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.