The Flustered Penguin

Quotes

2009-12-07T08:27:00.000-08:00

"'If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.'"
From Hot, Flat, & Crowded
Thomas Friedman
p. 7 (quote from movie The Leopard)

"We cannot simply do nothing; neglect will not be benign."
From The End of the Wild
Stephen Meyer
p. 73

2009-12-05T10:06:00.000-08:00

"An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence." - Aldo Leopold, The Sand County Almanac

"These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive of the environment. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at almost any cost; enormous investment in technologies designed with little regard for the environment; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit, including profit from avoiding the environmental costs they create; markets that systematically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by a worshipping of novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet--all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the planet's ability to sustain life." - James Gustave Speth, Bridge At The End Of The World

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

About the environment and our grasp

2009-12-04T22:20:00.000-08:00

On the ride home from Philadelphia late into 2 am on Thursday, my dad brought up the topic of Global Warming.
He mentioned a recent article explaining that apparently quite a few scientists have been kept from stating their data that Global Warming wasn't affecting temperatures as much as scientists have claimed recently.
While I didn't read the study myself, it brought some realizations for myself.
Through the teachings and journals I have read about environmental issues, many of them revolving around predictions of damages in the future, how can I be sure that what I learn is correct without extensive research, meaning can I take anything for face value. I'd like to, I'd like to take my American History books for face value, but we've learned that they might not always be accurate. I wonder how what I have learned will play out in the future.
Later on my parents talked about my future in the environmental field. They wondered what the difference between environmental studies and science, I informed that if I become an environmental lawyer with a focus on an international level, I can help process and interpret current environmental law and push for more useful ones if need be.
I think, as I have learned from my parents in the past few years, if the word environment is used, it is automatically marginalized. If you use the idea of social justice or feeding the hungry or managing resources, these are listened to. It's because the environment isn't a separate issue, it's a concept that embraces all issues in itself; social, mental, physical, material, and immaterial.
In speaking to my parents, normally when I speak to my parents about the environment, it usually ends with my dad stating that science will solve everything and there is nothing I can do to convince him otherwise. However, I think two things have helped me in having better talks with him about the environment.
1. Framing environmental questions in terms of necessity rather than an "environment" theme. This means it'd be more effective to talk about flooding issues or food contamination rather than Global Warming or deforestation.
2. Studying more about the environment so that my dad assumes I am knowledgeable about the topic. My dad now talks to me about environmental issues because he knows I have been studying about environmental issues and gives me a set amount of respect.

Favorite Quotes

2009-12-04T15:38:00.001-08:00

1. From Bill Mckibben's "Think Again Climate Change" article, "Unless climate change is de-ghettoized, the chances of making a real difference are small."

2. From Hot, Flat and Crowded by Thomas Friedman. Chapter 6 "Bio-diversity": "Biodiversity doesnt only help us to live - it helps us to adapt."

Thanksgiving Conversations

2009-12-04T07:49:00.000-08:00

Over Thanksgiving, I engaged my older brother in a conversation about the environment. I kind of went into it knowing that he would be the one that would be the most interesting to talk to, because while the rest of my family is pretty liberal and generally sympathetic to the environmental movement, my older brother is very conservative. So as I sat down to eat my Tofurkey for the first Thanksgiving ever, my brother asked me why I was a vegetarian. "Mainly for the environment," I said. This sparked a short discourse that covered topics such as organic food, climate change, and other issues pertinent to environmentalism. I found that my brother's views are mostly driven by one principle: self-interest. When I brought up the threat of rising sea levels for island states, he simply said that was their problem. He also said he refused to buy organic or natural foods because they were too expensive. So what do I think this says about try to present a convincing argument about environmentalism? In my case, I began to frame my argument in a way that emphasized government and corporate responsibility. I said that the government should subsidize green consumer options so they are more affordable. It was apparent to me that I could never convince my brother to become vegetarian or do anything intensive on the personal level. However, if I could convince him that we needed responsible policy, he would perhaps be more interested in the cause. When I mentioned increased business responsibility, he also had a hard time agreeing. His self-interested principles guided comments like, "well, a business needs to make as much profit as possible, and organic methods are more expensive." Again, I tried to convince him that the state needed to make these options that are currently fiscally unfavorable become a reality.

I think that when confronting someone about environmental issues, it is easy to become annoyed or angry, especially if they are seemingly ignorant about the issues. But I think what we need to do is make sure we take into account what kind of person we are dealing with: how do they feel on certain issues, what is their overall guiding ideology. This can better prepare us to frame a meaningful argument that makes environmentalism seem practical and compatible with their views. Don't offend or become defensive, note each one of their points and try to respond to it constructively. My conversation with my brother showed me that I could have an intelligent conversation on issues that I don't think he had ever even considered before. This is good news because we need to engage people, no matter what their political views, on the most important issue of our time. I think I am learning how to do that constructively and effectively.

Constructive Change?

2009-12-04T06:16:00.000-08:00

From doing this exercise over Thanksgiving I saw the importance of not feeling like you have to convince everyone. I tried to keep in mind what Mike Maniates said in our video conference about how there are already enough people who believe in climate change and are concerned with it. We do not need to spend our time and resources educating people who do not seem to get it or do not want to accept what changes need to be made. This realization was especially important for me because had I tried to convince my grandmother or my great aunts and uncles then I think I would have had a completely miserable Thanksgiving.
It was very helpful to structure the talk I had with my cousin around the commercial. It was such blatant evidence of how the fuel companies are trying to manipulate scientific facts to maintain their consumer base in light of the recent environmental movement.
I concluded that its best to communicate with people about climate change in a calm way, using examples around you rather than trying to bring in abstract examples to illustrate a point. People do not respond well they feel targeted or accused of something so speaking in a general sense is also helpful. However, all these things help to facilitate conversations about what change needs to happen, its something quite different to cause actual change. I think to cause constructive change in our society the environmental movement needs to just bypass people like my grandmother and inject change right into the system with industry reform and clean energy alternatives.

Politics at the Dinner Table

2009-12-03T09:57:00.000-08:00

Over Thanksgiving, I spoke to my Mom briefly about climate politics, but got very little useful feedback. Essentially, she acknowledged that "global warming" was a real issue, but she wasn't convinced that it was as severe as scientists make it out to be. She expressed her belief that carbon dioxide from cars and trucks should be reduced, but from my understanding, she didn't seem to understand that her lifestyle choices in consumption contributed to those emissions.

Drawing from more interesting conversations I've held with a friend of mine at AU, I believe that the most important thing to do in these discussions is to listen and remain as emotionally neutral as possible. Once the conversation becomes emotionally hostile, I feel that the stance of the environmentalist is oftentimes compromised beyond recovery.

After many, MANY heated discussions with my friend about how horrible her family's small fleet of Hummers are for the environment, she finally understood my viewpoint when I pointed out the fact that the air in her town was not her's to pollute. Before that point, she firmly believed that if she had the money to buy these cars and the fuel to run them, it was her right to do so. This was the point of contention for the majority of our arguments, and I had a lot of trouble addressing these issues in a successful way.

From those experiences, I learned that emphasis should be placed on the impact your decisions has on your neighbors--the idea that your decisions affect others as well as yourself.

Overall, I think it is important to remain as calm as possible during discussions(though it's extremely difficult at times), and to take the time to understand where the other person is coming from. It is often impossible to convince the other person to change their opinion, but it is NOT useless to listen. By doing this, we can gain a greater understanding of public opinion on controversial issues, and we can use that knowledge to create solutions to environmental problems.

Thanksgiving Awkwardness

2009-12-01T20:14:00.000-08:00

For this Thanksgiving I went to visit my extended family on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. I stayed with my extremely conservative grandmother. Half of my family is republican while the other half is democrat - my parents and their siblings are more moderate. So when Prof. Nicholson gave us this assignment I thought a lot about how or if I should even bring up global warming or climate change. I asked my parents about it and they both seemed to think that since I dont see this side of my family often, I probably should not bring up a topic that would spark such intense emotions. So I decided to talk with my 17 year old cousin.
We were watching a basketball game on tv and this commercial for 76 gasoline kept coming on. The commercial was talking about how their gas is somehow better than normal gas and is more environmentally friendly. I started talking to her about the misconception of cleaner fuel and how if we really want to effectively address climate change problems we need more structural changes to our society. She was agreeing with me and really recognized the falsity of the commercial and the kinds of consumerist behaviors that it reinforced.

Cradle to Cradle

2009-11-20T08:01:00.000-08:00

First of all, I'm in love with this book. Both because of the writing style used, and because of its novel design. (Though I'll be the first to admit, it's heavy and weird to hold because of the materials used to make it).

On another note, I think that McDonough and Braungart are certainly on the right track with their writing. Reading this book is not alarming or depressing like many other works we have studied this semester, and I believe this is due to their balanced portrayal of information.

Not only do the authors clearly and concisely lay out the issues for the reader, but they follow up by describing what is being done to combat the problems. Rather than call for action in the form of laying blame and responsibility upon the reader and the general consumer, they detail the ways that THEY are working to change the system. This is a very different, and uplifting approach compared to many other authors who write on the subject of environmental topics.

Also laid out in this book is the recurring idea of getting back to nature; the idea that we should stop brutalizing the earth, and go back to enjoying and respecting it.

I think McDonough and Braungart (though I am unsure which author contributed which parts of the book) do an excellent job inspiring us to reconsider our own lifestyles in a way to makes us happier and more productive members of the planet.

They seem to advocate harmony and happiness through consumption, which makes any reader want to continue to read the book and apply its concepts to life.

Good for them

2009-11-19T19:15:00.000-08:00

I'd like you to give your impressions of book we're reading at the moment in the light of other calls for action we've seen this semester. What do you make of the "Cradle to Cradle" vision spelled out by William McDonough and Michael Braungart? Are they on the right track? Or is their optimism misplaced?
I believe William McDonough and Michael Braungart do a great job at trying to reinvigorate the modern environmentalist. They do very well assessing the situation and looking at the current flaws in environmentalism and apply their own skills to the situation, including green architecture. They inform the readers of the potential dangers coming from the multitude of chemicals we use and inhale inadvertently
The idea of I=PAT never seemed so wrong than when reading this book. They are right, human progress shouldn’t be judged in such a negative. I’ve wrote this before, our progress is not a symbol of environmental decay, we just need to figure our options properly.
By focusing on useful green technology like green architecture, understanding local environments and reacting accordingly, and promotion of general awareness of the environment hazards of the modern day, i.e. chemicals and drugs.
The way they are looking at the future today is something that everyone must focus on. Just becoming depressed about global warming doesn’t ruin the ship, actively steering away from the last berg and using technology to rebuild is the strength you have to deal with. More people need to be bold rather than depressed about our losses, showing that environmentalists and humans in general will work with possible solutions

"Cradle to Cradle": Beginning a Trend

2009-11-19T10:12:00.000-08:00

I think reading the book “Cradle to Cradle” and watching the video “The Next Industrial Revolution” has made me realize that what William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is vital. We need people like them to begin implementing solutions. Whether or not their vision is overly optimistic, it is still an extremely important realization. We have been talking about changing the infrastructure and design of our world, Mike Maniates talked about creating environments where being environmentally friendly is automatic and this book and film talk about examples of how we can do that. The field of architecture and design is a crucial fundamental aspect of the way our world is structured. Change in this area is going to be necessary in creating a more sustainable environment.

Seeing the examples of what changes in architecture and design can do (in terms of benefitting the environment and lessening harmful human impact) is a powerful call to action. Seeing that these things are not too hard or too expensive makes it harder to ignore our obligation to be sustainable. What William McDonough and Michael Braungart are proposing is definitely revolutionary and they might be overly optimistic about how quickly a switch to building “cradle to cradle” could be. If their idea catches on it will take a while to remake our working and living environments in their proposed style. But I did not find that they were in any was over optimistic, they merely seemed excited and enthusiastic about making what change they could now.

Trinity Of Despair

2009-11-13T01:09:00.000-08:00

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

This quote ran through my head a few times while listening to Professor Maniates speak in class on Tuesday. I thought his discussion of the 'trinity of despair' was very interesting and pertinent. I would like to break it down, one piece at a time:

1. Human Nature

This is a huge part of the issue of environmentalism for me. As a self-proclaimed socialist, I have over the years vehemently stuck with my belief that humans are inherently communal beings with good intentions. To be honest, with all the selfish action I see happening every day, especially when you look at the massive failures and despicable manipulations that have occurred within the realm of environmentalism, it can be pretty hard for me to keep believing this assumption at certain times. But honestly, I believe that things like capitalism and a general overemphasis on personal freedom in America have brainwashed people into thinking that self-interest is the bottom line. They have betrayed their inherent instinct to work together towards solving problems and co-existing peacefully. But let's say for argument's sake that humans are self-interested. Well, than you better believe that it is our absolute duty to transcend those natural instincts and become communal creatures. Only then can we possibly overcome a challenge on the magnitude of climate change. So let's either look deep within ourselves to find that community spirit, or suppress those stupid urges that are telling us, 'I don't have to worry about these problems, I won't be around when they really start to mess things up!'

2. Environmental Strategy

Here I took some issues with Mr. Maniates' analysis. Over the last few classes, we've been challenged to think about thinks in a broader sense, to try to realize that these problems are bigger than just turning off our light bulbs. And while I concede that this is true, I think that this sends too much of a disconcerting message to people who are just trying to do their best to act responsibly on their own. For what ever the reason, some people just don't want to get actively involved in the power games at the top level, the policy stuff that will make a bigger difference. It is important to realize that while they are not making a massive different, people's personal choices should not be trivialized as being 'ineffective.' I believe this strikes at the very soul of many environmentalists (like myself) who have found such inspiration and validation in the practice of a grassroots and personal style of environmentalism. I will say that personally, becoming a vegetarian opened the door for me to a wide array of broader environmental issues. And it is for that reason that it was one of the best decisions of my life. I think if we blend the human nature facet with the environmental strategy part for a second, we will realize that if humans are self interested, deep down, even being green is just a self-validation thing. I think this may be a little harsh to deal with at first, to think, 'oh, so you're saying I just do this to make myself feel good?!' But as much as I like to think of myself as a true altruist, I've got to admit, it's probably true that wayyyyyyy deep down there, I am doing this to make myself feel good.

Don't get me wrong, I also truly believe I am doing this for other people. But hell, even if I am doing it for myself, does that trivialize it? No, because you are still doing something good. It's more than that though. My roommate always said that a big part of being vegetarian (or being green, for that matter) is about being an individual and I couldn't agree more. When a friend challenges me and goes, 'yeah, but who are you actually saving by not eating 1 hamburger,' I reply, 'Okay yeah, maybe I'm only saving one cow, but it's about being an individual. It's about not just following the pack because 'it's not gonna make a difference anyway.' Mr. Maniates talked about the importance of consumer power in our consumerist society and it's true. What you buy is unfortunately one of the biggest statements you make about yourself. So why not buy green? Of course it's important to realize that you have to go the extra step if you are really passionate about the environment. Organize! Write your congressman! Change the rules! But also, be an individual and make those lifestyle choices that say, 'I live what I preach.' I find when you start on the personal level, it opens the door to many different possibilities.

3. Social Change

Here's where that Margaret Mead quote fits the best. This was my favorite part of Mr. Maniates speech and really the biggest 'A-ha!' moment for me. It's so easy to get frustrated with how many ignorant people there are in this country, who don't comprehend the magnitude of the problem that we are facing. But I actually made the point in class recently that we live in a political system that allows 51% of the people to write the rules for 100% of the people. We have to use this to our advantage because you are always going to have people who disagree. But if we can get the power in the hands of the concerned people, they can effectively take the steps necessary without having the support of everyone. The people of the future will thank us, big time.

Nature is what you and I think it to be, from the word left to the idea of right

2009-11-13T00:04:00.000-08:00

While I wasn’t in class because of being ill, when we discussed Professor Maniates’ view on environmentalists focusing only on “easy” solutions, it made so much sense.
I’ve read a lot of books and articles dedicated to simple steps to being environmental at home. Recycle, install fluorescent light bulbs, consume green products. It was interesting, in direct contrast to environmental theory on the internal concerns of consumption and overproduction, we are often told to buy into that consumption because that’s our “vote”.
Often times, in talking to people who are not environmental scientists or policy makers, in order the words, the people that form public opinion, I hear complaints that “there is nothing we can do”, “this is human nature”, rather than rallies of “we can change the way we live”. So they argue that they might as well stay status quo, because humans won’t change, it’s our nature to kill each other, waste electricity, eat processed food.
But it’s not our nature, we only recently have started eating McDonalds, recently set up power plants in their current configuration, recently started nuking other people. These things have only happened in the last 100 years, are they really set in stone? We live in an age of the internet, where people like me can figure those things out, but we also live in an age of so much information being stuffed down out throat, we end up accepting other peoples’ way of life as well it seems.
Human nature is so hard to discern simply because it’s our very thinking. Our scope of thoughts, going from nothing to oblivion to all to universal to individual to collective and all the relevant and irrelevant in betweens, represent our very nature. If there is some way to behave outside that scope, it doesn’t exist because it was never thought of. Indeed many of us are murderers, but many of us are nonviolent as well. For as many people to think we are selfish, there needs to be a recognizing force that remembers that just as many of us are the opposite and have the potential to turn that way as well.
Consuming green is a recent phenomenon, and in an age where everything is fast food, we need to realize so called easy tv dinner solutions to the environment aren’t the healthiest. More advocates following such a school of thought need to help others delve into that mindset and figure out what needs to be done, lowering energy consumption through efficiency and advanced technology, redefining city infrastructure to reduce consumption pollution, redefining our energy system, and most importantly, redefining our system of thought to make sure the word environment is so ingrained in our system that is reduced to oblivion, the term environmental ethics just becomes ethics.
Maniates’ trinity of despair is a valid one, and too often we have seen humanity try to consume its way to success (buying more pesticide rather than using natural pesticides and predators to reduce pests), I hope his work goes notice, it is part of our nature to want to know, that’s why we as a race exist today, not by some viral accident.

Trinity of Despair

2009-11-12T17:47:00.000-08:00

I agree with Professor Maniates' point that the environmental movement is less effective than it needs to be, and I agree with the points the triangle attributes to environmental shortcomings.

For example, the assumption that all humans are selfish prevents the creation of policies that would place responsibility on the public to achieve environmental goals. However, such a responsibility could motivate people to become more involved in issues if they felt their role mattered.

In the future, it will also be vital that we place less pressure on people to do "the easy stuff," and reemphasize the importance of change through political action. If more people conveyed their concerns regarding the environment to their politicians, we would begin to see politicians stepping up to the plate to combat key environmental issues.

The third idea in the triangle has to do with the assumption that it will take the coordination of every human/every nation to make a significant difference in the preservation of our environment. The US for example has refused to seriously involve itself in international agreements without guaranteed involvement from India and China. This has perpetuated a cycle of negotiations that include uninvolved, partially committed countries who will not sign any agreements unless other high-emission countries do so first.

Professor Maniates' presentation of these issues provided me with greater details surrounding these distressing hindrances to environmental development, and yet the insight provided me with some inspiration in terms of reevaluating assumptions that have thus far held back progress.

Discussion Question 10

2009-11-11T07:11:00.000-08:00

I really saw truth in all of the three points of Prof. Maniates “trinity of despair.” Some of his points echoed what we had already talked about in class (environmentalist strategy, human nature) but the idea of how we create social change was the most powerful to me. This attitude of having to feel like everyone agrees and being stuck trying to convince or educate people to care about this problem really resonated with me. I feel like that is how a lot of my friends who consider themselves to be environmentalists try to get people on their side. The graph Prof. Maniates really illustrated how there are plenty of people who are concerned about the environment. Yet what I focused on, as well as many people in the class, was the relatively small amount of people who dismiss climate change as a problem. I thought Prof. Maniates point was clear in that if we continue to get bogged down with trying to convince and educate, we are never going to incur the social change that we strive for. Our efforts and energy have a far greater impact if we direct them at structural changes to the mechanisms and institutions of society.
The examples that Prof. Maniates gave like the Civil Rights movement were very illustrative of the kind of social movements that worked without convincing everyone of their validity and worth. This is also true for the Feminist movement and we are seeing it now as well with the Gay Rights movement. Not everyone is convinced and agrees on what should be done, but the agents of the Gay Rights movement are not wasting their time and efforts trying to educate people and get them on their side. They are going right to the system and changing laws and the structure of society without diluting their efforts by trying to convince everyone.

The Lorax

2009-11-05T15:51:00.000-08:00

After tossing the seed, the Once-ler looked down
And was surprised to see the boy wearing a frown
What are you waiting for? The Once-ler said
If you wait any longer, the seed might be dead!
But the boy kept frowning, his eyes pleading for help
“But Mr. Once-ler, I can’t do this by myself.”
The seed I can plant, but what of the dirt?
If it is not healthy, this tree will be hurt
And what if the clouds don’t ever bring rain
If there is no water, this tree will feel pain
And if I bring water, what if its bad?
With poisons or smog, it will make the tree sad
And what if the temperature gets to be hot?
If there is no shade, grow, this tree will not
What about other people who want to make thneeds?
From them, how can I possibly protect this seed?
So, Mr. Once-ler, as you can see
This is surely to big a task for only just me
Well, then I shall help you, the Once-ler replied
The boy looked happy but then sat down and sighed
I’m afraid that this task is too big for us two
What we need is for everyone to help and come through
When we unite all our voices, and let the world know
Then we can stop the things that won’t let this plant grow
We can stop the people who will chop down our trees
For you see, Mr. Once-ler, its more than just planting some seeds
If we change what was wrong when the Lorax was first here
The Truffala trees may be back in a few years
So join me and we’ll travel across the land
Searching for people, telling our plan
So that one day the Lorax may return and can see
That nature grows again, wild and free

Alternate Lorax Ending

2009-11-05T13:23:00.001-08:00

But “hey” said the kid thinking real quick
“You speak of fresh water and clean smelling air
But all that is here is glumpled gross water
And smoggilous smoke
Thinking I can grow this tree is nothing more than a joke!”
The once-ler was taken aback
“I gave you the seed what more do you need?”
“What I need is a change to this misdeed
So I can plant this truffula seed
So come down right now
For I realize at last
I can’t do this alone
This task is too vast.”
The once-ler came down
And together they sat
For hours on end
Thinking of solutions to combat
Such an issue of water on earth and the air in the sky
That was just much too big for just one simple guy
They went to the town of the Consumigloos
and told everyone of these problems that were so overdue
people were sad
and ashamed of their thneeds
and realized they were all part of bad deeds
that created the smogulous smoke and the gupulty gook.
Before long
they rallied together to the truffula yard
working all day without any pay
working all night without stopping in sight.
They worked for a whole month and a half
to create what they called the purifligaft.
The glumped glu was pushed through through-turns and spins
and wheels and sneels
up pipes and shites
down keels and meels
and rushed out the other side
as the bluest most cleanest
water there was
the children could play in the river all day
and all of a sudden one day that next may
the Once-ler realized
Together, together, we'll watch the weather,
Now, and forever, never say never
A thneed may be what everyone needs
But a healthy world, indeed, is worth far more than greed.

Climate Change Discussion 8

2009-10-29T09:25:00.000-07:00

As we have talked about previously in class, there have been plenty of efforts to confuse and blurry the scientific evidence supporting climate change. In comparing and contrasting these two websites, "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic," the latter was definitely trying to do just that.

The "Friends of Science" website was disproving several "myths" about climate change. What I found most striking about their arguments was that they provided no kind of scientific backing or even cited factual documents. I was also kind of disappointed in the "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" website because the links they provided on the website were direct to wikipedia. I think they could be more effective if they cited other scientific evidence beyond wikipedia which is not very credible.
I think the "Friends of Science" website was targeting an older generation by making their website very simple - they had all of the information on one page and it was all very simple and short. Whereas the "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" website was a little more sophisticated with more links and more organized into different types of arguments and how to refute each one - I think it was appealing to a broader audience ranging from young to old who could navigate the links and who would be looking for more in-depth arguments and facts.

I found the website "How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic" more convincing even though most of their links went straight to wikipedia - they were giving more information and had a lot more to say than the opposing website. I got the feeling that the "Friends of Science" didn't really care about giving detailed information and their arguments were overly simplified.

How to counter a counterer

2009-10-29T02:51:00.000-07:00

I first read “Friends of Science” first to get a viewpoint of what seemed to arguing against the idea of global warming.
I found their arguments interesting, preventing facts about apparent arguments on why it is important to focus on global warming. They came from sources that didn’t really address the economy at all, a big factor in environmentalists accusing those who didn’t believe in global warming being only led by industrial influences. They presented a compelling argument in a professional manner throughout their website, although their tone seemed a little jaded towards the UN having too much jurisdiction over environmental issues, usually a stance that is not relevant with mainstream environmentalist thought of government intervention and regulation (then again, the early environmentalists didn’t think too highly of the government, or in Wendell Berry and Thoreau’s case, voting). Finally, they shifted the focus that we should center on air and water pollution rather than global warming, which are very legitimate topics that ought to be focused on well.
I then looked at Grist’s website, which was run as a way to counter basically every topic that the Friend’s made a fact. In a more informal manner, it basically broke down arguments that sounded legitimate on why CO2 isn’t a factor and gave links and factual information why it was indeed a factor. While the Friend’s were probably able to delegitimize nearly every uneducated environmental hippy on their viewpoints on the environment, Grist’s article was able to delegitimize every point that was used as ammo.
In the end, I found the Grist site more convincing simply because it’s purpose was the refute a basical rebuttal to global warming arguments. It was a counter to a counter (by the Friends). It was also focused only on global warming rather than veering a different direction (which the Friends did). A very useful site when I’ll have to argue with conservatives in the future when they give me equally legitimate sounding reasons like the Friends, although this time I’ll do my best not to sound like an uneducated hipster (not green enough to be a hippy)

Nature and its confusion

2009-10-24T19:51:00.001-07:00

By the time I was a sophomore in high school, my friend and I have spent the last three years studying martial arts and exploring the woods. We practiced archery extensively on a small lightweight bow. On an especially odd summer day, after a session, we wondered what to do, and oddly enough we saw rabbit poop. So as a result, we looked at each other and said, “we are going hunting”.
Nevermind that such an activity is illegal in New Jersey, nevermind we weren’t acting rational, for some reason, the only thing in our mind was that “I want to hunt a rabbit”.
I’ve gotten this feeling before, where I wanted to hunt something, not for the pleasure of killing, but for literally the idea that I wanted to hunt and eat whatever I got. As weird as that idea is, it was the mode that I had as I went into the woods near my local pond. We brought along with water our little tiny bow, a hiking stick and set of katana with us, for some reason thinking they would be necessary. As we immersed ourselves into the woods, going deeper than we’ve ever done before. Looking around the trees, crossing thorned bushes, ducking underneath thick brush overhead, going across streams, we went into a different world.
Everything about the journey seemed to exist within the thick air that our skin touched, humid, dense and intense. What was a journey to find rabbits (stupidly inside the woods) became a journey to figure out where we were and what we were experiencing. As we began to comprehend that, we ran into what seemed like a tool of fate.
As we crossed the stream, we ran into two deer. Immediately my heart began to race. In what seemed like an hour, I moved my bag down and got out my bow. Edging in closer and closer, my thought process started wavering. While half of me still wanted to hunt and eat these deer, the other half of me wondered why I would want to hurt them in the first place. As I faced this battle of conscience, I still moved forward inch by inch. Every time I made a movement, the deer would freeze and look towards me, and I in turn would freeze until they put their head down. This game continued for a long time, and during that duration I ended up realizing I had no desire to hunt the animals anymore. However, when they stuck with their gut feeling and ran away, we chased them until they were far gone. Ironically, we found the same droppings we saw back at my backyard. So it was deer poop then, which is odd considering there are never deer in my house.
I guess when I think about that time and my relation to my environmental studies, I realize that those two sides of me conflict because while I may have those urges, where I was at the time, in the middle of a small piece of woodlands in the middle of an artificial suburbs, there’s no incentive to eat anything but processed foods, and hence this instinct if it is one, is sadly out of place and unnecessary.
As for saving nature, the fact that I don’t really know what nature is, because my environment is completely human sculpted, I want to save it, because the more I live in this planet, the more I feel like I’m living out a science fiction movie, where everything seems fake and eventually, dystopian.

Question 7

2009-10-23T07:22:00.000-07:00

Many ideas flowed through my head when I began writing my answer for question 1 for this week's blog post. Throughout my life, I've had many awesome experiences with nature that has given me the environmental perspective I have today. I thought of going to Niagra Falls with my family and witnessing the raw power of nature, or going camping with family as a young kid, or even the thrill of whitewater rafting. But the moment I chose in the end was a much a simpler one. It's not a single moment per say, rather a recurring event that happens time to time. On the small trail that runs behind the Berkshire Apartments, the Glover-Archibold trail, there is one spot off the beaten path where my friends and I often make a pit stop. If you venture a few steps to the left right after you cross the stream that marks the midway point of the trail, you will find a massive tree trunk that has fallen across the creek. It carefully lays about 20-30 feet above the ground. We pull ourselves up by the massive roots, get on top of the log and carefully walk, one foot in front of the other, across the log. Despite doing it dozens of times now, the thrill is never lost. But once you find your seat on the other side of the tree trunk, an incredible calm washes over you. Even as you long down at the 20 foot drop below you, you can't help but feel completely at peace with yourself and the world around you. Sometimes we will sit in near silence, picking up on all of the sounds emitting from the woods: birds, bugs, distant traffic. Maybe we'll light up a cigarette and converse about what we learned in class or trade jokes. But this is about as close as I feel to nature during my time here at school. But the trail has become a huge part of my life, I take it every chance I get. Because its so easy to get caught up in the busy pace of city life., you need take breaks often. And sitting out on the log, the sun beating down on my face, bugs swarming around, the soft babble of the creek below, I couldn't feel more at peace.

Why is it so important to save nature? Putting all decidedly scientific arguments to the side for a second (e.g. destroying nature will cause our demise), the environment around us is the truest and purest source of beauty and wonder. As I said before, since I was a child, I was brought up to have an appreciation for natural beauty. 20 years in and I can't say I have found anything man-made that rivals the sheer power of Niagra Falls or the Grand Canyon. For me, it doesn't even take a natural wonder to appreciate the natural world. Even just a walk through the woods works wonders for me. Many of the reasons why I believe nature should be saved are nearly impossible to put into words. But I sincerely believe that if we are not in harmony with nature, we are not in harmony with ourselves. The natural world precedes us by millions of years. Humans function best when working in and with the natural systems that we have come to take for granted. Not only does the purest form of beauty exist within nature, but also our technology and way of approaching things is often done in imitation of nature. In short, I have always felt a very strong to all things natural. I think that the harmonious feeling I associate with being in nature is one that is almost spiritual. I am wary to acknowledge the presence of any 'higher power,' but the natural flow of things has always appealed to me as the strongest evidence of something larger at play. These intricate systems we live within have provided us with some of the most beautiful, awe-inspiring forms of life, and without that biodiversity, our context of humanity would be lost.

Non-Human Engagement

2009-10-22T16:28:00.001-07:00

When I was 14 years old I went to a summer camp in Woolwich, ME on the Kennebec River. I went on a four day hiking trip with some of the other campers and counselors. We drove to the base of Mt. Katahdin - the highest mountain in Maine. The mountain is part of the Appalachian Mountain range and is in the center of Baxter State Park. We spent the whole trip hiking up to the mountain, carrying all of our camping equipment, setting up our campsite every night.
Starting at the base of the mountain where it was cold and dense with trees, climbing all the way to the top where it was only rocks. It was definitely the most strenuous hiking I had ever done, but reaching the top of the mountain and looking around was also one of the most amazing things. The view from the top of Mt. Katahdin was incredible. The sky was so clear and you could see the massive stretch of wilderness. Since the weather was good and the wind was minimal on the day we reached the top we were able to walk across this narrow path of rocks from one peak to the next, called Knifes Edge. It was only about one mile but the entire journey was extremely terrifying. I remember coming back from that trip absolutely exhausted and covered in mosquito bites but with a renewed sense of wonder and amazement at the non-human world.
I think that we definitely need to concern ourselves with “saving nature.” I think the main problem is that we do not value it enough to prompt us to make real change. If we lose the nature we have in the world – the quality of life for future generations is going to be compromised. They wont have the kind of opportunities to connect with the natural world like we did and generations before us did. In my opinion, a big part of what makes us whole and healthy and satisfied comes from the natural world and where we see ourselves in it. When I was on Mt. Katahdin I really got a sense of how small I was and how much there was out there that’s greater than me. When you have that kind of realization, you can build respect for that greater thing. If we do not try to “save nature” then we are really robbing our future generations of their ability to develop a love and respect of the natural world.

Natural Enchantment

2009-10-21T19:14:00.000-07:00

The most thrilling/enchanting experience I've ever had with nature would probably be star-gazing outside my friend's cabin in the woods. There was supposed to be a meteor shower one night, so my friends and I trekked through the woods to a clearing where we all lied in the grass to enjoy the free show. The most "thrilling" part of that experience (or terrifying in my opinion) was when we saw two pairs of glowing eyes watching us from the wood-line. Of course I demanded we go back to the cabin, but I was forced to sit there, surrounded by the black wilderness. Bordering on panic, I didn't know what would be worse...sitting up to get a better view of our surroundings, or lying as flat as possible and praying I didn't get mauled by a bear. Either way, I have never felt so small, or so utterly out of control of a situation. Moments like that really make me realize how minuscule our own lives are in relation to the world that surrounds us.
For that reason alone I think that preserving nature is vital in maintaining a balance, not only for our earth's natural systems, but also for providing perspective in our lives. We should absolutely concern ourselves with the preservation of nature because we are a part of nature and we do not have the right to destroy it. We have the capabilities to preserve the environment, therefore we hold a responsibility to do so to the best of our ability.

Thoughts...

2009-10-21T09:22:00.000-07:00

Here's a response I posted to an article on Dot Earth. Rush Limbaugh called on Dot Earth author Andrew Revkin to 'kill himself' to save the planet, referring to the attention that has been given to how many resources we use just by living in America. It's available here. In my response, I consider population control measures such as one child limits and monetary incentives, as well as reflecting on the role of environmentalists in general. Here is my response:

This is my first comment and I just wanted to say I love your blog Mr. Revkin. I was turned on to it through my Environmental Policy course at American University.

Of course it goes without saying that Limbaugh is a babbling idiot and once again amazes me with his despicable ignorance when it comes to environmental issues. But Limbaugh's comments do reflect a broader question that probably puzzles/offends not only his avid listeners but also the wider American public: where do we draw the line in how adamantly we functionally exercise our environmental concerns in our daily lives? I'm sure many readers of this blog have read Bill McKibben's Maybe One: A Personal and Environmental Argument for Single Child Families, in which he considers the environmentalists responsibility when it comes to raising a child. He cites the exorbitant amount of money it takes to raise a child in the United States and responds to similar accusations that environmentalists should refrain from having children if they are really so concerned about rampant population growth. After debating with his wife over having a child, he ultimately concludes that the paternal and human instinct won out and they decided to have only one. This brings up interesting concepts of human instinct when considering population control measures. I believe that you made a great point in your discussion of crediting people's choice to have one child. In America, the people respond best to incentives. McKibben echoes your thoughts in pointing out the fallacy of offering tax exemptions for having more children. Shouldn't the system reflect the opposite? These are questions that I suppose are better left to those with a greater knowledge of economics and such. But the question I find myself asking is, "are we really embedded with a desire, or need, to have child? My immediate answer is yes. As animals, is it not our basic function to, as my high school biology teacher callously put it, "make babies and then make room?" Should we, as environmentalists, try to transcend this "instinct?" If there really is the paternal/maternal instinct and child-rearing experience we crave, why not adopt? Are we really so tied to the fact that our child, in order to be 'ours,' must share our genes? I'm young and optimistic and years down the road, I fear that these very instincts I discuss will win me over.

Admittedly I have digressed from the original topic, but I think the overall point I was getting at is that environmentalists should not be faulted for not strictly adhering to the principles of living sustainably. For obviously there is a line that must be drawn. I am a vegetarian, but I guess what I really should be doing is not eating at all, huh, Rush?

Lastly, I think there's a bit of an overarching 'meaning of life' issue at hand here. Without acknowledging any God or spiritual elements, each of us have been graced with the greatest gift of all: life. We were given a brain, we can think critically and we are self-aware. We were given a body, so we can execute whatever our brains decide our purpose is. Because so much has been invested us, it would be even more harmful to the environment to kill ourselves. I feel that because I have been given this gift, it is my duty (again, forgoing any spiritual aspects) to use my relatively short time on this planet working to save the environment and educating others about how they can too. If we succeed in doing this, we outweigh the statistical price tags associated with our ecological footprint with the abstract but invaluable gifts of education and work.

Keep up the great work.

2009-10-09T07:41:00.000-07:00

If the travel industry is going to exist in the future, it will simply have to adapt and be maintaining in an eco-friendly manner. I thought the article about people in Britain who are not willing to fly less was very interesting and relevant because I think travel is usually the last variable that people think to factor into their carbon footprint. However, if everyone has such a nonchalant attitude about the impact that flying does, this begins to add up. Millions of flights a year carries a heavy environmental toll and is just irresponsible. A crucial point that was made in the article is the fact that there are really no low carbon alternatives to flying if you want to go somewhere far or remote. For an island like Britain, a train may work for getting you to Europe but otherwise you have to take a plane. We can't fully eliminate travel, people will always need to get to different places for business or scientific purposes. So we have to develop a more energy efficient way of traveling. As for tourism and recreational travel, the first thing that needs to happen is a drastic decrease in the amount of travel we do. I would advocate limiting citizens to one flight a year, and then even decreasing from there. The second thing that needs to happen is the development of the concept of 'ecotourism,' where citizens travel to a community and actually learn and immerse themselves in the culture instead of staying at huge resorts and being completely removed. The latter enforces an irresponsible way of life, teaching us to not take into account any of the effects of our wealthy lifestyles. If we are emitting carbon just to get to these places, the least we can do is spend our time their learning about and appreciating them. This promotes an attitude that will make people rethink the way they travel and ultimately the way they live. Tourism is usually last on my list when thinking about what must be changed to tackle the environmental problem, but it is a huge factor and one that people are unfortunately widely ignorant too. Ecotourism and responsible vacationing is a solid first step towards incorporating the idea of sustainability into another facet of life.

Eco-Tourism

2009-10-08T11:43:00.000-07:00

I have never really thought about “eco-tourism” before. Definitely, the tourism industry feeds environment degradation. The article from The Guardian really made some good points. It was interesting that people who are strongly committed to being green in their own personal domestic lives, make exceptions when it comes to travel.

There are many things in Western culture that we cannot imagine going without or changing. I think travel is one of them. Personally, my family lives in California and most of my extended family is on the East Coast (MA, NY, CT) so ever since I was young we have been flying a lot. Going to school in DC I fly between MA and CA at least six times a year.

What is even more troubling is that when I fly I almost always end up talking with people who fly (usually for their jobs) all the time. Most businesses send employees around the US and abroad to other branches for meetings or whatever. I think it would be very difficult to change this pattern.

I do think that a good idea for dealing with eco-tourism is to include the cost of environmental harm in the price of the ticket. I think it would really help to deter people from flying excessively. Ultimately, people are going to continue to fly until another cheaper, equally convenient mode of transportation is made available. Sometimes there really is no other option besides flying. Eco-tourism is just another manifestation of our globalized, consumerist, affluent society. Although we can create deterrents, it is our lifestyle and ingrained values of comfort and convenience that need shifting.

Eco Tourism

2009-10-08T09:46:00.000-07:00

When I first thought about ecotourism as a means to diminish environmental impact, I thought it was pointless because calculating the amount of fuel used to reach far and away destinations would surely cancel out any good that would come from making such trips. In my mind, traveling somewhere off the beaten tourist path didn't make sense because all forms of travel consume such vast amounts of fuels thus contributing to global climate change.

However, after visiting some ecotourist sites online, it occurred to me that people are going to take vacations no matter what, but they could use their vacation to support a as they relax, rather than feed mindlessly into tourism-based economies that do not need their support.

If more people were interested in traveling to see rain forests, or aquatic ecosystems, there would be a demand to maintain those ecosystems rather than destroy them for profit. Government organizations would be forced to preserve the quality of those ecosystems because tourists would bring money into their region.

Ecotourism offers the opportunity to use vacation time as a means to preserve natural systems and prevent degradation. Even if the cost of traveling to exotic destinations means contributing to CO2 emissions, I think those same CO2 levels would be emitted regardless. People will travel and emit CO2 regardless of their destination, but with ecotourism there is at least an option to put those used miles to a good use (...sort of).

In this sense, I think that ecotourism offers an excellent alternative to the stereotypical vacation by allowing vacation dollars to support an important cause.
If only all vacation destinations offered such a benefit...

Food Dilemma

2009-10-05T17:19:00.000-07:00

As we have discussed in class on multiple occasions, overconsumption is one of the leading factors that impact our environment. Keeping this in mind, I try my best not to consume more food than I actually need to stay healthy. Though I am not a vegetarian, I eat as little meat as possible, and try to limit the amount of dairy products I purchase and consume.

Last spring I took a seminar class through AU's Environmental Studies program and spent a significant amount of time researching and discussing the impact that food production has on the environment. Tremendous amounts of energy are used both in the production of food stuffs and the transportation of food to grocery stores around the US and the world.

Americans especially impact the environment because of the vast amounts of food we demand and purchase. Very few food purchases are made locally in comparison to the amount of foods we have imported from other regions.

After gaining this knowledge (along with other information), I've been eating as simply as I can. I avoid purchasing prepackaged foods, and purchase locally when possible. I generally drink water from my Brita filter, and rarely purchase bottled water/other beverages. Usually, my trips to the grocery store entail some painstakingly thought-provoking mental debates as I try to calculate the amount of energy used to produce, package, and deliver all of the food I purchase. In the end, I usually go home with a combination of fresh and frozen veggies, some milk, a box of cereal, and some pasta.

Though I can't buy all of my food locally, my strategy for food consumption is essentially to limit the overall amount of food I purchase and consume. And on the occasion that I dine out, I generally eat less than half of the food I order and I manage to make the leftovers last a few more meals.

Over the last two days, I've eaten my usual sauteed veggies, cheerios, a granola bar or two, some pasta and a few other light snacks, but I'm nearly positive that the Lean Cuisine dinner I ate had the most significant impact. Based on the fact that it's packaged with plastics and paper, it's frozen and shipped, and it contained pasta, sauce, and veggies from who knows where- I'd say it took the most amount of fuel to produce and ship.

I've never purchased frozen meals before this past summer, but I decided to start buying them after my babysitting family got me hooked. Since then, I've significantly limited the number of Lean Cuisines I've been buying because I realized how many resources they waste... and because real food tastes much better.

Food Matters

2009-10-02T07:54:00.001-07:00

This is a very exciting question for me on a subject that I am very passionate about so I will try my best to be short.

On January 1st, 2009, I made the decision to become a vegetarian. I had tried it as a new year’s resolution the previous year but had only made it a few months. This year, armed with much more information about the cause, I decided to try again. 9 months later, I have still not eaten a single piece of meat or fish. Becoming a vegetarian was one of the best decisions I have ever made; I don’t regret a single second of it. The reason I became a vegetarian was mainly for environmental concerns. I learned about the amount of energy that goes into the production of meat. Facts like “eating one pound of meat is equal to driving an SUV 40 miles” held a message that was impossible for me to ignore: our food choices make a huge difference. So now when I go eat something, I consider a number of factors before making my decision. Meat and fish are obviously crossed out immediately. I try my best to drink soymilk instead of regular milk, acknowledging the still substantial impact the diary industry has on the environment. But now I’ve begun to take it a step further, asking myself, “is this product made from local goods or has it been shipped from another country?” I try my best to shop at farmer’s markets and select the local option whenever I can. Another big thing I have been trying to cut out of my diet is high fructose corn syrup, which is found in almost all soft drinks. High fructose corn syrup has little nutritional value and also fuels the massive overproduction of corn, a plant which requires high amounts of fertilizer and therefore also has a high price tag for the environment. Lastly, I try to eat organic whenever possible. Although I’m not as well researched in the matter as I’d like to be, something tells me consuming foods with chemicals and preservatives may have a bigger impact on our health than we can comprehend now. Being a vegetarian has introduced me to issues about my health I have never considered before, which is why I advocate vegetarianism so adamantly. It has literally sparked a revolution in the way I think about food, forcing me to realize that choosing some foods is simply irresponsible in our current economic and environmental system.

That being said, I think the poorest food choice I have made in the last few days was either eggs or Coca-Cola. The production and shipment of the eggs I ate probably carried a high environmental impact. Coca-Cola is high in sugar and full of high fructose corn syrup, obviously not a good choice for me. But I have done my best to refrain from drinking Coke and other carbonated sodas (according to some reading I’ve done, Coca-Cola is also responsible for human rights violations in Latin America) and I am also attempting to phase out eggs with the hopes of being a vegan at some point.

Convenient, Cheap, Necessary?

2009-10-01T20:30:00.000-07:00

It really sucks eating food on campus, or anywhere away from home for me. At home it’s convenient because my mom I like to believe enjoys feeding me with quality food that is mixed with a healthy balance of carbs, protein, and vegetables, topping it off with lentil soup mixed in. I don’t have to think about what I’m eating; only that it is good and that the few times I stop to appreciate my bites and think about it, my eyes water with joy.
Here, it’s convenient to use a meal swipe ($11.00) to eat chicken tenders (yum, more bread than chicken) with barbeque sauce. I don’t have to think about it, and when I do, my throat gets a sick feeling from realizing that food sucks, or at least here.
Since high school I’ve made the conscience decision to eat much healthier than the cheese fries I used to eat for a whole semester Freshman year. I usually go vegetarian every Thursday, refuse to eat fries, eat much less red meat and force myself to eat salad (even those dreaded tomatoes). I do it because of health rather than the environment because my supposed Id takes over the Superego and I care to keep myself fit subconsciously a bit more than check where each ingredient from each food product I choose to eye comes from. I understand that need to eat locally, and I wholly support that, but as far as I’m concerned, businesses haven’t really cared to provide that option, and as a result, I eat what’s convenient.
I’ll drink things that sound healthy, for example, I drank that pomegranate juice from Odwalla because it seemed nutritious and healthy. Plus the thought of juice, not soda, makes me thirsty, so I indulged. I’m sure those organic cranberries came from fruit thousands of miles away, because they certainly don’t grow them in DC. As for that Slim Fast, there are so many chemicals in that I’m guessing it was made from all over the world. But to me, it was healthy because it had protein, calcium, and the energy I needed from dance and martial arts.
That one Slim Fast alone probably travelled thousands of miles in gas, was on lands drenches with pounds upon pounds of pesticides, which in turn probably leached into some river, and injected with so many preservatives that I would shudder to think of the impact, but I drank it because it was convenient, cheap, and healthy for my body.
I’m an active member of AU society, I dance 9 hours a week, 3 hours of martial arts, 4 hours of desk duty, a lot of RA work, President of the MSA, and a student foremost, so does that give me the right to want convenient goods for a price I can afford so I don’t collapse from lack of nutrition? But my foot print is high, so what am I supposed to do? Again this brings more questions to me than answers.

Food Choices

2009-09-30T10:01:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-25T08:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T21:06:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-24T20:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-18T08:36:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-18T05:58:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-09-17T22:05:00.000-07:00

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?"

2009-09-17T08:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-11T09:33:00.001-07:00

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.

2009-09-11T07:50:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-11T00:44:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-09-09T08:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-04T09:32:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-03T22:01:00.000-07:00

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!

2009-09-03T20:51:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-03T18:57:00.000-07:00

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.