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.