Thanksgiving at Home

I went home for Thanksgiving but I wasn’t able to think of someone to talk to that had environmental views that were very different from mine. Generally my friends don’t think about the environment in their day to day activities, but when asked their opinion of a certain issue, they usually have a pro-environment stance, unless they are just completely unaware of the issue.
I spent most of the break with my immediate family anyway. My sister has yet to develop many political opinions and my dad dislikes talking about politics of any sort, so that left my mom.

I’ve talked to my mom about environmental issues before so this conversation wasn’t anything new really. While she finds the state of the environment rather concerning, she does not think about it constantly and has expressed her dislike for the fatalism of many environmentalists and the make-you-feel-guilty tactics that are often used. Essentially she said she doesn’t like being preached to. In this respect, I agree with her entirely. Constant pessimism and environmentalists speaking about restricting waste, etc. in a condescending manner turns people off from environmental issues quickly. This is something we’ve talked about in class a lot and I do think that talking optimistically about solutions that are obtainable (like the Cradle to Cradle idea) will keep people’s attention better.

My mom, however, is one of the people who tends to fall into the trap of small actions rather than large ones. She says that she recycles, uses a reusable water bottle, etc. and from the way she discusses it she seems to think that in doing this she is doing her part environmentally. While these actions are a step in the right direction, I have tried to express to her the enormity of problems and how there needs to be change in many established systems, not just small individual actions. My mom is a vegetarian, though this is for animal rights reasons, rather than environmental ones. Still, it helps.

local thanksgiving!

I didn't go home for thanksgiving, I spent the long weekend with my boyfriend and his family, who are very liberal. So they didn't need me preaching at them. In fact, his mom just bought each member of the family a reusable water bottles thanks to me.

I did have an interesting email conversation with my mother on the topic of buying a locally grown turkey for the family. I'm sorry to say that economics ruled this thanksgiving, and she bought the regular old Butterball from the supermarket. I did a little research and emailed her a list of the steroids they use to produce those turkeys just to gross her out though.

Not Exactly Table Conversation...

Because the environment is a relatively new area of interest to me, I did not have any idea what my views actually were. I talked to my dad over the break and, since he always has as opinion on everything, I knew it would be an interesting conversation.

I started by (during dinner on Thanksgiving) asking what people thought of the environment and was it in trouble and how to fix it? I had several reactions ranging from "it's just getting a couple of degrees warmer" to "we are all in trouble".

My dad is an accountant and is very interested in the economy. His views are that the market should make corrections to the system and that, when consumers wanted change or there was a disaster, that was when we should make changes. I discussed my point with the need for a change in policy from the top down in addition to a bottom up approach from grassroots organisations. The only part that is negotiable is the implementation of the policy and that should be discussed and somewhat regulated to ensure the most effective and efficient outcome (like the Big 3 discussion below).

I'm not sure how but the discussion ended up very similar to our last discussion in class before the holiday. We ended up on the topic of fuel standards in cars and whether the government should bail out the Big 3. My dad said no, they should file for bankruptcy and fail so that the lobour contracts could be renegotiated . I pointed out that, if the Big 3 failed, millions of jobs would be lost and that, as a condition of the bailout, contracts would need to be renegotiated to make the companies more competitive with Toyota, etc.

Trinity of Despair

I like the idea of the Trinity of Despair that Professor Maniates discussed in the video conference. I think the ideas of human nature, social change and environmental strategy are appropriate headings to include. I think that the largest factor is human nature. Humans are by nature selfish and self-interested creatures. It will make the social movements and the environmental strategy that much more important to override the disaster and destruction wrought by human nature.

If it has not helped me think in different ways about how to be an effective environmental change agent then the concept would not be so interesting to me. It is especially important because it has made me realise that not only one of these concepts is going to be enough. In order to have effective environmental change, there needs to be elements of all three involved. The strategy must be there, but it should have an underlying assumption that people will get something out of it (appeal to their selfish nature- they will gain something if they support whatever strategy and plan is chosen). The social movement can start small at the bottom and work up but there can also be a joint top-down approach. The social movement will help to push the strategy.

I was sick Friday, so unfortunately I was unable to attend the video conference. My response is just going to be based on the summary Professor Nicholson gave in the question. I apologize if I am misinterpreting Maniates ideas and my response makes no sense.

The combination of the assumptions of the Trinity of Despair really would leave one feeling helpless in their ability to effect any change in the state and treatment of the environment and I think they are aptly named. Many environmentalists do follow these trains of thought. It does seem a daunting task to try to educate and mobilize the entire world. In response to the ES point, I would argue, however, that oftentimes environmentalists don’t assume that the easy stuff will necessarily build a social movement. Rather, I think that the easy stuff receives a lot of focus because it is assumed that the general public won’t want to take the political and economic actions necessary to organize and resist the existing political economic system from which stems much environmental damage. The push for the “easy stuff” can have some value in just getting people to think about the effect they are having. It can, however, result in a false sense that one has done their part in helping the environment by such small tasks that really impact little overall.

I think the Triangle of Despair can best be summed up by a Facebook metaphor:

HS- facebook has grown and grown to a huge networking website. I can assure you that they're not doing it to reconnect somebody that you knew that summer before sophomore year. the facebook founders are greedy just like everybody else.

SC- People are always whining about the "new facebook" or some other cause. So they think that by joining these groups (If 1 million people join this group they'll mark zuckerberg will bring back the old facebool"). And no matter how many people join those groups, nothing's changed, and Mark Zuckerberg's not going to change the new facebook back to the old one. get over it guys.

ES- when they were introducing the new facebook and the mini-feed features they gave people a trial run at first, then finally forced it on them. the truth is that people didn't change their minds about the mini-feed or the new facebook when given a choice, it was just forced on them in one huge leap.

So not only have I showed what a massive email checking facebook stalking freak I am, I have also shown how Facebook is a microcausm for the Triangle of Despair.

Cradle to Cradle

I really like the book so far. The vision of McDonough and Braungart is a good one. It is feasible without being unrealistic or over-the-top. In particular I agree with McDonough's views on building design and impact. The example given of the day care in Frankfurt, and his determination to make the inside of the daycare safe for children, im important. McDonough and Braungart think creatively about how to lessen the impact of their architecture on the environment in ways that I had not ever considered.

I think that they are definitely on the right track to helping the environment in their own way. In their chosen profession there is little that can be done to lessen their impacts but they are doing it as well as pioneering efforts to reduce the impact more by designing and implementing effective sustainable design in architecture. I am interested in architecture and the design of buildings (in a cursory, oh that's nice I wonder how they did that kind of way) and it is fascinating to see the ways that they are leading their generation and field toward more sustainable architectural design.

Sorry that this is late... BUT GET READY FOR TWILIGHT TONIGHT!!!!

Good Idea, But Can It Go Global?

I find the ideas put forth in Cradle to Cradle interesting, but I do not know how plausible they really are, at least on a global scale. I of course like the idea of eliminating the idea of waste. Humans are very wasteful and as the authors state, at least 90% of what goes in to making our stuff is disposed of. While the idea of creating plastics and other materials that can be reused into the same form is great, I think that it could not be implemented universally for decades. It would require a complete reworking of our industries. Also, I feel that it would require technology that is not available in much of the developing world. Though I do think their ideas should be promoted, I think that we need to continue looking at consumerism as a problem as well. Because McDonough and Braungart’s ideas can’t replace our current system overnight, other tactics would still be needed to reduce our environmental harm that is a direct result of our over-consumption.

cradle to waste-->cradle to cradle

I think McDonough and Braungart present a pretty interesting perspective on the future of the consumer lifestyle. Even the construction of their book shows a shift in ideologies from “cradle to grave” to “cradle to cradle.” They are proposing a total shift in everything that we take for granted everyday. They point out that even consumers don’t really consume a lot, we end up throwing most stuff away. So maybe the things that they’re suggesting we change the most is not the way we consume, but the way that we waste.

I'll take forests and agricultural soils.

verse #3

k, guys, here's my verses:

talk with mouth
talk with your hands
talk with your actions
don’t bury your head in the sand

get out in the world
say your piece
you may find that you count a lot more than you think

do you guys mind if i take decarbonization of fuel for my category to research?

Verses

The Lorax-esque Verses, so far

If you have something to say, say it loud.
Gather your thoughts and stir up a crowd.

Because our environment
lacks the power of speech
it's our responsibility
to learn and to teach.

Van Jones

I got to see Van Jones and representatives from some of the partners of his Green For All campaign speak at the Power Shift 2007 conference. He was very inspiring and I find his ideas quite interesting and with a lot of potential.

Van Jones still discusses environmental benefits while placing the focus of his initiatives on jobs and the economy. I think that this tactic will be more successful in reaching more people to support environmental objectives, especially in this time of an economic downturn. Environmentalists sometimes seem to forget that people struggling to survive and make ends meet will likely not place any priority on the environment. By increasing green jobs and providing green job training, both environmental problems and the problems of unemployment can be addressed.

While I am supportive of Van Jones' ideas for expanding green-collar jobs and increasing training options to gain the skills necessary for them, I fear that he will be unsuccessful in receiving the funds that he is aiming for. His ideas have the potential to appeal to business, government, and the average citizen, if all can be convinced that it will ultimately be economically beneficial.

Discussion Question 7

Van Jones' view of green jobs is a positive one. From Thomas Friedman's point of view, Jones is trying to raise awareness for environmental issues, help to clean up the streets in big cities by providing work for young African Americans and jump-start a shrinking economy.

I agree with Jones in his article about the U.S. bailout where he implied that the U.S. government can stop our environmental crisis if we take half of the money from the Wall Street bailout ($350 million) and aggressively move toward clean energy sources. It will be expensive up front but it will save billions of dollars down the road. With the economy in a recession, the shift now can create jobs while waiting until the economy is stronger could mean another downturn. Once the economy starts getting stronger, people will not want to sidetrack it to save the environment. They will finally be making money again, why would they want to risk losing it again?

It is important to note how Jones links his green collar job campaign with economic strength. For many people, the economy is a huge issue that affects their whole life. Maybe they lost their job or are in danger of losing it. Linking the two issues is important because these people hear that there is a way to economic success and they will pay attention. While this may be their main focus, they cannot help but pay attention and see the importance of the environment as well.

jones brings a big issue to a lower level

I really like the way that Van Jones is framing climate change in a social setting. It seems like in a lot of ways he’s bringing a huge issue down to a more human level, making it more accessible to average people.

He’s really combining two missions into one: providing jobs and a sustainable lifestyle for the lower class, and educating people about what they can do on a more personal level about climate change. He’s really taken something that is usually of little concern to someone who’s just getting by and incorporating it into their daily lives.

Discussion Question 6

My most thrilling engagement with the non-human world was this past January. I visited Santiago, Chile for a business class. While I was there, I went rafting on a river in the Andes Mountains. The glacial run-off was freezing but the air was beautifully clear and bright in the middle of summer. The day was unforgettable.

I think that saving nature is something important that we need to be concerned with but we also need to take into account the restoration and conservation of what is left. There are many thousands of species of plants and animals that have already been lost and the biodiversity of the planet is decreasing and we need to be concerned with saving and restoring the diversity. The planet cannot survive on monocultures of species because if something happened to them (disease, natural disaster, etc) then there would be nothing to start over with.

The most thrilling experience I've had with the natural world was my trip to Costa Rica in 2006. We did a lot of eco-tourism on the trip and one of the most memorable places was Tortuguero. Tortuguero is unique in that the only way to reach much of it is by boat; there are no roads. It still has dense forests (as shown in the picture above) and lots of wildlife, including white faced monkeys, caiman, and a variety of birds and lizards. One morning many of us were even woken up by the noise of the howler monkeys. We got to go out into the forest on boats and hiking. Though the trip was great, I wasn't able to do much exploring on my own because I was with a group from my high school and we had a schedule to keep to. Still, it was one of my most memorable experiences and I hope to return to Tortuguero when I am back in Costa Rica next semester.

I don't understand how anyone could argue that nature shouldn't be saved. We as humans are part of the natural world. We depend upon the Earth's natural services to sustain us. We use resources that are taken out of nature and would be unable to survive without them. We derive pleasure from nature through simply going out into it and feeling like part of it. When I was younger, I would often wander around the woods near my house or go hiking at the state park so I could get away for a while. Although technology can replicate some things, I truly do not believe that technology can advance so far as to remove our need for the natural world. The desire to save it isn't entirely altruistic as some seem to think. While those of us that want to save nature do think that it is important to maintain and protect the environment and think we shouldn't drive other species to extinction, we all want to maintain nature for ourselves and our children and future generations. As was brought up in our last class, the Earth will survive once humans are gone, but we cannot survive without the Earth. And even if it were possible, would we want to?

The most significant experience I’ve had in nature would probably be on February at Possum Kingdom. PK is a giant lake a little over an hour out from my hometown in Texas. In the middle of the lake there is Devil’s Island with these giant rock formations called Hell’s Gates. You could stand on the tip top of one side of the “gates” and look all the way down to the water. And in Texas we have the best sunrises in the world, I’m sure, so from the top you can see forever.

I do think saving nature is a major concern. I remember driving down to east Texas and seeing the trees get bigger and bigger the closer we got to Louisiana. It’s my favorite thing about the south, thinking that those same trees could have been there since La Salle explored the Mississippi, or when the confederates were fighting the civil war. I used to imagine exploring those woods before anyone had ever been there. Mapping them out when they were virgin forests. I would never want my children to grow up in a place that didn’t have trees or lakes that were safe to explore.

eating like we care

The first thing I always take into account when shopping for food at the local grocery is definitely the tastiness. Sadly, my choices on food for the most part are selfish. I buy 1) what tastes yummy and 2) what's on sale. I do make trips down to the farmers' market occasionally, when I'm craving turnip greens and can't find them in Giant. I avoid grocery shopping as much as possible though, so when I do go I buy everything at once. And when I'm finally starving and sick of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches I'll make the stubborn trip to the grocery store. I do make a point of buying fair trade, as Elizabeth does, when I can. But for me too, it's more of a human rights issue than an environmental one.

Of all the things I've consumed in the last few days, the one that probably had the most environmental impact was the biryani my mom made me while she was here visiting. The spices were shipped from somewhere in South Asia, my mom brought the basmati rice with her from Texas (because they don't sell the right brand up here) which I'm sure was produced somewhere else before even that, and who knows where the rest of the ingredients came from. Chicken, potatoes, tomatoes, onions…I don't think many of them were probably grown locally.

Food Food Food

Most of the time when I eat at school, it is in TDR or somewhere on campus. I have to say that I do not think about the environment when I make my food choices for the most part. When I eat in TDR, I feel a little better because Bon Appetit tries to buy locally whenever possible. They also are committed to protecting the environment in other ways. This past week, they did a day with organic food and there were apples from a nearby orchard that were available for students. When I am not eating at TDR, I am mainly thinking about what the food I consume will do to my body, like Sarah. I have severe issues with eating some foods so I am more concerned with health than the environment at that point.

The foods that have the most impact on the environment that I have eaten recently would probably be the apples that come from Eastern Washington and have to be shipped across the country and the Coca-Cola. I am sure that the process for making coke is resource intensive including the use of the aluminium or plastic to make the bottle or can as well as the actual coke itself.

Thoughtful Eating

I sometimes think about the environment when making food choices, but not constantly. I try to buy my produce and some bread and cheese at farmers markets where the food is grown locally and thus has less environmental impact. I try to eat organic when it's available and I can afford it. I am also a coffee drinker, and I try to make a point of only buying fair trade coffee. Although this is largely due to the human rights issues involved, to achieve fair trade certification, companies must adhere to certain environmental standards. Even so, I don't always think about the environment. I go out to eat and go grocery shopping without thinking about how the food came to be there.

Of the foods I ate over those two days, the most environmentally impactful dish was probably a olive/artichoke/cheese dish. (I don't know what it's called; it was part of the only TDR meal I've had this year). While I don't know all the ingredients of the dish, but both artichokes and olives are grown in the Mediterranean and therefore were likely shipped thousands of miles. The cheese also would have come from dairy farms in which cows require a lot of grain and release methane gasses.

Technology Isn't All Good

I do not think that technology can ultimately save us, at least not alone. New technology can certainly help us solve problems, but I do not think that they are the ultimate solution to the environmental problems we face today. I think that, like with all things, technology has its limits and negative effects. By remedying problems with current technologies by simply developing new ones, we are not addressing the root cause of the problem. As can probably be inferred by my previous posts, I strongly believe that changes in the actions of people are what is most important.

Sarah’s automobile argument was well put. New technologies generally seem great at first and people are so open to them because they generally make life easier in some way. If you’re too cold in the winter, turn the heater up instead of putting on more layers. If you don’t like the T.V. program that’s on, or you don’t like the current song on the stereo, pick up the remote, press a button and you’re onto something new. All thanks to technology. Though an easier life is more desirable in many ways, people often do not think of what it has cost them. Our connection with the natural world is being lost. What’s more, we are no longer knowledgeable of basic survival skills. If the power and our water supply went off, many wouldn’t know what to do with themselves.

New technologies often have unforeseen side affects. Ethanol uses food and energy that could be better used to serve other needs of people. DDT disrupts food chains and harms animals. Melamine has put thousands of Chinese children in the hospital. All of these were at some point new technologies. However, their full effects were not immediately recognized, or they were used in ways they weren’t designed for and humans and the environment are facing the consequences.

I certainly do not think that all technology is bad, just that it often comes at a cost. We should not put all of our faith into the hope that something new will be produced to combat some harm that we’ve created. This may continue happening for a while, but the day it doesn’t we’ll have a crisis.

Technology and Environment

Are technology and the environment fated to be together for the rest of eternity? It does seem that way. For every problem that occurs, there is always a new technology that crops up to deal with it. I think that this will continue to occur. The quick fix is almost always some new invention to cure the current crisis. I agree with Celina that the automobile and the current gas and oil crisis is a result of the innovations in technology that we have experienced.

Saving the environment with technology means that the technology that is created can be used in some capacity to keep the balance of the planet. The environment can only support life on Earth if the temperature and atmospheric makeup stay within a range, and if the human population begins to care for all other life on the planet. Technology would help to ensure that the balance is kept so that life can be sustained. This can include, but not limited to, reducing carbon emissions, keeping the fisheries stocked, etc.


Hopefully one of these days, the technology that is created will not just cure the current crisis but be beneficial in many ways including helping people live more efficiently and environmentally friendly. Also, technology could be used in conjunction with corporations to ensure that theyreach goals of zero waste in production.

Technology Staves Off Crisis Everytime

Usually we all fall back on the assumption that technology will save us, and all our fears are unfounded. One of the first readings we did pointed out the flaw in this philosophy, that our faith in technology usually results in a deeper crisis created by the new knowledge.

When the automobile was invented it was called the “horseless carriage.” What was not to love about it? It left the streets clean, was much faster, and much more comfortable. This new technology was a giant leap in possibilities that changed every aspect of mankind: the way we fight wars, where we lived, and what we ate. Little did we know that the automobile would eventually lead to our downfall, the addiction of the American population on gasoline.

The gasoline crisis has led to branching out of technologies to replace our infatuation with oil. Ethanol, electric cars, hybrids have become the new substitute good, but they come with their own sets of issues to solve. It takes more energy to convert corn into ethanol than it saves us to use it.

I don’t think technology is going to save us, its just going to stave off a real crisis until we make substantial lifestyle changes. I don’t think technology is a bad thing, I’m not going to be giving up my flushing toilet anytime soon, but we definitely need to examine the repercussions of our actions more closely.

Lazy Environmentalism 101 Not So Effective

This article really made me feel useless, as far as my efforts go at a greener life style. Sometimes I don’t even think that my meager offering of making a point to recycle my can of coke or turning the water off while I’m brushing my teeth really even matters. And I guess it really doesn’t.

So I have to ask myself, at this point, is it really even worth it? I’m not making a big difference in anything I do. Why should I keep making an effort to carry reusable bags to the grocery store? For me, it’s keeping the faith that if enough people can show that they care, and are willing to make a change, someone will come along who does have the power and resources to make a visible difference and show the rest of how.

I think its really going to take a restructuring of our life styles, and I think that new policies and regulation are going to need to be enforced with some kind of incentive. Sure, some of us would willingly alter some part of our routines, but many of us would not simply because its so easy to stick to the status quo. I agree with Maniates, people should stop babying us because we’re not fooled. In a country where we have the greatest academic minds, the most freedom in the world, and where much of the fault lies for the current state of the environment, there is no reason why we should not be the most environmentally conscientious people as well.

p.s. sorry this is late

Going Green? Easy Shouldn't Do it

I have to agree with Maniates' article about the dangers of laziness in our environmental crisis. When I first started taking an interest in the "environmental crisis" I have to admit that I wasn't very interested in doing my part, however big or small (I still have trouble with it sometimes). But even I could see that books like The Lazy Environmentalist and It's Easy being Green are not going to be enough to motivate the American population to strive toward a greener future.


Interestingly enough, those who are most devoted and active in getting people interested and concerned with the state of the environment are also advocating simple and easy things that can be done in the home by every American to help the environment. This amazed me even moreso than the books on the ease and simplicity of going green. When the Environmental Protection Agency starts telling people that saving the planet is easy and involves only a few simple steps, then there is a problem.

I definitely agree that Americans are treated like children when it comes to issues where they should be concerned. The state of the environment is critical to survival of life on Earth and we should be treating this issue as such. This is our first home, we have an obligation to care for it, says Professor Roderick Nash. Not that we should consider it an obligation. Since we have no other planet to occupy yet we should really take care of this one. When gas prices went up, people were suddenly concerned with alternative energy sources and alternative transportation. That kind of hype should not depend on the price of a barrel of oil. It should be intrinsic to human nature.

Experts and activists can only do so much. They can spread the word and get the information out there. There their job ends. Then it is up to each and every person to take what they know and what they have learned and find a way that they can help save what is shared by all life on Earth.

Where is the Outrage from Those Who Can Afford to be Outraged?

Unfortunately, I must agree with the overall idea of Maniates article. Many of the environmental actions requested by environmentalists and politicians today appeal to the laziness of Americans. Though as Maniates says “Surely we must do the easy things,” many seem to think that by doing the “easy things,” they are doing their part to save the earth, while really they are only slightly counter-acting the damages they themselves cause. If something is difficult or inconvenient, Americans are often reluctant to do it. While politicians have the most power to take actions and pass policies that will make a widespread difference, we must remember that they also do want to be re-elected and are therefore unwilling to take strong stances so as not to offend any voting bloc.

I think that people will continue down this road until the problems become more real and immediate to them. Take oil for instance: it was not until shortages caused a raise in prices that Americans were willing to give up some of their driving even though people have been advocating alternative transportation methods for years.

Globally, we face the problem that those who have the money and power to make environmental changes are not exposed to many of the problems, while those that live with them daily have no means to change things. If all of the waste, pollution, toxic chemicals, etc. that are created and used for the benefit of American consumers were to stay in America, close to where people live, action would be taken because there would be outrage from people who can afford to be outraged. Americans, though, do not often experience the effects of the damages they cause, and can live a life of contradiction, saying that they “care about the environment” while making next to no effort in their own life to do stop the harm befalling it.

Sarah makes a very valid and interesting point, that we are our own enemy. I agree. Our environmental problems are manmade, and there is not one defined group that we can see as the enemy because all have contributed.

News-flash: Maniates absent during elementary analogy lecture

Maniates makes a legitimate argument and as harsh as its portrayed, I believe his critiques hold true. Americans are too often regarded in a childlike manner when it comes to environmental realities. We look for the easy, simple, even 'stylish' solution in hopes that our societal collective efforts will payoff. As Maniates states, it's going go to take "a lot more than eco-friendly light bulbs and recycling to make a difference."

I don't however, agree with Maniates examples of the leaders who spoke frankly about the "...knotty, vexing challenges... firing our individual and communal imagination, creativity and commitment." Understandably, they are used as honorable images of men who proposed sacrificing solutions to fighting the enemy; be it the British, the Fascists, or the Racists.However, they don't really apply to this situation. Within the environmental crisis, we are our biggest enemy. Through our own lifestyles, ethics, and cultural behaviors, we pose the greatest threat to the environment, which makes 'rising against' a contradictory idea. How can we be motivated to unite and take a stance against... ourselves? The odds of seeing comparable revolutionary leaders regarding the environmental crises are significantly different simply because of the nature of the "enemy" or "perpetrator."

Meet 2nite prior/post climate road show to discuss group presentation...
anyone> ?

Both plans dissapointing...

I have to agree with my group about the prevailing mentality of the market liberal among both candidates. This is a little frightening to me because neither of them see the need to prepare or prevent any great environmental disaster.

Instead of focusing on the root of issues, they both focus on the human aspect of the problem, and how to make humans happy. The most emphasized parts of their energy/environmental policies spotlights how humans will benefit from greater environmental standards, not how the environment will benefit. This is the same mentality that got us into the problems we have with the environment know. I think if we could learn to sacrifice a little bit more, then we could truly solve some of our problems instead of just postponing them.

It is true that Obama seems to have a little more direction as far as concrete plans and goals for our environment. But frankly, I’m a little disappointed with both of them. I was hoping for a plan that would not just push more technology, but force us to address the real issues at stake. The only reason we’re all of a sudden so worried about new and cleaner fuels is because we want to break our dependency on foreign oil, and therefore make paying for gas a little easier on ourselves.

A Couple of Market Liberals

After reading the environmental and energy platforms of McCain and Obama, I would agree that the two seem to be predominantly market liberals as well. Both support cap-and trade systems to remedy our emissions of greenhouse gases. They both also describe plans for tax-incentive-driven initiatives, rewarding companies and individuals for being more innovative or buying based on the environment. The two also support expansion of “clean coal technology” and greater use of natural oil. They are optimistic that the necessary changes can be made with their plans. None of this is surprising, as I would argue that the Market Liberal stance is the safest environmental stance to take when trying to get elected. If they were to express belief that the environment was in grave danger, this may turn away voters who are looking for optimism.

McCain’s mention of a desire to lead UN negotiations falls more in the Institutionalist paradigm, but he does not really develop this stance.

Obama supports the development of “advanced biofuels” and plans to provide tax incentives for “purchasing advanced vehicles” although he does not describe what he means by “advanced.” He is also a proponent of green jobs, believing that they will not only help the environment, but also the economy, by providing new work.

Obama expresses support for fair trade, which promotes higher environmental standards in production. As stated by Sarah, this falls between the Market Liberal and Social Green paradigms because of its promotion of better wages and working conditions.

Because both candidates are overall Market Liberals and have many similar stances, I do not think that categorizing them has really changed my sense of them. It is more useful to just examine their stances and plans. I agree more with Obama’s ideas and plans involving the environment. He has higher goals for American in reducing our emissions, developing renewable energy, and reducing our energy use, a point that, unless I am not mistaken, was not mentioned by McCain. I also believe in the importance and potential of green jobs and fair trade, which he advocates.

Obama vs McCain: Operation Environment

I have to agree with Celina that both candidates share aspects of Market Liberals. Neither candidate forsees a total catastrophe occurring which would require drastic action. This prediction would alienate voters who think that environmental issues are not as important as other issues. Market Liberals advocate economic growth through globalization focusing on reducing poverty and raising the standard of living for all. Clean technologies and voluntary corporate greening are also qualities of Market Liberals.

Obama's platform incorporates economic growth based on ideas and goals that are better for the environment than any plan or idea currently in place. Providing Americans jobs will be a very important issue in the coming elections with the increasing number of US firms that are moving their operations to foreign locations. The fact that the jobs are green makes them even more attractive- at least to some. The green aspect will help to encourage environmental sustainability and conservation. Obama's plan is almost driving toward the Bioenvironmentalists in its goals to cut out oil and natural gas as much as possible and create and use alternative fuel sources.

McCain's platform is similar to that of Obama. His ideas are not as progressive and far reaching as Obama's goals and they are not spelled out. He generalizes the issue and does not go into detail explaining his ideas and plans. This makes me leery of the plans. With Obama's plans, I know exactly what to expect and when should he be elected. With McCain, when will the environmental reform begin? What will it entail? These are questions that he is going to need to answer and the sooner the better so that people can think about them and form opinions and compare them to those of Obama's plan. The only program that is specifically laid out is his cap and trade policy and the greenhouse gas emissions targets and the timetable for the targets. The cap and trade system would allow for a measure of control to be exerted over the economy with the close monitoring of the buying and selling of emission rights by large companies.

I feel as if based on the platforms for energy and the environment, Mr. Obama's platform and plan make the most sense. With his comprehensive and proactive policy to increase alternative energy use and the reduction and elimination of US dependency on oil, especially from the Middle East and Venezuela, his views and goals are clearly defined and laid out. Mr. McCain's ideas are positive but he has provided no plan to correct the problems facing the environment.

A Candidate Face- Off ... just where do they really stand?

If I were to classify the Candidates in terms of where they stand on the Environmental Perspective table, I would honestly say that, with some slight variances, they both classify as Market Liberals. Rooted in a capitalistic consumer oriented society, I think it would be difficult for any candidate deeply rooted in any of the other perspectives to have gained such popular support. I do, however find that there are some stark differences between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain in terms of just how avidly they hold true to that perspective profile.

Looking first at McCain, we see how closely he parallels the bullets noted within the Market Liberal category. Modern science, technological improvements, and the promotion of more energy production are all keys to solving the energy crises according the McCain. He advocates more drilling, improving the domestic economy, and constructing more power plants as the way to the future. The only area where we see McCain branch over into another perspective's category is on the topic of the "Cap and Trade System." Although it's stimulated by economic incentives (under the market liberalism category) it does promote a sense of control and reduction under an an international agreement (which could be considered and idea of the Institutionalist's).

Obama, like McCain looks at solutions to the environmental crises from a Market Liberal point of view, but also from an Institutionalist and even a Bio-environmentalist. From the M.L stand point, Obama advocates the creation of jobs and stimulate the economy, but he also emphasis the idea of Americans actually guilty of overconsumption (and idea of the Bio environmentalist), proposing to solve this problem with Hybrid cars and energy from renewable sources, essentially reducing our oil usage. Like McCain, Obama promotes the idea of a "Cap and Trade System" (an idea rooted in institutional thinking). Although I don't think the Social Green perspective holds much legitimacy among the candidates this round, I would be tempted to say that Obama's idea of sustainable communities and the promotion of fair trade might fall under this category.

Am I with anymore sense about the Candidates? Well, I've made up my mind a while ago, but I do think this presents an interesting way to contrast (and even find similarities) in the candidates environmental stances.

As for who's talking sense and who - smack. My vote's with Obama. I plan to own a Hybrid, reduce my oil consumption, work in a green profession, and find Obama's stance to be more charismatic, responsibility-owning of the two. I think Americans need to be called out in their error of over-consumption, unfair trade, and careless lifestyles, which Obama is unafraid to do.

did I miss something?
which articles are we discussing?
- Sarah

Ignorance is NOT Bliss

In my opinion, the combination of ignorance and apathy are the greatest problem facing environmental conservation. Simple interest would lead to greater activism for environmental causes. Unfortunately both ignorance and apathy are difficult to address. The best way to counteract ignorance is obviously through education. But until environmental issues are incorporated into the curriculum of all schools, it is only those people that show some personal interest who will actually study and gain greater knowledge of the interaction of humans and nature.

Apathy is even more difficult to address than ignorance. Through widespread educational and information campaigns, certain issues can, and have, become common knowledge. Take, for instance, the examples of deforestation and climate change. Though there are dissenters of both of these issues, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn’t at least know the main arguments environmentalists make about them. Getting people to care and do something is the ultimate problem. Many methods have been tried; we’ve all seen pictures of people dressed as polar bears and videos of animals affected by oil spills. However, because these have been played over and over throughout our lives, people begin to tune them out. They might see it and think that “Oh, that’s too bad,” but most would be unlikely to think about how their own actions affect the polar bears’ melting habitat, or how their driving supports the company whose tanker spilled oil into the ocean. What’s worse is that so many people are individualistic and simply do not care how their actions will affect others. Because they do not experience the effects themselves, they assume that there are none. In the end, though, it is impossible for people to care if they are not even aware of the issue, which is why ignorance and apathy must be addressed jointly.

Fisher’s article “I Am, Therefore I Pollute” coincides with my argument. Not only does the author seem lazy and self-centered but he embodies the apathy I have discussed. He has the same negative, victimized view of environmentalism that so many Americans share based on the myth that to help the environment, your quality of life must decrease. Have we really become such a spoiled and lazy group that we must complain about things as simple as unplugging appliances? Unfortunately many have. As George H.W. Bush said at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, “The American way of life is not up for negotiation.” As long as we are still able to feed our consumerism and have no inconvenience requested of us, we are willing to speak out for support to the natural world. However, as soon as people are called on to do something (or refrain from doing something) to help the environment, people get defensive and are full of complaints. Still, it is difficult to be entirely environmentally friendly in the United States. As a whole, we thrive on consumption and it has become our norm. It is difficult to break our habits, but if we do not, we will be facing the consequences as we have already begun to.

polluters anonymous

I absolutely agree with the previous posts. The greatest threat to the environment we face is our own kind and the general lack of concern among not only Americans, but most of the world. It’s a shame that countries like the US won’t sign the Kyoto protocol because we don’t believe its fair, because rather than focusing on a common goal, we are being selfish.

I suppose that’s the real root of what I believe is the problem with the environment. Not necessarily apathy among human kind, but selfishness. Many of us in the developed world know good and well the extent of damage that our lifestyles have on the environment, yet we are more than willing to expect others to have a more modest lifestyle.

In class we discussed how population really isn’t the issue. Sub-Saharan Africa is the home to millions of people, yet they are not the main polluters of this earth. I probably produce more waste in a week than most of them do in a year. What makes Americans have more of right to produce more waste, and have a higher standard of living? It doesn’t seem fair, does it?

The NYTimes article seems to be like so many Americans, begrudgingly doing our part in the grand scheme of things. Granted, I would not go so far as to make sure I get a certificate that shows that after I buy my cabinet they replant a tree. But in the most basic way this attitude holds true. I still have friends who don’t recycle because its too much of a hassle to have take out two different garbage cans. Who are we to complain when we stand to gain the most from recycled goods?

living at the edge of a new leaf.

1. What, in your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?


"apathy" \a-pə-thē\ noun
1. absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2. lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting

In my mind, the greatest threat to the global environment is the growing apathy of its' inhabitants. We seem to have lost our love and passion for the naturalistic elements that make life possible. People have grown so disconnected with the sources of their everyday commodities, that rarely is a second thought given to how finite they actually are. Meat comes from the supermarket, fuel from the gas station, clothing from the department store. As the link between source and expenditure expands, so decreases our interest in the prior.

I don't have to butcher my chicken for dinner anymore, so yes - my life is better. But better is relative. I can Blog for class with out the smell of chicken feathers on my fingers, but I compromise my knowledge of where that chicken was raised, what it ate, and just how long it sat in deep freeze before reaching my plate.

No longer do we live in an society that witnesses the beauty of nature on a daily basis.Working part time at a running store, I encounter many customers who have never actually run outside. Others grumble and complain over the county's parks and rec departments failure to pave or concrete over their favorite bike path. Little do they know, it's these man made surfaces that cause the very pain they need the high-end cushioning shoes to begin with.

I have a friend who claims never to have seen the milky way nor the nebula of orion, as the light pollution from the neighboring city blazes so brightly no stars shine through. Another acquaintance blasts the heat in the winter and the air conditioning in the summer, I'm surprised she can even tell the seasons.

The global environment's greatest challenge is regaining mankinds' appreciation for her bountiful gifts and simple pleasures. In the words of Gandhi, "To forget how to dig the earth and to tend the soil is to forget ourselves."

A Culture of Conspicuous Consumption

For your initial blog posts, I'd like you to consider one or both of the following questions:1. What, in your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?2. Have a look at this piece that Stanley Fish wrote over the summer. Does it ring true for anyone? What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
----------------------

In my limited knowledge of the challenges facing the global environment I believe that one of the most pressing is the culture and society in which we live. The American culture is spend now, save later. The savings rate in the United States is one of the lowest in the world with people taking out loans in order to live in a bigger house or drive a bigger or nicer car. In our society it is all about the things that you own, the car that you drive, the clothing brands that you wear. If America is going to save the planet, our whole culture would have to shift to a more ecologically friendly way of life that is less dependent on conspicuous consumption.

Stanley Fish's article rings true for many people. For a time, I, myself, thought that recycling and trying to live in an environmentally friendly way was a waste in the US. I could not see why I should help the environment when no one else did. Everyone else always throws everything away instead of recycling or consuming less. I do not know many people from my home town who recycle on a consistent basis. We were one of the few families and it seemed like it was more effort than it was worth. But at AU there are many people who recycle and really make an effort to help the environment. As a community recycling is more successful because everyone can reinforce the committment.

Living environmentally friendly in the United States can be extremely difficult. I have a hard time trying and sometimes I don't want to. To live environmentally friendly one must at first be aware of how their lifestyle impacts the environment. Once they can understand how their life and their choices affect the environment, steps can be taken to lower their environmental footprint. This can be starting as small as recycling and using creating less waste. If you have to have your coffee or tea everyday (as I do), don't use a paper cup. Use a cup that can be washed out and used again. Or try and walk to campus instead of driving up the street. This gives you some great exercise, a bit more money in your wallet as well as less pollution in the air. Every person can do at least something in order to help the environment. The idea is to start small and work your way up to the bigger environment-saving projects.