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.