the challenge.

I can't necessarily name a favorite experience in nature, there simply have been too many. However, I can name one that happened most recently and was quite unexpected. Recently some friends and I found a spot on Nevada ave. where the road diverges and a section of woods from rock creek park opens up. In front of the woods is a long section of an open field. In the clearing there is one tree, stripped of all its branches. This tree is a single simple trunk shooting towards the sky. It is really quite beautiful to sit and look at the night sky and see the tree shooting up towards the moon and stars.

Of course, none of this area is in a pristine state. The clearing we found exists only because it is most likely maintained by man. However, this goes to the question of who decides what is a natural state. More importantly it begs the question, should such an unnatural clearing be saved. I am sure that this area could be bought and developed should the price be right. However, it would truly be a shame to lose some open greenery in the heart of the city. While I was there a famiily of four deer- a Buck a doe and two fawns- grazed past while my friends and I stood almost in awe of how brazen and unafraid they were. It was the closest I had ever been to a wild animal, within 15 feet. It would be a true shame to lose that.

For some reason, I can't recall a favorite moment engaging with nature. My whole childhood, though, I was fascinated with nature. I'd wake up super early in the morning to go exploring the woodsy areas near my house. They're by no means big forests, just small areas where they hadn't decided to put houses yet. I searched for everything: plants, animals, trails, etc. I was especially fascinated with water. I'd jump in creeks and try to figure out how all the little streams in all the different woodsy patches were connected. As I became a teenager and older, most of these different patches of land were developed, except one that was a township park. It made me sad to see these places where I had spent so much time as a child playing become cookie-cutter houses. I realize now that this isn't just isolated to the Philadelphia suburbs. There's sprawl all over this country, all over the world, and there's no places that are untouched. When I was a kid, I thought I was the only one to see those deer or romp through that creek. But I wasn't. Others saw the value of that small plot of land in a completely different way than I did. They saw its economic value, and now the area I grew up in is filled with more ugly housing developments than I ever dreamed.

And of course it's important to save nature! I don't even now how to begin answering why it's important, because it just seems so obvious to me. We all need to conserve ourselves because we all live on this planet, and at this point, we are all responsible for what happens to it. And while our day-t0-day lives seem very far from nature, in reality they are not. Aside from its economic and material purposes, these little patches of nature and wilderness are the places of spiritual awakening, personal reflection, and childhood curiosity. Nature gives us far more than we give it, and it should be a priority to preserve what we can. We need to accept that humans don't need to live on every possible space on the planet.

Enchanting Engagement with the Natural World

Wow, that's a tough one. Coming from the Midwest, I've been lucky enough to be surrounded by nature pretty much my whole life. My family has two lake cabins (pretty typical if you're a MN or WI resident) and I've spent many a summer lounging around the lake, swimming, canoeing, water skiing, etc. I love those times.

I suppose, though, that I would have to classify two different experiences as my most mystical/magical experiences with nature. I went to Australia last May, a trip that involved visiting the Great Barrier Reef and the Daintree Rainforest. I had been snorkeling before in various locales, but the Great Barrier Reef was truly something else. I not only say brightly colored fish and intricately formed coral, but I also saw translucent cuttle fish, giant sea slugs and clams, and pulsating jelly fish (that fortunately didn't sting me). We spent hours swimming around, trying to absorb it all - it's an indescribable, absolutely breathtaking experience.

During that same trip, we hiked through the Daintree Rainforest on two separate occasions, once during the day and once at night. The Daintree is the oldest living rainforest on earth, and flanks the Great Barrier Reef, which is an amazing arrangement to contemplate in and of itself. During the day, we went with a guide, trekking up the narrow path, listening to the babbling brooks, picking our way over the boulders and trying to avoid the leeches. The guide identified dozens of plant and insect species, as well as some cassowary excrement along the way (we were thrilled to be so close to one of those famed birds, and we got a chance to see it from the car later). We were the only ones around, and the serene environment was all too perfect. A few nights later, we took a night walk through a different part of the forest. We had flashlights, which allowed us to see the spiders that blended in with the tree trunks, the sleeping birds on tree branches, the geckos that regrew their own tales and the tiny tree frogs. The coolest part of the whole thing, though, was when the guide told us all to turn off our flashlights. That was the blackest black I could ever imagine! The tree cover was so intense and we were so isolated that it literally seemed as if we were submerged in black ink or something. I couldn't see even an inch in front of my face. It wasn't scary at all, though - it was incredibly humbling and wonderful. This was how nature intended the night to be.

To answer the second part of the question, OF COURSE we should be concerned with saving nature! Nature allows us to live yet we continually screw it up, in almost every way possible. If nature goes, humans will go right along with it. It is incredibly arrogant and disgusting for anyone to think that he/she is above the laws of nature and his/her agenda is more important that practicing good environmental stewardship. This is why the environment is one of my biggest campaign issues - if we don't have the environment, nothing else really matters: economic relations would cease to exist (how would any information be transmitted/resources transported?), human contact would be limited (how would we travel so easily between continents?), and disease would be far more rampant than it is now. Who would want that kind of life?

It bothers me that, during my encounters with nature, I am disturbing natural ecological processes to a certain extent. I always try my best to limit my "meddling," but at the same time these experiences have made me love and appreciate the environment even more. I think that if everyone could have similar experiences, we would not face the environmental crisis that we do today.

Growing up in the Poconos meant one thing, growing up surrounded by nature. Fortunately as a child I got to play outside a LOT. My friends and I always went exploring in the woods and would play on the trails made by deer hunters. We found so many exciting places in those woods. There was "Red Rock" which was a big open rocky area covered in red rocks; "The Dump" was a field with an empty kerosene container and some old bus seats; "The Tree House" was a fort used by hunters with a big ladder; "The Swamp" sounds much cooler than it actually was, but it was a marshy wooded area covered in moss and always filled up after a good rain; "The Waterfall" was a small waterfall we'd have races with soda cans on; "The Jumps" was a place filled with big piles of dirt which we'd ride our bikes over; and "The Powerlines" was by the river we'd walk across to get home at the end of the day. All of these places were literally in my backyard. We'd play there everyday and have adventures of all different kinds. I knew those woods like the back of my hand.

Now the woods have been replaced with residential housing. A community was built there towards the end of my senior year and all of those great places have disappeared forever. Growing up in the Poconos made me want to live in a city. Now that I'm here in DC, when I think about where my life will take me and where my life has taken me, I always see myself back in those woods. I look around at the concrete ground and massive buildings and realize what an ugly world we live in. I'd like to consider myself a "naturalist". You stamp something "organic" and I'll most likely throw my money in that direction. This is mainly because I think nature pretty much has everything figured out for us. Nature gives us everything we need and has a way of controlling our entire lives for the best. On top of that, nature can always figure out a way to save itself. However we cannot seem to figure out a way to return the favor to nature. As humans living in the "human world" we have somehow forgotten that we are also a part of the "non-human", natural world. We have disconnected ourselves from nature. What I think we should all do is take a step back and play in the actual, real world around us because saving nature essentially means saving ourselves.

Food and the Environment

I have to be honest, i do not consider the environmental impact of food that I eat. For the most part I consider only whats closest, easiest and cheapest. When i do go to the grocery store i definitely do not buy organic food or vegetables because they are the most expensive. In the morning I have coffee and a random sort of pastry that I am sure has a larger carbon footprint than a mack truck, afternoon i go to subway or boxed lunch where they give you more packaging than you could possibly need and at night i ussually cook food from the local giant-meat from slaughterhouses and farmed fish.

Looking at it now it feels like a terrible way to do things, knowing that how i operate is unsustainable. However, it is convienent and cheap and i am a college student in a city-those are the two most important points.

Vegans Rule the World

My favorite thing in the whole entire world is hands down, no questions asked, absolutely positively one thing: food. Food is by far the most important thing in our lives because it’s unavoidable, we need food to survive. And the beautiful thing about food is that when you eat it you make it a part of your body. Food becomes you. This is why I care so much about making proper food decisions. If you were to take away my clothes, my home, my blackberry, my car what would I have left? My body and the food choices I’ve made within it. So what I put in this machine of mine is very important to me on both the personal and environmental level.

One of my favorite personal attributes is that I am a vegan. A legume munching, soy guzzling vegan. I choose three times a day to refuse dairy and meat and opt for a more Eco-friendly dish. Not only do I whole-heatedly endorse veganism, I am an obsessive compulsive food label reader. I thrive off of organic and locally grown food. If I can’t pronounce it, I won’t eat it. That simple. I’d like to refer to myself as a naturalist when it comes to my diet, others would rather call me a leaf munching lunatic.

With each meal I encounter opposition to my lifestyle. “Why would you do that?” “What do you eat?” “Where do you get your protein?” “Is this really making a difference?” And I always answer the same way: an organic vegan diet is my own personal health insurance. I’m avoiding harsh pesticides, antibodies, steroids, and hormones every time I sit down to eat. Not only am I providing a sustainable lifestyle for myself, but this is the best thing I can do to help the planet which has been so generous to me.

I’ve done a lot of reading on the matter because as I’ve mentioned in previous blogs I love the environment, and as I mentioned before I love food. The two go hand in hand even though you wouldn’t think that by looking at the food staring back at you on your dinner plate. The more I read the more I realize it is increasingly clear that the choices we make about food today are leading to environmental degradation, enormous human health problems, and unimaginable cruelty toward our environment. One of my favorite quotes comes from Ghandi who said, “Violence begins with a fork.” Although this could be interpreted many ways, I like to think of it as a sort of motto to live by which means: The choices we make about what we consume echo throughout this world in unimaginable ways.

I do keep the environment in mind when I make food choices, but probably not to the greatest extent that I could. I'm a vegetarian for a multitude of reasons, one of which is the environmental impact of factory farming. When I grocery shop, I buy organic dairy, and produce if it's available at whatever grocery store I'm at that week. By no stretch of the imagination do I try to buy all organic, because there's no way I could afford to do so. And I'll admit, I've never bought local foods the whole time I've lived in DC (when I lived my family in PA, we did buy a lot of Amish produce, but when I'm on my own, I don't). It does cross my mind that my food has probably traveled the world more than I have. I should probably start trying to increase the amount of local and organic food that I buy.

I'm not really sure how to judge which of my food items has the greatest environmental impact. One of the articles we read talked about the sheer inefficiency of cereal production, so my Cheerios or Pop Tarts are probably pretty bad. I'm pretty sure that my Pop Tarts also have high fructose corn syrup in them, so that ties in perfectly with the environmental problems caused by midwestern corn farms. Or maybe my frozen dinner (not sure) or my coffee, because that had to travel very far to get to me. Not positive, but I'm sure they're all pretty bad.

I think if there's one thing I should do more of , it would definitely be buying local organic foods, especially produce, more often. My family used to do it because 1. things are fresher 2. things are (sometimes) cheaper 3. it supports the local community and 4. you know who grows your food.

Food and Its Role in the Environment

Unfortunately, I must admit that I don't really consider the environmental implications when I eat. I try to eat organic produce and such, but I usually think of it as a personal health issue (it's better for my body to eat it as opposed to it's better for the environment to produce it). I pride myself on most of my environmental views and actions, but now, getting into some of our food discussions and articles, I'm starting to think about the issue a little more: where is this grown? How was it prepared? How sustainable is this production?

Of the food I've eaten lately, I would think that the meat has had the most impact. The other day I ate a chicken breast Subway and had ham on my salad. I admit that I love meat and could never see myself being a vegetarian, although I can appreciate the benefits that come with that lifestyle, and I have several friends that espouse it. I'm sure that it took a huge amount of grain to feed those chickens and pigs, that the land was mismanaged in the process, that the workers weren't paid fairly, that the health standards weren't rigorously adhered to, etc. When I go grocery shopping, I try to buy the "all natural" luncheon meat and cheese, and other organic foods when I can afford it. A lot of times these types of food are hard to come by in your local Giant or Safeway, and instead are twice the price in places like Whole Foods. That, I think, is another reason why most Americans don't eat local, organic foods.

One activity that I would like to do on a more regular basis is go to farmer's markets. The quality and prices are great, and the business benefits the community. If more people realized the benefits of partaking in such activities, I think that the state of the environment and people's general health would simultaneously improve.

Essentially, when most people think about environmental problems, they usually think about factory and car pollution, oil spills, smog, etc, but it's not as easy to associate the production of food with environmental degradation. I find myself falling into that trap more often than not.
Unfortunately, because of this and the sheer propensity of fast food restaurants in this country, I think it will be hard to change the way Americans think about food (let alone actually change what they eat!). Hopefully education about these issues will become more widespread...

Technology's Role in Curbing Environmental Degradation

I don't think that technology alone will save us. In environmental terms, saving "us" means allowing humans to coexist with nature at some level that doesn't lead to the complete destruction of one or the other. We certainly cannot exist without the environment. Technology can be very helpful, since it can maximize our efficient use of resources, expand production capacity and limit pollution in certain ways. However, the obsession with consumption (the root of the problem, in my opinion), is actually perpetuated. It's like we've mentioned in class - a person can recycle all the time, but he/she is still ultimately adding to the pile of waste created by human excesses. Therefore, I see pollution as compensating for human kind's propensity towards ever-increasing consumption, but on the other hand providing a rationalization, or a metaphorical "crutch," to use when exploiting the environment.

The case of stratospheric ozone depletion and how it was handled by the international community was, and still is, unprecedented. Technology certainly played a role, since the development of alternatives to CFCs and ODCs was logistically essential in phasing out these harmful chemicals. However, most surprisingly, the Northern countries gave up some decision making power to the Southern nations, since the former realized that they couldn't affect meaningful change without help from the latter. Also, the North was in the unique position of more acutely feeling the adverse effects of ozone depletion, whereas the South, with 75% of the world's population at the time, hadn't started to fully utilize these chemicals nor benefit from their short-term economic advantages. Therefore, the South was able to play a major role in guiding the direction of the conventions, and the result was a very successful, global effort at phasing out these emissions. In this case, compromises were as important as, if not slighly more important than, technology when it came to tackling this international problem.

After assessing all of these arguments and examples, I believe that, for the time being, both technological advances and conservation techniques should be advanced, although the conservationist attitude will have to be more fully espoused to address the root causes of environmental degradation.

Will technology save us? I’ve been asking myself this for a while. When I think of technology I see iPods, laptops, Blackberries and blue tooth. Day in and day out I am surrounded by people who want the best, newest and most expensive shiny pieces of plastic that money can buy and upgrade the next day. Basically, faster, sleeker, smaller technologies that will make our increasingly hectic and stressful lives easier with a push of a button. And then there’s me.

I am a naturalist. I think if I had my way I’d live in a hut. Free from the world constrained by SONY, Dell, Apple and Toshiba. We would all walk wherever we needed to go and nobody would complain. Life would be clean, green, and technology-free. I dream of a fantasy world free of the e-waste we can’t escape and instead filled with reusable, decomposable everything. With pure air, uncontaminated water, and decomposable materials. And then I wake up.

It’s safe to say it would take a miracle to get American’s to want to live in the tree-hugging world I’ve created for myself. Nobody wants to give up the car they’ve been pouring money into for years to walk to work and save the planet. And I couldn’t tell you a single person I know who would give up their cell phone for even one day. To my greatest dismay and horror, my generation is addicted to technology. But since we cannot reverse our codependent attitudes we can maybe use our addictions for good.

When I think about technology I sometimes forget about hybrid cars, solar panels, and giant wind turbines that will one day power our entire globe. I throw our positive advancements in with our negative ones because it’s easy to lump the two together. We can never reverse the damage we’ve done. We can’t go back to life before the industrial revolution, to before man outsmarted nature. I wish we could. But we can work with nature to guide us in the right direction. Marrying technology and nature to conserve and save our planet will ultimately save us all.

I think technology plays an important role in solving the environmental crisis, but we should not expect it to save us.

As Nick said, technological advances should lead to a more efficient use of our resources. I think technology production that is green (or that tries to be green) is certainly a step in the right direction. Further development of renewable energy (wind, solar), is pivotal to the future of the environmental movement. These types of energy sources would significantly decrease how much harm we do to the planet. But it can't save us. Lifestyles of individuals and societies need to drastically change. Also, people need to keep in mind that technology isn't always a good thing. People thought CFCs were GREAT when they were first used commercially, it took more than 50 years to discover that it was creating a huge hole in the O-zone. So, while some technology may greatly improve our situation, we make accidentally create a technology that comes back to haunt us years later.

Though I do not think that technology can save us, I think that many people do believe so. Our society's dependence on technology creates the notion that people cannot help the environment unless they are engineers or chemists. People often use the "technology will solve it" mindset to excuse their personal inaction. That lifestyle shift that was mentioned above is also needed to "solve" the environmental crisis.

When people refer to technology as providing the potential to overcome our environmental issues, people are more often than not referring to means by which we can produce and use energy more efficiently from cleaner and less environmentally harmful forces. By harnessing the power of human innovation and technological progress, we have the potential to develop new ways to create the energy that we need in order to survive. By investing our time and resources in producing environmentally friendly energy sources, we can free ourselves up to tackle some of the other burdens of our environmental footprint.

However, technological advance doesn't always have to focus on the production side of our economic activity. Our advances can have the potential to also revolutionize the way in which we use our environmental sinks. Advances can lead to better, more efficient recycling of materials and more environmentally friendly manners of disposing of our waste.

I personally do not see a vision of the technological future to be like the Jetson Analogy used in class. I foresee our technology allowing us to better, more efficiently use the resources that the planet has for us to provide for a better quality of life for all peoples of the world, not just those who live in the developed world.

The article reminded me of one of my favorite quotes "anything easy ain't worth a damn."
This genuine pearl of wisdom was bestowed to us by the legendary Ohio State football coach, Woody Hayes. Reflecting on what Woody had to say about football, it is easy to apply his rationale to virtually all aspects of life. The things that mean the most to us are those things that we have worked hard to achieve, those things that we have sacrificed for are the very things that are most valuable. The children's author Antione de Saint-Exuperey echoed this sentiment in his classic book The Little Prince saying "It is the time that you have wasted for your Rose that makes your Rose so important."

Carrying on in the tradition of these two great, and very different men, the same can be said for environmental change. If working for environmental change is something that we must sacrifice for and waste our time, energy, and even our money for, that will make the results, the fruits of our labor, that much sweeter to us. Looking back, our children will scoff at the idea that many people during our time truly believed that we could reverse environmental degradation by simply turning off the lights when we leave a room. The "lazy environmentalist" approach as illustrated in the article is exposed as just plain naive.

Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

In 1962 President Kennedy spoke on the United States's goal of reaching the moon before the decades end. He exhorted his fellow Americans that "we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

As I read Maniates' piece I could not help but have his words echo in my mind. We are constantly being bombarded by messages telling us that we can acheive what we desire the easy way, if only we knew how. From plastic surgergy to carbon subsidies, consumer culture would have the world believe it can purchase its way out of any problem. That is the easy solution. The problem with these types of solutions Maniates presents is that they are predicated on zero sacrifice of modern luxurgy. Without sacrifice there can be no real change and, even to the individual, without sacrifice there is no self-satisfaction in achieving something. The United States did not succeed in the race to space because it could skate by without sacrifice, but precisely because doing those things was beyond our grasp, because they were hard.

And while consumer culture is based on the idea of rewards for sacrificing nothing, I think that all Americans need is a substantial leader to push them towards the greater challenge of actual environmental nuetrality. It is in the american spirit to push beyond what is knpown and what is easy and go beyond. From our earliest experiences on this continent we pushed beyond our boundries to settle hostile lands. When framed like this it seems that space is not humanities final frontier, but rather it is the earth and the way we live within it.

Maniates rightly points out that these types of easy solutions are patronizing to American adults. They infantalize them and it is offensive. The clearest way to change something, Maniates feels and I agree, is to lay out the problem, recognize it as a problem and make the necessary changes. The changes could be easy but more likely are hard-and that is why we must make them. Because without sacrfice, without confronting the harsh realities of the world there can be no meaningful and positive change.

Maniates Article

Maniates definitely brings up a good, and often overlooked, point when he says that we shouldn't let easy, half-hearted solutions kill our hard-working, collective potential when it comes to solving the climate crisis. There's definitely something to be said about rising to the occasion and doing what needs to be done, and I sincerely hope that we as a nation can somehow manage to do that in a timely fashion.

However, I think the reason that so many environmental groups tout "lazier" environmental actions is because our society is, at this point, simply too consumeristic to care much about enacting anything on a larger scale. I like to think of changing light bulbs, recycling and taking shorter showers as baby steps that implant the general importance of conservation in citizens' minds. Eventually, though, I absolutely think it is necessary to collectively move to the next level, as in meaningful, sweeping policy solutions to really tackle the problem.

In the meantime, though, it's also important that at least a few key U.S. politicians shift the discourse to focus more on the severity of global warming and the need to orchestrate a calculated domestic and global approach to fend off incoming disaster. Hopefully these actions will facilitate the public's shift towards a more conscious environmental awareness and willingness to act.

I'm not that optimistic, but change needs to start somewhere. It's unfortunately never as fast as we'd like it to be.

He's Right

I think Michael Maniates is right. I know that's a very simple response, but I think it's true. In popular media, we're told that being green is about making small, personal changes. We're told that those cloth shopping bags really do make a BIG difference, when, in reality, they don't.

Part of the reason that we're told this way is because of the extreme consumerism in the U.S. These kind of behavioral changes dont' require us to consume less, they require us to consume differently. It's not hard for most people to do the little tips in "The Lazy Environmentalist."

Another part of why we're given this advice is because it's such a big problem. The people in places of power probably think that we feel powerless when facing something so large. These little pieces of advice are easy to do, and they make you feel like you're making a difference. When they start talking about technology and agriculture and energy systems, people who do not work in these industries immediately think "that's not speciality, there's nothing I can do." These little tips, therefore, make people feel like they can help.

I think these little things are definetly not enough. But I think that they're a good start. A lot of underlying things in our society need to change, but I think it's important to get people interested in the environment first. Nowadays, being green is trendy. Hopefully, real leadership can crop up soon that can move us towards thinking about bigger solutions.

It's Not Easy Being Green

Reading Michael Maniates' article reminded me of one thing: I am the greenest person I know. I consume as little as possible, recycle everything and reuse whatever I can. I take the stairs, ride my bike, use cloth shopping bags, buy local, and shut off the water that drips out random in leaky bathrooms. Most importantly I lead by example and try to influence others to live the greenest life they can. I eat, think, and even try to breathe eco-friendly. With all this said, the main point I can agree with Maniate on is that these efforts are not enough.

The one thing about the entire environmental movement that infuriates me the most is that I can never actually BE green. In order for me to live my life, as a normal, functioning American, I must simultaneously destroy the planet. Every time I turn on the lights in the morning, go out to eat, or even travel home to see my family for holidays, I am buying into the competition. I am supporting the industries which I hate the most... and it is killing me to kill the environment. In order for us to actually save this planet, the entire country must undergo a complete green makeover.

Don't get me wrong, individual actions are important. However, they are only a start. Yes, it is critical for us to all think with the environment in our best interests. For us all to keep a little green Jiminey Cricket on our shoulder whispering in our ear and telling us "No, you don't need that plastic bag to hold your Subway sandwich." However, after we have made this transition on the individual level we have to transpire it nationwide. We must rework our transportation systems, our city layouts, our education systems. We must think green in every aspect of our lives as a whole. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the environment is the only thing we all share. We all need to jump on the environmental band wagon because if we go down, we go down together.

To be redundant, it's clear that both candidates are market liberals. Both believe in the the ability of the market and incentives for the transformation of our economy and our environmental footprint. The use of incentives is the most basic characteristic of the market liberal philosophy. By playing to the means by which corporations and companies operate, incentives can be a very effective means by which change can be accomplished. Any other approach to overhaul the system and the means by which it operates would be silly and ineffective.

The candidates both seem to be on the right page and I really don't think that choosing one or the other would lead to any further environmental harm than can be already expected. That being said, Democrats seem to traditionally be more on top of their game with regards to the environment giving Obama an edge. However, John McCain seems to have broken some traditional Republican typecasts by his environmental policies as well.

The Number One Campaign Issue

We've all heard it time and time again. The number one campaign issue this year (well, every year) is the economy. People care about other things - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, abortion, education - but primarily, as Brett said "Voters and vote seekers almost always make their decisions based on how fat their wallet feels."

Energy and the environment has become a campaign issue this year because gas prices have made everyone's wallets a little thinner. Therefore, for the candidates, creating energy platforms is inextricably tied with the economy. John McCain is clearly a market liberal because he wants to use the environment as another means of creating jobs. He supports off-shore drilling, the taping of our oil and natural gas reserves, use of "clean coal," creation of more nuclear plants, and further development of ethanol-based biofuels. All of these ideas may create American jobs, which is why John McCain supports them. All of this would change the economy (by lessening our dependence on foreign oil), but all we all know that extracting more of the earth's resources is not a sound environmental policy. He supports renewable energy and more efficient automobiles, but does not set any targets in these sectors. The best part of his plan is the cap-and-trade system for green-house gas emissions.

Obama shares John McCain's support for a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, only he has a bigger goal of 80% reduction by 2050. Unlike McCain, he has a goal for increasing the fuel economy of cars and integrating renewable energy into the power grid. He supports clean coal, but only if it is 20% cleaner than other energy sources. He also supports the advancement of biofuels. His plan, overall, is much more clear than McCain's and is much more environmentally friendly (though I strongly disapprove of the advance of cellousic ethanol.)

Barack Obama's plan does not tie as closely to the American's wallet (gas prices) as John McCain's does. John McCain focuses more on the short term of getting gas prices down, while Barack Obama seems to be looking ahead to the future of the environment in American politics. But if we've learned anything about American voting patterns, lightening the financial burden on Americans in the short run is far more important than helping them in the long run. Hopefully, Americans will recognize that Barack Obama's environment plan is stronger. I doubt it though.

The Economy Stupid

When Bill Clinton was seeking his first elected term in office, his advisers told him to steer clear of any security issues and to focus on the economy. James Carvil nicely summed it up in the phrase, "its the economy, stupid." Voters and vote seekers almost always make their decisions based on how fat their wallet feels.

With that in mind, its easy to see why both candidates are market liberals. To be anything else would be political suicide as the vast majority of the populace and, more importantly, all of the large donating firms believe in the power and rectitude of market forces. Therefore, it is not surprising that both McCain and Obama's environmental platforms are predicated on market influence and ingenuity. While Obama's is more progressive -goals for fuel efficiency, auction based cap and trade system and tax incentives for biofuel production and research- it is still fundamentally based on the idea that if the price raises high enough -be it through government taxation or simple market economics- a solution will be found through necessity.

Of the two, it seems that Obama has the more clearly defined viewpoint in that he offers far more explicit goals and targets for achievement. His platform would require polluters to pay for the right to pollute and would push for increased fuel efficiency and search for new forms of energy. And while I think it would be wise for Obama to support nuclear energy more whole heartedly, his position on the environment seems more well thought out and considered than the McCain plan.

For an easy side by side look at the campaign positions visit:
http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html

Presidential Candidates' Stances on the Environment

In response to Simon's second set of questions:

I would say that both candidates sound like market liberals in general, because both advocate policies that essentially let the market ameliorate environmental problems. However, McCain is a stricter market liberal, since his big idea is a cap-and-trade system, which would control overall emissions by allowing companies to trade their excess CO2 emissions for cash. Obama, on the other hand, while not quite institutionalist, does seem to worry more about environmental scarcity than McCain (80% CO2 reduction by 2050), but doesn't come right out and support the UN or other global institutions (McCain actually does mention the UN, in the context of U.S. leadership, though). This is pretty indicative of many politicians, especially Americans: as election day draws nearer, they move closer and closer to the center, sometimes clouding the differences between them...

Also, I think that it would be very hard to espouse an obvious bioenvironmentalist, social green, or even blatant institutionalist stance because of today's political climate. Unfortunately, as we've discussed in class, many politicians (and people in general) talk about the economy and environment as "either/or," meaning that if you have one you have to forgo the other. Therefore, the second that someone starts mentioning "excessive" limits, or advocating "radical" social change to solve environmental problems, they're labeled a fear mongerer or a Communist.

I personally believe that Obama's environmental, economic and energy policy sounds the most logical. I really appreciate his emphasis on creating 5 million green jobs and steadily increasing renewable energy usage (and, of course, his goal to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050). He seems to propagate a more grass roots approach, which I think is the best way to handle the environmental crisis we face. I do like McCain's battery powered car challenge, though...

One thing that still puzzles me is the candidates' support for "clean coal technology" and biofuels. I don't believe in "clean coal" - I'm pretty sure you can't turn soot into rays of sunshine anytime soon. Also, as we discussed in class, biofuels are usually pretty ridiculous - they result in a net energy loss and contribute to world food shortages.

Anyways, though, if Gore is throwing his vote to Obama, I certainly will.

The campaign issue which really hits home for me is the one I canvassed for this summer, the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit. So of course, the Presidential candidate’s opinions on this particular topic are the ones that matter most.

First, what is the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit? Well in 2006 green energy facilities were given a tax credit to encourage hopping on the green bandwagon. The incentive was 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour benefit for the first ten years of a renewable energy facility's operation. While this sounds like a renewable energy activist’s dream, the tax break was only temporary and was set to expire in December, 2008. Activists all over the country have worked hard to push congress to invest in clean, homegrown energy and extend the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit. Essentially, failure to push the extension would result in the loss of nearly 116,000 green collar jobs, in addition to putting a huge pothole in the green path the tax credit helped create.

Unfortunately, this summer the tax credit never made it passed the Senate. So how did our Presidential potentials vote on the REPTC? Well in 2006 Obama voted for while McCain voted against the tax incentive and over $290 for renewable energy research. This year McCain abstained from his votes due to his busy campaign schedule. What’s even more frustrating is the 2008 effort failed to pass by only one vote. Clearly, despite his campaign commercials plastered with pretty pictures of wind turbines, renewable energy is not the number one priority for McCain, despite the $19 in U.S. investment that could be lost in just one year if renewable energy tax credits are not renewed by Congress.

McCain's environmental view focuses on improving the economy. In this sense, I would consider him a Market Liberal. John McCain remains committed to extracting as many resources as he can. Whether it be oil or technological advances, he plans to create more to consume less. He does, however, provide a concrete outline of his plans and has created specific goals. Obama, on the other hand, has created a looser plan which focuses on creating more renewable green energy and green collar jobs. I would also consider him a Market Liberal, however he focuses more on the economic impact going green would have on the people and less on the economic state of America.

Using energy efficiently is the most important concept in this upcoming election. With gas prices through the roof it is critical for our future leader to consider massive new investments in the energy industry. What our country needs is a President who is environmentally conscious and willing to reroute America toward energy efficiency. Despite what free-market environmentalists think, government regulations toward renewable energy is exactly what we need. We need our President to set an example and vote yes on environmental issues, which is clearly not something John McCain is interested in.

Clearly, as pointed out in previous posts, the most pressing environmental issue is climate change. And the main driver of this environmental phenomenon is the overwhelming consumption of resources, goods, and services.

I think it is extremely difficult for the average American to "go green" because our culture is so strongly based on consumption, a want for more things, a desire to display wealth. For example, I think that Americans, because we have such a large country (in terms of size) most people think that there is LOTS of space out there, lots of places to go, lots of land to be bought. I was brought up in the suburbs of Philadelphia, where the I watched countless acres of forests chopped down for several neighborhoods of McMansion-style homes to be put up. These homes, of course, are huge, and have lots of space between them. If you live in one of those homes, there is absolutely no way that you can get anywhere without a car. If the American Dream is to make enough money to buy a little land for the family, then the American Dream is in irreparably tied to the automobile.

Many of these kinds of people, educated, upper-middle class suburbanites are completely aware of global warming and its causes and effects. From what I've noticed, many of these kinds of people will buy compact fluorescent bulbs, recycle, reuse grocery bags, and maybe even buy a Prius if they have the chance. That, of course, is a first step. After that, the ignorance discussed in the Fish article sets in. By doing a little, many people don't realize that their larger lifestyle choices effect the environment. They still buy A LOT. They still DRIVE EVERYWHERE. They still use TONS of fossil fuels. They maybe realize its a problem, but they don't want to concern themselves with it, or get upset over it, so they either ignore it entirely or do just a few things.

Part of the reason why this happens is just because we've been raised, for several generations now, to think that having more things, and bigger things, is better. For many people, taking public transportation or buying organic is not an available option: but even moreso, many people are unwilling to move to places where it is an option. We're all pretty set in our ways, we like our cozy suburbs. Now, however, I think people are becoming more and more conscious of global warming, and it's trendy to "go green." Hopefully soon, that may translate into living in cleaner, greener places (no more cut-off housing developments, please). But for now, people are doing the little things, if anything at all.

Also, there is inefficent leadership at the top of the totom pole, as Katherine mentioned in her post. If there was serious legislation regarding the environment, I think people would pay more attention. People feel that the problem is too big for them, and they don't know where to start in fixing the problem. If the government, or other higher authorities, began by making the first steps, people would 1. realize the gravity of the problem; 2. realize that something is being done and; 3. realize that they could do something too.

Therefore, overcoming ignorance is partially personal (where should I live, what should I drive, etc.), partially social (let me buy a Whole Foods bag because all the neighbors have them), and partially institutional (the government is finally doing something! maybe this problem isn't too big after all!). Hopefully, these three factors will come together sooner rather later, and real change can start being made.

In response to Nick's comments, I would like to add that the catastrophic problem of global warming can be combated, but no one can really be sure what the exact, "breaking point" may be. Some scientists say it's now, some say in 10 years, some may even say never.

Do I think that enough people in high positions around the world can successfully regulate carbon emissions in time to stave off these gloomy assessments? I honestly don't know. I definitely like to think of myself as an optimist, but with this issue in particular I think it will definitely be an uphill battle to say the least.

The Tortoise and the Hare

I mostly agree with the opinions of everyone so far, but there are a few things I would like to add. I believe that the biggest global environmental problems we face today are both consumption and a tragic sense of short-sightedness. Consumption, of course, is the real-kicker - without those plain facts, the world would not be the environmental mess it is today (and, as it happens, we may all have to live more like the Bangladeshis). Perhaps more importantly, though, is consumption's accompaniment: a selfish and incredibly abbreviated view of life and the world in which we live. Therefore, I agree with the general assumptions of both posters that some of the most frustrating situations are when more educated people refuse to walk the walk, but I also think that the indifference of the masses is important to consider, and that an incredible lack of will is the key resource that's needed to turn things around.

I will expand upon my views by both referring to Fish's article and by citing some of my own experiences. First, I must admit that Fish's article did strike a certain chord with me. I am one of the most environmentally conscious people that I know, but at the end of the day, it's still hard for me to give things up. For example, I'm religious about recycling (espousing a different attitude than Mr. Fish on this point), using energy-efficient appliances and in a conservationist manner, and taking the metro a large chunk of the time. However, I still have a car in DC (I'm increasingly questioning the wisdom of this decision), I drive when I'm at home and I take longer and hotter showers on a daily basis, to name a few. Essentially, I'm not perfect, but I am cognizant of my actions and the effects that they have on the planet. Although I'm not proud of these characteristics by any means, if the majority of Americans (and of people in general) can get to this point, it would be a major step in the right direction (which is why the uninformed still make me very upset). As they say, the first step towards recovery is admitting one has a problem.

However, the fact remains that a dichotomy exists between my beliefs and practices. Although part of this divide must be bridged by increasingly advanced technology, a large chunk of it involves will power (which strays slightly from what Brett mentioned). This frustrates me to no end in myself, let alone in other individuals. As to how to ameliorate these tendencies, is the answer to make people care more? Take away certain resources? Legislate activities? I believe in the end it will consist of a combination of these possibilities, but any sort of agreement would be virtually impossible to pass and/or enforce in any one country (especially the U.S.), let alone any sort of world organization (like the U.N.).

I spent the last year living in Beijing, and let me tell you, the environmental problems there are absolutely real and devastating. Air quality is abysmal, water quality is non-existent and visibility is perpetually low due to horrendous smog. A rapidly growing number of non-smoking non-mine working Beijing inhabitants per year are contracting lung cancer, which is a phenomenon previously unheard of. )At times I actually felt as if I were succumbing to this disease.) However, when all was said and done, I must admit that I sometimes do feel more agitated in this country when it comes to the environment debate. In China, everyone knew the environment was a problem, and while there weren't necessarily huge efforts being done by ordinary citizens to improve the situation, people sacrificed and lived with little (whether it be because the government made them or their finances made them or they personally cared or all three). In the U.S., every time I look at the news I look for news coverage about global warming and signs that America cares, and very rarely am I satisfied. I look around me on a daily basis and watch random people littering the street, hundreds of individuals driving SUVs and lights and appliances being routinely left on. All of these activities occur without the slightest evidence that the perpetrators actually give a damn. In a way, then, to me, the roots of the environmental problems here are greater than in China, despite what current physical conditions may indicate.

A lot of times I wonder, what's it going to take to get people to wake up and smell the coffee? What will it take to convince people that trends are nose-diving in the wrong direction and may completely splat before too long if they aren't altered? Whether it be people that don't know, or people that don't know and don't care, or both, this kind of behavior angers me to no end and leaves me feeling upset over my shortcomings and striving to change my everyday life, if but just a little. I'm also perpetually trying to convince my parents/friends that they shouldn't drive this car or that they shouldn't buy bottled water, etc. As cliche as this might sound, I really do hope that people will learn to appreciate what they currently have (or learn to cut back, as in the case of most U.S. citizens) and conserve accordingly before all is truly lost. After all, who would everyone rather be in the end, the tortoise, who achieves convenience and happiness slowly but surely and in a conservationist manner, or the hare, who demands more right now and ends up peetering out before the end of the race? It'll be interesting to see what humanity eventually chooses.

In the interest of no longer taking the moral high ground, I feel as if it is important to talk about some real, tangible issues that can be more easily wrestled with than apathy. That being said, I feel as if the most pressing environmental challenge that faces our planet is global warming. Many, if not all, of our current environmental problems can be linked back to the adverse effects of climate change. The melting of polar ice caps, the rapid extinction of species and loss of biodiversity, the increasing intensity of disastrous weather, droughts, and global food shortages can all be linked to the problem set put forth by our ever warming atmosphere. All of these issues are linked and intertwined with global warming as one of the chief engines of ecological catastrophe.

Perhaps the main problem with climate change is that there is no readily agreed upon solution to cut carbon emissions while still sustaining a normal life complete with the energy demands to which we have grown accustomed.

However, I do not believe that we are doomed to fail at our attempts at recovering our planet and our environment. I am a firmly optimistic person and truly believe that despite the apathy and general malaise that grips the overwhelming majority of our population, to which Dominique and Brett alluded, there is no problem that we cannot solve through hard work, dedication, and a sincere desire to improve our lives and become responsible stewards of the gift of our environment.

As it seems, Dominique has framed the debate and she is right. The true problem facing any environmental movement is not ignorance, is not skepticism and is not lack of will. These can all be remedied through exposure and educated discussion of the issue. No, the greatest problem is the willful and knowing decision not to act. Anyone can be ignorant, and ignorance is not a sin because it is easily fixed. However, it is the everyday bystander who pays lipservice to the cause by buying organic cotton and locally grown vegetables but is unwilling to sacrifice the true luxuries which have caused so much harm to the world about them that is the true problem. Because they know that the envirnment is being damanged and can afford to take the small step to save face for themselves. However, once they have to step beyond their own world and make the sacfices necessary for the betterment of society, they shrink from duty.

Thinking of this problem and reading both Fish's article and Dominique's post reminded me of two things. The first is a rather extreme example but it proves a point. In 1964, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered on her way home in New York City. It was later reported that almost 30 people had heard her crys for help but did not call the police or offer assistence. Those witnesses were subject to the "bystander effect" whereby if a bystander feels there are many people seeing the same problem that "someone" will act and, therefore, they do not. While climate change may not be as dramatic as an urban murder, the bystander effect plays in nonetheless. Because people witness the problem, they assume that some anonymous "other" is handling it and they do not have to worry. They can continue to live their lives unabated and not have to sacrifice the everyday luxuries which have become common to modern American life. Those people on the street who so frustrated Dominique -always in a rush to get on with their lives, pitying the envirnment but not acting- seem to me to be Kitty's new neighbors, hearing the problem and assuming someone else will act.

The second thing that i was reminded of was the opening lines of Thomas Paine's "The Crisis." "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service" necesary. To me, our worst summer soldiers are those who are in positions of influence and prestige yet do not fully act for the betterment of their world. From celebraties to policy makers, many in power will observe and acknowledge these problems yet only pursue them insofar as they do not inconvenience them or cost them an election. It is in times of crises, which we could be in, that strong leadership is necesary to, if need be, go against the purveiling wisdom and make the hard choices and undertake the sacrifices which must be made.

"Do You Have a Minute to Give a Damn?"

I’ve mentioned over and over again in class my work this summer with Environment America. By the end of the semester I’m sure the examples I draw from my experience there may become tired, however it is incredible how much one can learn from standing on the street asking others for help in the environmental crusade. The most pressing problem in today’s environmental world, to me, is that of apathy and Stanley Fish’s piece, I Am, Therefore I Pollute, once again, brings me back to my canvassing work this summer. Spending my summer standing on corners repeating “Do you have a minute for the environment?” was undoubtedly one of the most frustrating and enlightening things I have ever done. It’s disheartening, but not shocking, that most people did not have the minute I asked for. In many instances I found myself very frustrated with humanity, but not at the people I would have expected.

Countless times I would encounter a person who’s minute for the environment consisted of them yelling “I drive a hummer!”, “Global warming is a hoax!”, or some sort of hippie hating, environment bashing comment. But surprisingly enough these people were not the ones who pushed my buttons the most. It was the people who took their minute to tell me they support what I am doing but don’t have the time, money, patience etc. A coworker of mine would always ask them how they support the issue and would address their dumbfounded, blank responses by explaining they could actually help the cause right there on the street if they were as passionate as they claimed. Although I was not as adamant as him to put these “apathetic environmentalists” in their place, I couldn’t help but allow these people to irk me more than others.

Yes, it’s great to agree with the environmentalists and not just label them as overreacting Birkenstock wearing radicals. However, thinking our ideas are great is much different than actually acting on them. Fish’s article is an excellent example of a person who agrees with the issues and sees the looming global problems as important yet he spends the entire piece detailing what a pain it is to actually live green. In today’s world it’s hip to be green and in a simple walk across campus I see numerous “Green is the new Black,” “Go Green” and “Love your Mother Earth” t-shirts and book bags. But I’m sure the people wearing them haven’t thought about the synthetic fibers, shipping costs, and actual environmental detriment which accompany their green fashion. It’s one thing to support what we’re doing to fix this planet, but it’s another thing to want to do what we’re doing and to do it enthusiastically. In the end we all need to throw our carefree attitudes out the window and become passionate about this earth. Because when it comes right down to it, the planet is the only thing we all share.