"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!