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!!!!