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.