Food Choices

Honestly, I almost never consider the environmental impact of my food and beverage choices. I do not buy bottled water or many paper products because I think they are unnecessary but, beyond that, the environment is not on my mind when it comes to food. When I am at the grocery store my main focus is the price. I shop for what I like and what is on sale and cheap. Because of financial constraint I have limited options when it comes to food.

Another factor that influences my food choices is availability. I shop at the Safeway grocery store down the street from my apartment. The food that is there, available in the store, is the food I buy and eat. I do not go to specialty stores like local bakeries, seafood markets or vegetable stores. The primary reasons for this is because they are often more expensive and are not close to my apartment.

I am sure that most of the foods I consume daily have pretty large environmental impacts so it is difficult to determine the worst one. I think that when I went out to eat last Saturday, the food I had there probably had the greatest environmental impact. Restaurants get their food from all over the place in mass quantities. The transportation of these foods in bulk has a great impact on the environment. Also, restaurants have to supply a wide range of foods and they all have to be fresh. Its also important to note the energy these restaurants consume to keep everything refrigerated and heated/air conditioned. This is way more than the average household.

DC 2210

I’m going to try to do my best to not go overboard with the apocalyptic clichés when envisioning Washington, D.C. in 200 years. Assuming the city is not completely underwater by 2210, the landscape would still not be a pretty one. There would be not a single tree in the entire district, all of them cut down to make room for new housing developments, roads, shopping or other by products of suburban sprawl. The Potomac river would most likely be dried up, the result of drainage because of overpollution and erosion or perhaps just for the sake of having more building room. The sky is noticeably more cloudy, the temperature warmer. The relatively low skyline that the city once had is now peppered with a few skyscrapers, with more on the way. These are massive apartment buildings for D.C.’s population, which is now closing in on 3 million people. The streets are filled with traffic and pedestrians battling for space on the road. The relatively suburban area of Tenleytown where American University once was is now a heavily congested, commercial area comparable to downtown D.C. now. The metro is constantly packed with people, usually unable to provide enough transportation for the city’s swelling population. Food prices are through the roof, processed foods being the main intake for most people. The native wildlife of D.C. has all but disappeared. Water shortages and outages are frequent and there is a cap on the amount of water a person can use in a day. It is not a pretty site to say the least.

Let’s now envision Sustainable D.C. in the year 2210. The roads on which cars once drove are now thin bike paths. The metro still exists for those looking for quicker access to other parts of the city. Plant life has increased considerably and is still expanding, the wildlife now flourishing in these expanded habitats. The Potomac River is clean, the levels of fish and amphibian species are on the rise. The city skyline is lower than before, with most massive energy gobbling buildings being remodeled or refitted, solar panels can be seen on most rooftops. The food selection, of course, is mainly vegetarian and vegan, a lifestyle choice chosen by most citizens as a way to fight overconsumption and climate change on a national and global level. Water use is restricted but still manageable and bottled water is a thing of the past. Citizens mostly live in smaller communities consisting of small, environmentally friendly living arrangements, with most people living with 2-3 roommates. The weather is sunny, the landscape is green and the future looks bright. This is the Washington, D.C. I’d like to see.

The Future of Society

When I imagine Washington D.C. 200 years from now, I picture skyscrapers encroaching upon the downtown area with the occasional small tree decorating sidewalks. Aside from these strategically placed, aesthetically pleasing trees, I don't anticipate much foliage in and around town (specifically the trees and wildlife in Rock Creek Park). I believe that the transportation system, as well as housing structures will engulf most of the space that is currently occupied by forests.

I'm feeling optimistic today, so I could foresee these new buildings and structures having green rooftops and utilizing sustainable energy sources. People and companies today seem to be assuming more responsibility for the state of our air quality and other aspects of our environment.

However, it would not be ideal to replace our current forests and natural environments with buildings and transportation systems. I think it would be in our best interest to preserve the trees and ecosystems that we have today. The trees surrounding Rock Creek Pkwy and the GW Pkwy should be preserved by any means possible.

Because I think that locals and legislators in the Washington area take the environment into consideration when considering new development projects, I believe that a sustainable future may be easier to obtain than we may think. There will always be people advocating for the preservation of natural systems and it will be important that these people remain vigilant in voicing their opinions.

Unfortunately, if we begin to disregard the advocates for environmental sustainability, we may reach a catastrophic end to our city.

DC and the next 200

Should we continue on our current path, consuming and reproducing at the same rates, DC will be completely different in 200 years. If DC is even inhabitable in 200 years, it most likely will be a huge waste land.

Today, Washington DC is already overcrowded. It the population continues to grow, what little empty space there is now, will be wiped out to put up more housing and more shopping centers. Places like Rock Creek Park would not exist anymore. The DC area is already short on open space and places when people can go and interact with nature first hand. To accommodate all of the additional residents and commuters, major roads like the Beltway would have to be expanded. These kinds of expansions would lead to more pollution. The metro and bus systems would also have to be expanded. Public attractions, like museums and historical sites, would deteriorate. As more and more people would come to DC, these kinds of places would be exhausted, unable to handle the volume of visitors. The Potomac would become more and more polluted because of all the additional waste from the city.

Hopefully, none of this will happen! I would really like DC to maintain, if not improve, its aesthetically pleasing appearance. It would be such a shame if all of the museums and places open to the public were destroyed. I hope DC will always find a way to maintain these historical places. DC should start by "greening" all of its public transportation. I also would hope that DC can work on preserving/creating more parks and recreation areas.

To address the housing problem that DC will definitely face (if its not already facing it) the city should not increase housing developments - there is simply no room. Expanding housing could only come at the expense of the little empty spaces of greenness that DC has left!

Lot's of pain through a process of regrouping

The world seems to bring surprise after surprise in more concentrated doses the farther we get away from history and into reality. It took how long for us to develop the first horseless carriage, and then how quickly within that century did we develop jets that could fly twice the speed of sound? How long did it take for us to develop the first gun? And then within the next few centuries, casualties in war became greater than they ever were. Then in the last century we developed nuclear power, the apex of our technology, with the power to energize and then the power to remove all of human life within seconds of a simple command of a single commander and chief or premier.

Can you imagine what will happen within 50 years? Maybe we are still in the fallout of the power Cold War era, or on the verge of a new world order with the need to prevent climate influenced global disaster, but either way, technology will play a key order in accelerating that change. Perhaps it will with that new technology that scientists are hoping for us to discover at any moment, or maybe it will be a new war over scarce resources, allowing the militaries of the world to unleash some of the greatest and most deadliest weapons that world has yet to experience. It is certain though, that our current technologies are taking away our resources at an accelerated rate, and the step that will be taken to address the issue could either cause even more destruction or a way to save the prosperity of our species.

In 200 years, if things are in the way they have been, resources will be so scarce that I believe that there will be several wars for resources, especially within the Middle East over water issues between Israel and the rest of Arab nations. Because the loss of oil would make the formerly oil rich nations of no use to the US, the US would back Israel appropriately, determining the victor. China would burst on its own consumption and production cycle, causing mass famine and loss of productivity, with its environmental efforts halted because of the economic melt down it would face. This would lead to America, the king of consumption, which because of its relatively geographically isolated location and the fact that it has enough nuclear weapons to destroy any nation that dares attack its lands, to have to force its economy to focus on stabilization rather than growth. The cost of living would increase so much that birth rates would go down in cities where people have to fend for themselves and in isolated regions where food production for the focus to be on producing energy through bio fuels and enough food. Immigration would be closed off because the focus on a downward economy with little resources to produce would lead to a hatred of immigrants “leaching off” American sources. Now this leads to the cities, the main cities, especially cities planned well like Portland, Oregon, would by now be advanced to provide jobs for citizens, while those cities not as well planned like New York would be forced to revamp the mass transportation system and provide a way to sector off all those new immigrants to the city away from established regions. DC would be even more segmented from the world with areas that are designed for work that are somewhat well off versus areas that are total slums of new and old poor inhabitants. With the economy as down as it is, city planning would be revamped to find out a way to give its citizens jobs that would be able to sustain them as well as plan more mass transportation in order to conserve fuel. Electric rails would be introduced because in 200 years coal would be the only somewhat abundant fossil fuel left in America. In fact, this would be something America would ration out to the rest of the world at high prices in order create some semblance of an economy.

While this future seems bleak and I would love to see no one hurt, it almost makes sense to me for things like this to happen, and I wish it wouldn’t happen. I would like for there to be green housing with reusable clean technologies, but I can’t see that happening until citizens feel like there is an advantage to changing their way of life, which our advertising isn’t really helping us realize. But, as I write this dark assessment, I realize that there is hope. Even with the suffering that will happen, for at least US citizens, they will be able to regroup and reassess the damage done. We went through the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, a crisis probably at a much lesser degree than resource depletion and climate change, and recovered. While I acknowledge the pain that will happen, the deaths that will occur, we will be annihilated and stuck in a stone age. As long as we do not realize those hydrogen bombs, we will continue to survive and innovate eventually into a sustainable way not because we want to, but because we will have to in order to live properly.

Article Responses

The article “The Green Bubble” by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger drew some very strong reactions from me. At first, as much as I hated to admit it, I could not help but agree with the article’s classification of the environmental movement as seemingly just another upper class trend. Though the article did acknowledge the ‘green’ movement’s origins in legitimate scientific research and concern, it points out the interesting irony in the fact that most surges in environmentalism are usually followed by sharp reductions. “The Green Bubble” suggests that personal economic concern is the factor that chases consumers back to their unsustainable lifestyles after periods of growing environmental concern. The inner cynic in me could not help but see some similarities in the current status of environmental concern in the United States. The prices of eco-friendly alternatives offered by stores like Whole Foods are almost always only reasonable for the upper class and its unfortunate to see how the concept of ‘buying green’ has become just another fad of hip teenagers and adults alike. However, when I examine the almost comical commercialization of the idea of being sustainable, I can still find merit in the ultimate result of turning ‘green into the new black,’ simply because it is still causing people to purchase products that are ultimately more environmentally responsible. Sure, there is a line that must be drawn when a person’s consumerist lifestyle even outweighs their decision to buy environmentally friendly products. My friend from home gushed to me over the phone yesterday about her purchase of a fifty-dollar bottle of organic, eco-friendly shampoo. To me, that is almost trivializing the entire idea of sustainability. When being ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ becomes just another advertising ploy, a mere adjective to slap onto your product, the spirit of the movement feels hollow.

I also greeted the second part of the article’s rejection of community based thinking with much resentment. The authors’ conclusion is that Americans’ desire for a more sustainable way of life is ultimately the product of our desire to retain that materialistic lifestyle that we have come to hold so sacred. Increases in environmental awareness tend to bring a growth in communal spirit and a renewed interest in community action, the authors argue. But these periods are followed by a quick return to a desire for personal freedom and self-preservation. I feel that it is this very attitude that we need to combat when entering a new age of environmental awareness. Community based development and cooperation (see: Communism) is what the world needs more of. The American tradition of individualism and personal freedom needs to be reconsidered, though not altogether discarded. In our group discussions this past week, I found myself retreating from my original stance in which I condemned American consumerism and individualism. Though it is my belief that these ideals cause most of the exaggerated hostility to government regulation, I realized that is the emphasis on personal freedom that makes the United States the unique country that it still is today. But a country without any sense of community is barely a country at all. We must cast aside the arbitrary socio-economic barriers that create such discrepancies in the way we think and the way we live. We need to realize that this issue affects us all equally, whether you are rich or poor. Only then can we unite on an issue that requires a unanimous response from the human race.

The article “Power Struggle” was a very interesting read for me. When writing about the I = PAT equation, I made sure to point out that I believed technology was the most irrelevant part of the equation. I noted that although I believed green technology would help in lessening our ecological impact, I thought it was naïve to go on living hoping that technology would save us in the end. Sustainability required action now, namely by decreases in population (P) and our consumerist lifestyles (A). But a part of me could not help but feel I was discounting a huge part of the equation, particularly when I had read so many articles in which the authors seemed to place a lot more faith in technology than I seemed to be doing. “Power Struggle” examines what role technology could play in the future in decreasing our ecological footprint. The article discusses many alternative energy technologies that are seemingly just around the corner, but acknowledges the significant roadblocks they may face. These include a possible decreasing rate of discovery and a lack of investment in the field of research and development. Much of its focus lies in analyzing the Department of Energy’s role in the promotion of new technologies. As much as I enjoyed its presentation of relevant scientific information and balanced discourse on the subject, I disagreed with its conclusion that competition is the best solution for acceleration of technological advancement. The article claims that when the government has attempted to introduce competition to the market, companies have responded by putting money into making their product more efficient, which is effectively the driving ideology behind energy efficiency and sustainability. Though the article presents a very convincing case for this capitalist approach, I think that government mandate or regulation is a more effective and quicker approach to encouraging better technology. Whether it is the form of monetary incentive, subsidies, or education funding, I believe the state must play a larger role in the field of research and development. Though the argument for private competition is compelling, I think that in the past, it has proven to come with economic or environmental costs.

Green Bubble Struggle

Reading these two articles from The New Republic really gets you thinking. After reading "The Green Bubble,"it seems as though people want their personal actions to be environmentally friendly, but perhaps this desire is only superficial. "The Green Bubble" article discusses the rise and fall in "green" trends over the past few decades and seems like the trend is primarily associated with extreme leftists. This perception is one that I believe has hindered progress to some degree in the environmental field.

In the second article from The New Republic, "Power Struggle," the author discusses society's reliance on technology for solutions to our environmental concerns. Although technology may play a vital role in creating sustainable living practices, I believe it is unwise to rely heavily on technology that has yet to be created.

Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It, what does?

It's been weird, the class I have the day before is Microeconomics. And everytime I hear the argument of free trade and consumption being better for everybody, and the environment being an externality. The "market" will save everything, but at the same time our own Professor pointing out that the I=PAT might not be exactly correct (the fact that it points any sort of progress will have a bad impact no matter what sounds like we weren't meant to expand with our knowledge) has left me really confused.

It makes sense that we can't do simple measures to save the environment, our system needs to be changed so my children won't think that there is no way no move around South Brunswick, NJ unless they have a car. So they can walk to places rather than be stuck at home playing video games all day or just be connected to the internet like us right now... rather than being connected with the web, I'd rather them be connected with the life around them.

Our mindset is like a web of communication, of intangible emotions searching out the distance in a globalized frenzies so we can find the distance market to our tastes. I don't know what the soil smells like, what it means to grow, I only know what it means to take and consume.

So what are changes we can take?

When my child is born, what must I do, besides just turn off my lights when no one is in the room? Do I cover her eyes when she sees an ad for a baby doll on the television so she doesn't want? I know I want to learn to garden for her, so she gets dirty in the ground, so she smiles the same way I do and my mother does when we both see sparrows flit around the ground, chirping without any real rhythem.

So, yes policy is important, but what can I do, as a grow up, to really make my own personal change and live a life environmentally friend and fufilling in a non consumer way?

Reaction to Maniates "Going Green?"

I think Michael Manites points out a very important barrier to making real progress towards a more environmentally friendly world: the "glorification of easy." I agree that we really need to realize that shortening our shower time does not even come close to fulfilling what is needed from us.
After reading this article my question would be - what can we do now to help bring about this kind of "fundamental change" Maniates is talking about? He does say to continue to do those little things like shorter showers and recycling. But it is clear that these things are not the ultimate solution.
Maniates believes that our governmental and non-governmental leaders are babying us - not believing that we are up to the challenge of drastically altering our society. He calls for change in their behaviors, urging them to demand more from the American public. Simultaneously, he also states that we should take it upon ourselves to demand more from them - they should be ensuring the security of the American public today as well as the ones to come.

Reaction To Story of Stuff

Let me begin by saying that I loved “The Story of Stuff.” I thought it found success in presenting an easily digestible explanation of over consumption and how it affects the environment. After reading the New York Times article, I was happy to see that the film had been so successful seemingly for the same reasons I had found it so enjoyable. I think showing it to children of all ages in school is an excellent way of introducing the concepts of environmental stewardship and responsible consumption at a young age. The environmental curriculum in most schools is sorely lacking (I speak from experience; 4 years at a Catholic school and I heard the term ‘global warming’ twice, if that) and the video is an engaging introduction into environmental issues.

Given my thorough support of both ‘The Story Of Stuff’ and the responsibility it calls for, I knew I would have a hard time reading any criticisms. But I tried to keep an open mind as I read both Stephen Cohen and The Heritage Foundation’s responses. Cohen’s criticism presented some interesting criticism that I would be ignorant not to consider. Cohen argues that the video focuses too much on over consumption and yet does not offer any realistic alternatives. However, I cannot sympathize with his argument that Americans’ desire for ‘stuff’ is simply the result of our need to communicate. He seems to think it is hopeless that the American lifestyle will ever become dramatically less consumerism-based. The last paragraph of his article claims that we must spend our time searching for technology to reduce our ecological footprint instead of reducing our consumption. Again, I cannot sympathize with any of these arguments, I think that consumerism, materialism and capitalism are all modes of thinking that are ultimately incompatible with a truly sustainable and environmentally responsible way of life.

By now I think you can probably surmise what I thought about the Heritage Foundation’s response. To be honest, I felt my intelligence was being insulted at some points in the article. The article was fear mongering at its best, claiming that Leonard’s film is designed to teach our children to hate capitalism, the armed forces and America itself. I also fail to see how showing an ‘anticapitalist’ film to students is a violation of ‘academic freedom..’ Isn’t that the point of free speech, to introduce differing ideas? ‘The Story Of Stuff’ isn’t trying to make students feel guilt and shame for their way of life. It’s ironic that author Rory Cooper uses the story mentioned in the New York Times article of Torre Batker, who asked his father if he should buy Legos because of the environmental impact they have. Cooper turns Batker into the poster child for his conservative agenda, asking, “do you want your child to feel guilty for buying Legos?” The irony lies in the fact that at the end of the New York Times article, we learn that Torre did end up buying the Legos cause he would use them for a long time. Interesting that he could decipher the message behind ‘The Story Of Stuff,’ make responsible choices when consuming, while Mr. Cooper is left in the dark using the same tired arguments that conservatives have been using for years now.

The tone of Steve Cohen’s article was very pleasant and well-balanced in relation to the piece posted by The Heritage Foundation. While Cohen made a point of explaining both the flaws and positive aspects of Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff film, the Heritage Foundation offers no praise to her efforts.

Though the Heritage Foundation article points out some disturbing information regarding the age and maturity of the population of students viewing this film, is it so evil to have a body of youth thinking about the consequences of personal choice ? Without a doubt, I think that children deserve every right to enjoy simple pleasures like building with Legos and having a carefree childhood, but for each child in the Global North there is another one suffering in the Global South.

I do not condone the use of Annie Leonard’s film to scare children into a depressed state of consumption, but I believe that an education in ecological literacy should become a more important part of the educational process in countries of consumers.

On the responses to story of stuff

These three articles certainly drew certain contrats. The Foundry's presentation of their opinion on Leonard's viewpoints as being nothing but left wing propeganda made me not want to finish their article. Regardless of my political leanings, I view literature with no respect for the thoughts of others as being rude and dishonourable to the respect of being a writer.

Steve Cohen's article on the other hand, proved to be everything The Foundry wasn't, respectful, informative, and useful in understanding where the drawbacks in Leonard's arguments lay.

This as result has helped me learn on what I should aim for when I critique articles myself.

As far as I'm concerned, there was less of an argument and more of an example of proper criticism and unscholarly blogger anger. Now I know the difference. Thank you.

Reaction to "Story of Stuff"

I was not surprised by the reactions viewers had to this short film. You are always going to have people who disagree, miss the point, or get angry. I think that most of the reactions really spoke to how many people really do not know the facts about consumption - like the father from the NY Times article who called the film "an attack on capitalism." This is a real problem and people are going to oppose the facts because the facts demand a change in our behavior - our consuming behavior.
I think the Steve Cohen brought up a few good questions. I do think that the film could have brought up some suggestions regarding what young people could do. I also think that the film was pretty harsh and did leave out that component of "cultural embeddedness" that is important to address.
I don't remember which article brought it up but I think it would be interesting to examine the possible repercussions of drooping consumption all together - what would this do? who would this hurt? I don't doubt that it would be better in the long run, but what would be the initial effects? Also, she talked in the film a lot about sustainability and I would like to hear more about what that means for the individual consumer.

Intro

First, I will introduce myself fully. My name is Chris Baranowski, I’m 19 years old and I was born in Amityville, Long Island. I have lived in New Jersey since I was 2, right near Princeton University. Music is probably my greatest passion and hobby, whether it be listening or playing. I play guitar, bass guitar, and a bit of piano and banjo. I enjoy listening to the music of Bob Dylan, Radiohead, and The Smiths. I think my passion for the environment, or more generally nature, came from a childhood filled with trips to state parks, zoos, beaches, caves and other places that both educated me and allowed me to see the beautiful natural world. I remember wanting to be a marine biologist as a kid, a dream that is probably still more alive within me than I realize. But it was only in the past few years that I realized, “why not try to spend my life in dedication to saving these places that I grew up with?” That way other children can develop a sense of awe and appreciation for the living world around us. For it is that appreciation that was promoted in me as a child that allows me to be able to find tranquility in taking a walk through the woods or just watching a river flow.

As for Stanley Fish’s article on living environmentally friendly in the U.S., I appreciate the informal tone he is taking in order to reach out to an audience that maybe is tired of having environmental issues forced down their throats. However, I simply cannot agree with his light tone or humor his pleas for sympathy. Fish seeks to point out the ridiculousness of certain green practices that he believes he should not be expected to follow. He doesn’t say that he doesn’t believe in global warming, he just feels that his life is being inconvenienced in certain areas for what he believes is maybe not a justifiable payoff. I realize that going green requires a lot of sacrifices that may be viewed as inconvenient, but in the article, Fish simply sounds like he’s whining to me, with lines like, ‘So far I have managed to avoid the indignity (for a sports-car lover) of owning a hybrid.’ Living environmentally friendly in the U.S. does not mean adhering to literally every miniscule energy saving practice and Fish should not be held to that standard, neither should we. But we should try to do everything that is possible in our everyday lives to make energy conscious decisions. But with an attitude like Fish’s, where the focus is on how hard change is or how we are being inconvenienced, progress will never be made. After all, going green requires a fundamental shift in the way we think. Fish seems outdated and even condescending and I hope he takes green practices more to heart.

Intro and Fish Article

I’m Liz from northern California and am an SIS junior. I plan to focus my degree in International Development. This is my first Environmental Politics class and really my first class that talks about the extensive list of environmental problems facing our Planet. I am now realizing that environmental politics are extremely relevant to International Development and how important it is that policies and practices of development act alongside the goal of becoming a more environmentally focused society - realizing that some of our development methods and theories should be centered around the health and well-being of our planet first and foremost.

I was raised partly in San Luis Obispo, California (central coast) and then moved to Cape Cod, Massachusetts where I went to most of middle and high school. My senior year of high school my parents decided that they had had enough of the East coast and decided to move back to California outside of San Francisco. My Dad is a Landscape Architect and has been working for the National Park Service for a long time now so most of childhood was spent outdoors going on hikes or bike rides.

The NY Times article by Stanley Fish really spoke to how I feel about the environmental movement. All the pressure and push to drastically change how we live our lives seems somewhat unrealistic. On a deeper level than not liking the unfamiliar taste of organically raised beef - How can you change the values and basic structure of an entire society?
I realize that this kind of defeatist attitude is a major contributor to slowing down environmental efforts – but it is evident that a lot of people think this way.

I think that what Kat mentioned about the affordability aspect of greener options is extremely important. As long as there is a cheaper option I think it is very hard to get people to change their consuming habits.

Stanley Fish admitted that he was on the “losing side” in regards to his argument to continue living life as he pleases, the way he has always been. He sees that times are changing and there are things we are going to have to do this generation that no one has ever done before in terms of restructuring our habits and changing our lifestyles. Fish is reluctant and frustrated by having to change, but he admits his defeat and adjusts. I think that sooner or later (hopefully sooner rather than later) people will begin to come to this same kind of conclusion.

Intro!

Hello, my name is Tanim Bin Awwal, a sophomore studying international relations. I am extremely grateful that American has an option to study environmental studies rather than just science. When I took AP Environmental Science junior year in high school, I loved the class but I wanted to know more about environmental issues. I continued my environmental education when I attended the Governor school of Public Issues and visited an environmental site in Asbury Park NJ, where a community was plagued by coal gasification waste. The place was only starting to be cleaned up recently after 30 years because a lot of poor primarily African American residents were kicked off by eminent domain in favor of richer residents moving into the higher real estate. This was an example of environmental classism if not racism. Fast forward to this the present, and my education hasn’t increased that much at all. I hope to learn more this class and reinvigorate my interest.

This leads to the article and the issue at hand. Judged by the efforts of the author to try to be as green as possible, I can understand his feeling of being dragged down by changing his life. Constantly being told that things that made his life more convenient, such as eating meat, is bad for the environment, can get annoying. Personally, I like eating meat as well, even if that does cause environmental damage. Does that mean I have to live as a vegetarian, have no children, or never travel to see my family? These are definitely questions to look at as I research more about what I can do and what choices I’ll make personally to produce less of a footprint.

Intro and Fish Response

Ok, sooo my name is Katherine, but my friends call me KB or Kat. As it happens, I've never blogged before so this should be interesting... or incredibly dull.
I grew up all over the U.S. because my dad was in the Army, but I've never lived abroad. I graduated from high school in Pennsylvania after attending ten different schools. I've finally settled in DC where I'm a junior at AU majoring in Environmental Science.
I'm not quite sure how or when I developed a passion for nature and the environment, but my friends have always thought of me as an "enviro-freak." Oh well.
Even though the subject of saving the Earth can (and does) become extraordinarily depressing, I can usually find comfort in the fact that I'm trying to make a difference-- and sometimes you just have to accept the fact that if you're doing your best, there's not much else you can do. (Or at least that's what I tell myself so I can sleep at night).
As for my stance on issues brought up by Stanley Fish in his article, "I Am, Therefore I Pollute," I think Fish is accurate in his thinking, and addresses many key issues surrounding the environmental crusade.
As he points out, it is extremely irritating to be pressured into a fight that seems so impossible to win.
For one example, Fish writes about making the choice between paper products that are tested on animals, or products that do not utilize recycled materials. After being pressured by his wife, he is forced to compromise and nearly eliminate such paper products from his life. "[T]here are too many battles to be fought," he says,"and I find that I am losing most of them."
Fish also addresses the stigmas associated with remodeling. In order to be as environmentally friendly as possible, he found the price of a green kitchen would be double that of a normal kitchen, and it would take twice as long to obtain the materials. Surely he has not taken into account the long-term costs of environmental degradation, and the loss of natural systems, but what average American does?
Even if Americans (and members of other developed nations) are given the facts on this subject, it often comes down to money and convenience. Time is money after all. And if green choices are less convenient and more expensive, what fiscally responsible adult would choose green over cheap 'n' easy?
In my opinion, people must learn to compromise and reevaluate their norms. We all need to alter our lifestyles to become more eco-friendly. But we also desperately need organizations to continue to develop cost-effective alternatives to diminish the toll we are taking on our planet's resources. In addition to this, we also need government regulations to control waste and perhaps reduce consumption in the U.S.
We need an all-inclusive plan that incorporates these three aspects into the lives of typical Americans thus making green lifestyles affordable and available to the masses.
And until that happens, Stanley Fish, and others like him, will not jump fully on board the eco-train.