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.
Monday, September 29, 2008
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 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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 22, 2008
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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 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.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
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
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
Monday, September 15, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, September 8, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)