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.

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!!!!

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.

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.