My family is not nearly as interesting as Jordan and Hayley's

Well, I tried to start up conversations about the environment, but I really did not get anywhere. My family seems to have a problem with actually taking note of anyone or anything but themselves, so whenever I brought it up, they made jokes about my "ultra-liberal" school and left the topic at hand (and my-ever plunging family pride) in the dust. But, what do you do right? You press forward.

And I did. with both halves of my uber tiny, anti social family. I still got nothing. My mom is pretty sick so she does not get out a whole lot and never had in interest in anything global until I came around with my crazy major and whatnot. She did not know a whole lot about the environmental crisis (and neither did I, really) before this class, but now I have pounded it into both of our brains to the point of nausea. My ranting has inspired her to really start being conservative with having lights on and recycling. I keep all of the arguments about how this will accomplish nothing to myself, for fear that I will cause depression and regression back to the old habits. She knows that being less bad is no good, but like the rest of us, she is now trying to sort out what she can really do to help. You have to start somewhere.

My dad decided that at the mere mention of the environment, he would start reciting conservative rhetoric. I told him that I wanted to know what HE thought. But I never did get a straight answer, just a lesson on the "rainbow warrior" and how the french tried to blow it up. I take his responses to mean that he knows what the media tells him, and the media tells him that the environment is in trouble and the republicans have done nothing to help. Shocker, right?

In conclusion, intellect was in shorter supply than turkey this holiday season. I will do my best to keep nagging my relatives, though I really do not have that many of them (thank god). My family was just generally lethargic around all issues this week.

Unfamiliar Unity

Thanksgiving tends to be a rather volatile season around my parts, and hailing from a conservative family, Simon really thought of one of the best ways to pull the pin out of the grenade with this assignment.

Or so I thought.

As it turns out, I actually found it rather difficult to find one person in my family who disagreed with the idea that climate change is a pressing issue which needs to be addressed. My uncle, a defense contractor from Colorado, claimed that he felt the United States should work to reduce carbon emissions by half within the next thirty years. My grandmother, a Jesus freak, claimed that we have spent nearly a century and a half destroying the planet that God gave us, and therefore only makes sense for us humans to right what we have done wrong. Another one of my uncles, a lifelong Republican and George W. Bush sympathizer, claims that climate change must be a real problem because "all that ice is melting in the Artic [sic]."

Both of my parents agreed with me that the issue was pressing. My father, a former Republican who recently registered as a Democrat, changed the topic from climate change to fuel economy, and spent fifteen minutes talking about a hydrogen car he saw on the Discovery Channel which he would someday like to own. My mother, who is politically apathetic, agreed with my uncle's claim that the Artic [sic] needs to be saved because she "really likes penguins and polar bears."

(take a few seconds to truly savor the humor of that last sentence)

Much to my surprise, none of my relatives disagreed that climate change was a pressing issue. What really surprised me, however, was that most of them were unaware of the true problems at hand in regards to the issue. My uncle, the defense contractor, was the only person who seemed to understand the real science behind climate change, and why it represents the greatest problem to our planet. Everyone else had ulterior motives behind their beliefs, whether it was aesthetic (penguins and polar bears), consumeristic (hydrogen cars), or ridiculo-- er, religious (we're destroying God's planet).

I guess this Thanksgiving, I was thankful for Simon's assignment. Because for the first time in six years, we managed to end the meal without arguing over alcoholism, marital problems, or whether this Thanksgiving will be grandma's last.

And now for something ridiculously long

Well, I’m not dead or disowned, so that’s a positive way to start. My family is a mixed bag to say the least, so I thought it would be best, and shift the focus away from me (I’m quite shy and there is only so much blushing one can do safely before
your face falls off) if I made everyone participate. I asked in a very broad, very politic manner, what does everyone think about global climate change?

My grandmother, a steadfast republican and sole funder of the McCain campaign, said that she thought that climate change was happening, and there was nothing we could do about it because everyone was too stuck in their ways. Then she began to talk about the Book of Revelations and Armageddon.

My uncle, a lawyer, farmer, and conservationist, thought that it was all very anthropocentric and that we could probably do no lasting damage to the planet, though we could damage ourselves. He also thought that if there was going to be change then it had to be systemic, that it had to come from the government.

My male cousin in high school said that he thought it was real, caused by humans, and was frustrated by our inaction. He wondered why we had not done more, using solar, wind, and hydropower.

My other male cousin, in middle school, said he thought it was a serious problem, but that most of the people his own age just ignored it. He said it was easy because there is no obvious change yet in NH (if you are not carefully observing or involved in agriculture. Our area of NH has shifted from growing zone 4, a colder zone, to 5, a warmer zone, since my family moved here in the seventies).

My mom, a lifelong environmentalist, gardener, and office manager, thought that the change had to be systemic and that if we did nothing we would have a crisis on our hands. She said that nothing would happen without government intervention.

My godfather, a botanist and loan officer said that this was the same thing which they had been dealing with since the seventies with my uncle, and that we really had to do something soon. He said that Americans have issues balancing humility with narcissism, and he mentioned the importance of local communities, sustainable energy, and local farming.

My dad, a consultant for the Green Lodging Program for hotels, said that we would put off change until the last possible moment, and at that point we would be forced to change and then reduce national consumption while assisting other nations with their transitions

My other uncle, the director of the Resource Management and Conservation Program at Antioch University of New England, said (because he couldn’t help himself) that he hadn’t thought much of it at all. I then crumpled up the printed copy of the blogging assignment and threw it at him, but I digress. Then he said that in order to effect any change you need communication, and that you need the masses on board.

My uncle’s guest, a Ford Fellow in ecology and public policy from China, said that he believed that it was a serious problem, and that developing countries should not have to go the change alone. He then mentioned the work he was doing on wedges, and how if you took the swath of land 100 miles wide, and from North Dakota to Texas, and covered it with wind mills that it would only cover one seventh of our energy needs.
My uncle’s partner, a special education teacher and administrator, said that she thought there was definitely climate change, but was not sure if all of it was anthropogenic in nature. She also thought we absolutely needed to update our infrastructure

My aunt, an administrator for alumni affairs at Dartmouth College, thought that grassroots change was very important, and that climate change was a real and pressing problem. She thought that the system had to change, even if it meant 4 dollar gas. She thought that people would not change voluntarily.

Because the assignment was to sort of sway opinion, every once in a while I would interject, though often I would have to stand up and yell at everyone just to get their attention. I talked about Maniates, and the trinity of despair, and how really you only need a small group of dedicated individuals to bring about change (at this point my uncle and his guest became excited and talked about the research on hope he was doing, and how Maniates was at the forefront of thought in this area). I talked about Obama and his green jobs program and how he would probably be improving infrastructure through that, and hopefully would also put in light rail systems. I said that it was true that Americans were ridiculously short sighted, that on the Hofstede scale of short-term orientation we were quite bad. I also agreed with Wenjun that it was important for the United States to not just expect developing nations to fall in line, and mentioned what my IR research professor said about how the sort of institutions in existence influence the kinds of actions that are taken. I then mentioned my idea for a new international institution which was solely for the environment and which would fund developing nations so that they did not make the same mistakes as the developed world. At some point I also mentioned that even though people are short-sighted, that they would probably be less so if they knew that we had a time line of about five to seven years to get with the program.

All in all it wasn't bad, and required minimal imbibing (apple juice of course).

The trinity works all too well

The Trinity of Despair is something that has often cropped up, with different variables, during my extensive conversations about such topics. These discussions have often ended in, ‘well we cannot do X, Y, or Z, because it will never work. This is America, people are lazy, stupid, etc, and they voted for George Bush. So we should not even try doing X, Y, Z, because it will never work.’ (Notice the repetition of ‘it will never work’). The discussion then usually shifts, and we start insulting Georgey Boy, which is how the conversation began, so could it be more of a circle of despair?

It is easy to give up when people who ought to be able to grasp a concept refuse to for their own benefit; it is easy to give up when you know people who have worked for decades in the environmental movement and have little to show for their efforts. But that of course is the trinity of despair: nothing will change, people are stupid, all they will do is buy Energy Star Appliances and call it a day.

There is one aspect though, of the Trinity that I believe will soon begin to work in the environment’s favor. This aspect is that of social change only occurring under crises. After reading the Monbiot article, as well as some of the predictions from the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report for 2025, it is clear that we are standing at the edge of a rather urgent crisis. I hate when people leverage suffering for their own advantage, but I think that such a crisis would make the passage of energy reduction laws swift and painless. Then again this is all predicated on whether people know the extent of the problem. So don’t despair, educate the masses. (Though it is probably best not to call them greedy bitches, what with the bitch part being quite insulting to women, whatever the context.)

The Trinity

Well, to be honest, Maniates' trinity was really not big news for me. I think the points that he explains are ones that have been discussed for a long time and maybe the only thing that really shiny new about them is that he has organized them all together and applied them to the idea of environmental change. Not that I disagree with his points at all, quite the contrary in most senses, but I just did not find his notions anything stunning or groundbreaking. I like that he has set up his ideas so that they are seperate but all entertwined. That just makes the argument a little more comprehensible for those of us starting out on our own environmental quests.

I think that people are more likely to be lazy than selfish, especially when it comes to the environment. I mean, based on what we have learned this semester (and in light of our class discussion on Friday, which I found some peoples' responses quite shocking), it is much more comfortable and easy to live a state of denial about certain issues than to take them to heart and actually act. I'm not saying that everyone should be mopey and despressing, but sometimes the people who understand the gravity of the problem and accept it are the ones who are able to get passed their realist understanding to come up with really great ideas.

Anyway, back onto the topic. I agree that a few people are usually the ones who make the difference for a social movement. But I am unclear as to how many is "a few". Is it 35% of a population? Or is it literally a few leaders and such that these 35% put in power? Not sure. Maybe I've just forgotten from Friday. Either way, I also believe that support is needed from a larger population in order to focus efforts on a smaller group. This might not make as much sense out loud as it seems to in my head. But basically, people inspire eachother to become more active and it just depends on whether or not those people will step up and take the bigger sacrifices.

Trinity of Despair

After looking at Professor Maniates "trinity of despair", I've been able to gain a totally new perspective on environmental change. So far we've been talking about major actions taken - Montreal Protocol, Kyoto Protocol, etc. and now we've began to look at individual action. Each "point" of the triangle is easily applicable to our society - and it makes sense; people are selfish, people go with crowds (usually), and people like easy things. Despite these assumptions and their truth factor, I has never though to look at them in a way as if they were holding us back. The most profound being that we don't need everyone on board to do something. Although it may seem as though mass numbers are needed to effectively change something, it's true that if a few people are passionate and determined enough, change can happen.

Another factor I had not considered was that giving people the easy option is not the best option. I had always though that if you give people a few simple steps to follow, that they would be able to be easily incorporated in their everyday life, resulting in a large scale change at the end. But as we discussed in class, people work their best when presented with harder tasks.

I'm still trying to fully analyze and understand the trinity of despair and how it really works. I was always convinced that the factors of the triangle were the ways to create change - mass social change, and easy options. I never stopped to think that these assumptions were the very ones holding us back.

Cradle to Cradle

As someone who was raised in a waste not want not environment (there is a greenhouse, it has algae) I laughed my way through the description of the drab little 'eco-friendly' book. The writers evoke an almost Soviet austerity, and clearly want to place themselves in the brave new Glastnost of the environmental movement. I can almost hear the authors. We are hedonistic, full of life, let us distance ourselves from those people with their sad soy-based inks and Siberia. We have a happy book, it is in your hands! You can even wash it! Jokes aside, they almost have me. But when they mention that they want to live in a world of abundance and without limits, it sets all my cynic bells ringing. Without limits? Can I fly now too (without an airplane clearly)? How can a closed loop possibly be achieved with unlimited growth? Yes, they mean positive growth, growth of aspects like health, diversity, or intelligence. I like their ideas, I just hope it doesn't hurt too much when they hit that brick wall they seem to be speeding towards. To be fair, it's a very happy book.

I agree with Jordan that my cynicism has been somewhat dispelled by McDonough and Braungart's fresh ideas and vision for society. I think the whole idea of waste=food and using the closed loop production ideas for wide-spread industries is very innovative and very optimistic. The fact that they have actually achieved the construction of buildings which can be essentially run independently is really quite brilliant and gives me hope that a vision of the future might not be so dark and silent after all.

I respect McDonough and Braungart for their ability to transform the idea of what is profitable and good in the minds of CEO's and manufacturers. They are obviously very passionate about what they do because otherwise, they would not be so successful at persuading companies to accept their ideas and switch to this whole concept of making products that are completely safe for everyone, not just the environment. They have made the transition very profitable, which pleases the businessmen, and also legitimately eco and people friendly. As a consumer, I wish that they had the power to transform industries so quickly that I would never have to worry about getting cancer from my T-shirt ever again.

Most of the texts that we have read have pounded one idea into our brains: whatever you do, it won't be enough. I agree. But, I have come to accept that the world will never be as it was before humans emerged; there will never be forests as dense or natural extinction rates. Humans are destructive by nature and always have been (or at least that's what I thought. I've never imagined people being a GOOD thing for the environment). We are an invasive species, capable of surviving in every environment. To the rest of the species on the planet, we probably seem a step above cockroaches. For me, McDonough has conjured up the best plan for people to co-exist with nature without being harmful by negligent designs and indifference in our systems. He makes me wonder if we really are destined to be detrimental to the planet, or if WE are designed by nature to be better than that. I have come to terms with the fact that the planet will never be as it once was. But I have also adopted McDonough's idea that people can conceivably have a positive impact on some aspects of the environment and that the system does not have to be as it is, nor do we have to strip down to our skivvies, pick up our spears and head back to the caves.

McDonough has given us a small scale model of the kind of buildings and manufacturing that we need to have if we hope to save the planet from further degredation and hopefully save ourselves in the process. The real challange is implementing McDonough's ideas on a broad scale. It takes time to transform a factory or a building into a structure that embodies his beliefs, and it is time that we do not really have. We need to halt biodiversity loss and environmental harm sooner rather than later. Maybe this thought is outlandish, but think of the good that could come if we set Van Jones up with McDonough and Braungart. Jones could train young people to work with McDonough's ideas and they could re-make buildings a lot faster. Maybe I'm hallucinating or something, but it seems like there are people who have good ideas and we should use these ideas now.

My cynicism has left the cradle

Michael Braungart and William McDonough have come up with a truly inspiring vision for reshaping industry on a global level. If you look at the majority of my posts on this blog, between now and the beginning of the semester, you will notice a lot of cynicism on my behalf. I spend a lot of time criticizing the idea that technology can save us from the numerous environmental crises we have unleashed on the planet, and also describe the disdain I have for people who look at technology as the ultimate solution to our problems.

Well, Braungart and McDonough have changed that-- to an extent.

Both authors have a noble vision for a technological future, one which embraces technology while also embracing environmental responsibility. The way to make a positive impact on the environment is to look for solutions which engage in environmentally sound practices. Making certain fabrics biodegradable, making products which can be disassembled and returned to the environment, constructing buildings which utilize the environment in as many practicle ways as possible-- these are simple philosophies which, with a little effort and financial backing, could be implemented on a national and even global scale. If you combine the "Cradle to Cradle" approach to technology with the green industrial movement, this could serve as the next crucial step in our industrial revolution. Taking industry back to nature, and making industry more compatable with nature, should be a top priority for us. And hell, we'll even reap some financial benefits along the way, if we're lucky.

Of course, there is room for skepticism. My concern is that this movement is only surviving in the "environmentalist niche," especially in the United States. In other words, businesses which are looking to become "green" are the ones exploring these alternatives, while the majority of businesses haven't heard of what these two authors have proposed. Additionally, some of the ideas both authors have come up with seem to be fairly expensive, and I wonder whether struggling industries or small businesses would be able to grasp the "cradle to cradle" philosophy, as much as multibillion dollar entities have. After all, what good is something like this if only a few groups of people have financial access to it?

Never the less, I feel as though businesses which can afford this approach should start looking into the practices promoted by these two authors. I also think this needs to be promoted more to the general public, especially those who may be looking into starting a business of their own. This could go a long way, and Braungart and McDonough deserve to revel in their optimism.

The Lorax Remix

We want local markets
with no sales targets
where profit is not the goal
(unless you're a troll)

Tomatoes should be red and fresh
not some jumbled up DNA mess
We don't mind a few bugs here and there
As long as our veggies are treated with care.


Ingredients that cannot be pronounced
should not be left unannounced
but rather should be quickly denounced
and by REAL food be trampled and trounced.

Together, with time, we can make the air clean,
the water pure, and the plants and trees green
We'll work and work in rain or shine
with the power of dozens of caring minds.

(awesome start melanie. Thanks!)

Wedges Game

So, after a long weekend of paper writing, I'm sure we're all ecstatic to participate in the wedges game tomorrow. Simon sent out an email last week detailing what we need to do to prepare for tomorrow's class, and each of us needs to research one of four categories which provide technological options for combating climate change.

The four categories are:
1. Efficiency
2. Decarbonization of Power
3. Decarbonization of Fuel
4. Forest and Agricultural Soil

Because I was so innovative to post this, I am claiming the Decarbonization of Power group. I believe we have five members, so we will need to have two people research one category.

Simon's email provides links to valuable information about each of these categories, and it also explains this exercise a bit more in-depth. So, check your inboxes!

Green collar

I think Van Jones has brilliant ideas for what he wants to do with our society and climate change. Recently, with this election of ours it seems as though this topic was a vital one in the debates. We already wrote blogs about the candidates platforms for their environmental plans, and it was evident that green collar jobs would be a new phenomenon.

Van Jones does not only recognize the important of green collar jobs and an industry devoted to protecting this fragile environment of ours, but he also takes into account the social status of people in the US. Also, recently, the state of our economy can come into play here. So many people have lost their jobs because of this economic crisis we have been in for the past few months, and no one can determine when exactly we will pull ourselves out of it. By incorporating lower income families, especially from impoverished areas, this will not only deter the young individuals from making choices they might be forced into (violence, drugs, etc) because they have no choice, but could also potentially boost our economy immensely - all while striving to fix the vast environmental harm and strain we have put on this planet.

Dr. Suess

hey guys, i was bored in the past five minutes so i started the poem thingy

we don't have to use it, it's kind of lame, and it's just a start. see you friday!

Dear Mr. Onceler,
We are writing to you,
Regarding your choices,
That just will not do.

You gave a child a seed,
While that helps some indeed,
A seed’s not what we need,
What we need is less greed!

We need more people to see
OUR responsibilities
That we must work collectively
To find better energies

Mr. Onceler, we beg you
Do not hand off this task
We must all work together,
This is a small thing we ask.

A single tree’s too small a vision
We need lower gas emissions
And less people over fishin’
In the earth that we were given

We need less overpopulation
And more ration in our nation
Because the I=PAT equation
Is no small tribulation

-Melanie

Joely, I agree with you on a lot of levels. "Refreshing" was just the word I was hoping to apply to Van Jones. And, Jordan, while I tend to agree with you that American's are self-serving, I think that you might have failed to see the bigger picture that Friedman addressed in even his first couple of paragraphs. For some people it's not that they would rather spend their money on new cars and a more brightly colored ipods, it's that they would rather spend their money on food, and put their efforts into making sure their kids grow up safe and with a better education. Everyone faces problems in their life, some more often and more grave than others. You can't expect a family who's parents work one or more full time jobs, and who's children walk to school in fear of others in their neighborhood, who can't afford medicare or heat in the winter to truly care about the polar bears. At the same time, I don't think you're going to find an avid environmentalist with even half of these problems. Worrying about the environment is a almost a luxury awarded to those who don't have to worry about from where their children will be getting their next meal. Basic needs of shelter, safety, and health need to be met before people can progress their interests to the bigger picture of politics or the environment.
This is why I think that Van Jones' ideas could revolutionize the way in which we think about the environment. He promotes a means of addressing the economic and social needs of people that would directly involve them in aiding the environment. He's not running about saying that people will only lend a hand if they can get a job or two out of it, he simply understands that people need to satisfy these needs before they can care about anything else. It's smart, revolutionary, and promotes the concept that we can all make a difference. People won't put their lives on hold for the environment, and Van Jones, by linking the two with his 'elegant solutions', can do a lot of good on both planes.

Wait, is that...optimism?

I remember reading about the Civilian Conservation Corps for the first time, and thinking that the United States could 'kill several birds with one stone' (not the best expression for the topic) if they would just do something like that. Van Jones confirms that belief:

“The green economy has the power to deliver new sources of work, wealth and health to low-income people — while honoring the Earth. If you can do that, you just wiped out a whole bunch of problems. We can make what is good for poor black kids good for the polar bears and good for the country.”

The intersection between the environment and the economy is a clear one. There is the very basic issue that without the biosphere there would be no economy, none at all. The social inequalities of the United States demonstrate that the 'resources' that are being 'harvested' from that biosphere are not being distributed equally among the inhabitants in our corner of the world (or any corner, really). That such a problem, inequality of resource distribution, could be partially solved by the protection and enhancement of those 'resources'(sorry I hate that word, it is reductionist) is beautifully simple. And it seems apropos that I am typing this on the day that Obama*, who says that he wants to create millions of green jobs, might be elected. I wish him, and Van Jones, the best of luck in their endeavors.



*Yes I snarked on him on a previous post, and the snark stands, because I think he set his sights too low.

A Different Shade of Green

Personally, I felt extremely refreshed after reading about Van Jones' ideas. Finally someone who does not want some new technology that only the rich can afford, or to forget all about the way of life that we have created. His plan is the first one I've read that I actually thought was feasible for implementation in the U.S. because it could satisfy the economists, while also working towards reforming our market into a more environmentally friendly system. I am sure there are those who would argue that his plan will only contribute to the continued destruction of the environment because it only encourages our current way of life. But, for now, (at least) this might be the best way to begin our transition to a more radical solution in the future.

My favorite thing about Jones' plan is that he incorporates low-income and impoverished young people into his solution. I think he is the first person to even address the disparity problems in our readings this semester. He uses his race to gain access to poor communities and to convince younger people that they have a better option than gangs and violence. His seeming ability to gain support from multiple facets is very interesting. He makes his race work in his favor but also has a good idea to boost the economy, which all rich people like to here. It a pretty intelligent way or bridging the gaps. My concern for his ideas is that the changes will not be drastic enough, but what plan would be? That is the whole problem. We have gotten ourselves into an environmental crisis over time, and no one should expect us to suddenly have a universal solution at the drop of a hat. There will have to be compromise and Jones' plan is a viable option.

Green Collar Jobs: The Next American Revolution

The United States is a stubborn, selfish nation. That may seem like a fairly blunt statement to make, especially from someone who may want to venture into the political realm someday, but it is true at its core. If we, as a nation, are going to mobilize behind one issue, there had better be an outcome from our decision to change the status quo which benefits us directly. Otherwise, you should not expect us to selflessly throw our support behind the issue in question.

Such is the case with global climate change. Thomas Friedman highlights an excellent point in his article, "The Green Collar Solution," when he discusses an environmentalist's attempts to persuade rural Nebraskans to fight for the protection of polar bears. Many people in this country have never seen a polar bear up close, nor do they understand their impact on the ecosystem. Why should someone in Omaha, NE care about this issue? With climate change, most people are unaware of how it affects them directly. As a result, they are more concerned about issues which affect them on a daily basis: rising energy prices, the rising costs of goods and services, and the lack of job growth in once-prominent industrial states, such as Michigan or Ohio. Climate change, therefore, is tossed on the backburner and left to sizzle, presumably until it erupts into a large fire we didn't see coming because we didn't pay enough attention to it in the first place.

However, Van Jones has done something which I think few environmentalists have been able to do, and that is make the issue of climate change more personal. Gone is the same old rhetoric from dry, tree-hugging liberals such as Al Gore and Mo Udall about melting ice caps and dying polar bears; instead, the discussion has evolved into a bread-and-butter debate about job growth and economic investments which, if implemented in a precise way, would both 1) help average people live their daily lives, and 2) protect the planet at the same time.

If an environmentalist went into Youngstown, OH--a city once known for its booming industrial factories but is no longer the beacon of economic success it once was-- and told many of its citizens that the green collar jobs movement will not only bring employment and economic revitalization to these communities, I have a feeling very few people would shun the idea. The same could be said in practically ever corner of the country, from the rolling hills of the Northeast to the dry desert plains of the Southwest. Our stagnant economy has caused people to ask for creative solutions to many of our problems, and most would admit that any significant investment into economic revitalization which would create jobs and reduce energy prices is a good investment. Wind, solar, clean coal, even nuclear power-- the creation of an expansive energy infrastructure would create thousands of jobs and offer economic incentives to communities across the country.

I think Van Jones has drafted a sound blueprint for confronting climate change among certain constituencies, especially those who are looking for alternative career options in this economic crisis. Moreover, he has offered economic incentives at the personal and community level which puts job creation first and climate change second-- a sacrifice which, at least in this respect, must be made if we ever hope to take a united stand against the elements which have contributed to human-induced environmental impact.

Enchanting experiences...

I must say I haven't had many "enchanting experiences" with the non-human world. I've grown up in a city my whole life, and my hometown Kiev is definitely not a place where nature is prevalent. Our botanical gardens may be the size of our classroom. However, in the summer of 2007 I went to Rapid City, South Dakota for about 3 weeks. I was in complete culture shock, but I knew I wanted to experience it. I'd say the most magical thing I experienced there was something I never really thought about. The fact that there were such wide open spaces, the sky actually turned black at night, and the best: I could taste the fresh air that hadn't been tainted with industrialized smoke and toxins.

At home, I'm not one to really go outside and look at the stars...mostly because I can barely see them, but when I was in middle America, I could actually see more than four stars, without a purple haze in the background. I had also never noticed the difference of air throughout parts of the world. It was so clean, crisp, and fresh...definitely not like home.

...nature

I realize that I'm somewhat of the under-voiced class cynic, but I figure we're past midterms...why change my tune now? I mean I guess if I try hard enough I can think of the view from Ireland's Cliff's of Moher, or the natural hot water springs on an island off the Amalfi Coast, or even the October drive home to Pittsburgh and the rolling orange and yellow hills. But when I think of my experiences with nature I most often remember the time I received 12 'enchanting' bee-stings in the same summer, one being on the very tip of my nose. I think of the delightful garden snake that found its way into my pillow case. I remember one magical moment where I lay on my trampoline next to my date whilst watching the stars as they shown through the leaves of the tree above. I also remember the fat-lip I received from the exquisitely placed acorn that fell from it's branches. I think of battle that goes on in my head before I lay out by my pool: suntan lotion, or bug spray? At one point this summer I had 18 mosquito bites...on my left foot!
But in really thinking about these things I can begin to understand that there were so many bee's around my house that summer because the woods and wildflowers were being worked over to make room for a new housing complex, and we became one of the few flowery areas within a couple acres. I can also understand that when we dug beside our house to make room for a new garage, we also destroyed the edge of the woods where that snake might have previously lived. There are so many mosquito's in my neighborhood because the small creek that used to run through our backyard sits stagnant for most of the time because the borough office tried to re-route it a half mile down to make room for their new fire-house and it's never been the same. I mean there is absolutely no excuse for the acorn, I am still upset about that.
But the conclusion I can at least come to is that we have profound impacts on nature...which just so happens to be the environment in which we live. So unless we want snakes in our homes, we probably shouldn't destroy theirs.

Humans above nature... A bit cocky for a bunch of primates...

If someone had asked me that question three years ago I would have probably laughed in their face. Asking me that question then would have been as inane as asking me the best breath of air I had ever taken. Unfortunately I can now answer both of those questions (I would of course say that my best breath of air has not been taken in DC). My answer to the real question though, is pertinent not because of its rarity or its “thrilling” quality, but my clarity in remembrance. I was probably about ten years old and I was sitting in a willow tree. I was watching the insects on the bark, when I heard something in the branch next to me. I looked over and saw a woodpecker (I’m pretty sure it was a male Yellow-bellied Sapsucker). I must have watched it for at least twenty minutes until it flew away.

Clearly saving “nature” is something that must happen as humans, being primates and not androids, rely upon it for our survival. The debate is most likely in degree. Do we want quaintly tamed and thoroughly domesticated fields (not that I have anything against fields, my parents did name me after one after all) with a hedgerow thrown in for good measure? Is that what gets to count for nature? Many areas of the world with histories of ungulate domestication look like this, and the people there survive just fine. However I would say that survival for just one species (humans) does not outclass the many species that would be there and thriving if not for our ridiculous need for dominance of space. I mean really it’s quite rude. “Hi, yes, I’m a human; I’m coming in and cutting everything down, or plowing it to oblivion. Once I do this I might repopulate it with those creatures that remind me of my deforested homeland…Or I might just a put up a shopping mall, hard to tell at this point. “

Of course we are learning the hard way that this sort of life on a large scale does not translate well. We are suffering with global climate change, desertification, pollution, and extinction after extinction of species. If that’s the best we can do, well you can find me in northern Canada. I’ll be chilling out on the Tundra in my deck chair and watching the permafrost melt.

The Forgotten Worth of Nature

Last May, I was offered a job by my father to direct the ecology program at a Boy Scout camp in Upstate New York. As a result, I was forced to endure a week at National Camping School, sponsored by the BSA, where I would learn the fundamentals of my job. While the logistics of the program made for an experience as pleasurable as licking an electric fence, I did have a rather amazing experience within the natural environment. One evening, a few of my colleagues and I went to the lake which this school sat on. Along the far edge of the lake was a levee which overlooked a valley, and allowed the excess lake water to spill over a dam and into a stream below. We sort of sat there, just listening to the sounds of the ecosystem which surrounded us-- frogs croaking, insects bouncing off the water, assorted creatures rustling through the nearby forests, etc. At the same time, a storm was rolling in, and the thunder crashed between the mountains within this valley in the middle of rural Pennsylvania. Lightning struck the ground a few miles off in the distance, and the rain began to fall heavily.

I consider this experience to be one of the most enlightening things I have ever personally been through. The meditative experience allowed me to truly concentrate on the natural environment which surrounded me, and the complexity of nature spoke to me on both a spiritual and scientific level. Furthermore, it proved to me that maintaining our natural environment and doing everything we can to ensure that such diverse, expansive ecosystems are preserved should be a top priority by all of us.

As my summer advanced and I performed the duties of my job, I further realized how important it is that we invest in saving nature. In today's day and age, children are too concerned with watching television or putzing around on the internet. Even I find myself more inclined to update my Facebook page than to go out and do something outdoorsy. We are becoming more and more detached from nature, and as this becomes a dangerous trend on a societal level, I fear that conservation efforts will be hindered. How are future generations going to save this planet if they have never experienced all that nature has to offer us? Looking at a picture of the Adirondacks on Google Images is imcomparable to spending a weekend climbing one of those mountains or camping in a nearby park. It seems impossible, to me, for people to value something when they do not know the full extent of its worth. Somehow, we need to reinstill the value and worth of nature into our growing generations-- a key step in conserving our natural environment and keeping in tact well into the next century.

Question on one of the id's

Hey, sorry to bother you all, but could one of you tell me what you know about ecological displacement? Or perhaps which reading it was mentioned in?
Thanks, good luck studying.

Food...

I hate to say this but no way do I think about where my food came from. All I worry about is that it's in the grocery store. I don't think of food and grocery shopping as a form of environmental harm...nor do I really want to because out of guilt I know I'd change what I eat.

On the list we made in class, it was mostly fresh produce and fish. My roommates and I eat A LOT of sushi, and I would think that's the food with the most environmental impact. The fact that I usually only have tuna is worse. Our fisheries are already overused, and my consumption only adds to it. I also eat a lot of fruit, especially the more exotic ones: pineapple, mango, etc. I can't imagine that the price of a pound matches the costs for fuel, shipping, packaging etc.

The fact that I just came home from grocery shopping isn't making this blog post any easier. But to think of it, I didn't buy any mangoes or pineapple, but I did buy apples and nectarines. I did buy a lot of fish too...but I swear I normally never buy this much fish - I just go out to dinner for sushi - which might be worse. I know this whole blog thing (especially this topic) is supposed to make me reconsider my habits as an individual, but I honestly don't think I could change what I buy because of the environmental impact. Everything has an impact, the most I can do is decrease the amount of what I buy, and maybe not to go to dinner for sushi every other day. We'll see how long that lasts...

Like most things we discuss on this blog and in class, I have never given food a second thought on the environmental level. I mean, I thought the worst that could happen was that we stress the land trying to grow too many vegetables. Man, was I wrong! Hitherto, grocery shopping was an delicate step by step process.

1. What can I get away with throwing on top of lettuce that will still qualify it as a salad? French Fries, check!
2. Of the brands provided, which frozen bag boasts the least calories?
3. Of the lower calorie ones, which is cheapest?
4. Oh! I forgot! I have a 'buy two get one free' coupon for the really fattening kind, I'll buy those instead!

Then I'm really lazy, so to ensure that I don't just eat the french fries alone, I purchase the prechopped, prebagged Giant brand lettuce that you just have to pour into a bowl, no work needed. Then I buy some oranges, bananas, apples and the like. (How I miss tdr when you could steal them!) The point is, the environment never enters as a factor and I cringe when I think, 'Really? do I have to shop at Whole Foods now? That's sooo expensive, and the old women who shop there are really snooty.

But then I think, I eat oranges and pineapple all the time. a truck, the kind you get stuck behind on the highway and roll your windows up for, had to lug this fruit half way cross the country just to get to me. And these french fries had to be bagged in a factory with a special kind of plastic that can go into the freezer. And who knows where this lettuce came from, but it wasn't the organic section! I'm basically learning that I suck as a consumer. But in all honesty, being environmentally aware is a privilege not all people can afford. Whole Foods we know is much more expensive than the average grocery store, and many families can't afford the prices or the time it takes to drive out to a farmer's market. A single mother working two jobs isn't going to come home and peel fresh carrots and steam them with freshly chopped brocolli and hand mashed potatoes. She's going to pop a bag out of the freezer and have a cheap dinner for four on the table in minutes. The mom that can afford to stay home all day can afford to stroll through Whole Foods and pour organic milk into her children's morning Kashi. So I don't think that it's a viable solution to have consumers make better choices, I think that it's up to the grocers to make more environmentally safe foods more available and at lower prices.

It's quite a conversation in there

As a vegan who tries (effort reduces considerably depending upon levels of chocolate craving and hunger levels) to eat locally grown and organic foods I spend considerable time thinking about the environmental impact of what I eat. Were organic methods really used? Was it grown on a small farm or one of those seemingly endless farms in the Midwest? Was irrigation used? Does the farmer use responsible crop rotation? How much petroleum or other fossil fuels were used to produce it and bring it from the farm to my fork? And why on earth is it wrapped in fifty yards of plastic? Why do I have to choose between 'conventionally' grown local foods and organic foods grown by a corporation in California? Should I really be buying fruit in the middle of winter? What would happen to my health if I did not? Wouldn't it be better to grow it in a greenhouse than ship it in from Chile or New Zealand, or would heating the greenhouse all winter use more fossil fuels than having it shipped?

As I have been sick recently, I have been subsisting mostly on crackers, watered down juice boxes, and the occasional cup of tea. Which is worse? Is it the crackers, produced by the dreaded "Kraft Foods Global, inc," with no hint as to where they were made, and of course with an extra dash of high fructose corn syrup? Is it the organic green tea, grown on Chinese "tea estates?" Or is the juice, produced by Apple & Eve LLC, and masquerading as 100% juice, when it has added citric acid and natural flavor? And the final question, and the most important of all, I would think, is the following. Does what I consume make any difference if the current global system of food productions remains unchanged?

If powder turns into coffee cake after 30 seconds in the microwave, is it really food?

So, coming from an economically distressed area, I had never really thought about the food I was consuming. We did not have Whole Foods or any other store that could boast locally grown organic produce. In the right time of the year, we would buy produce from neighbors who had little stands set up in their front yards, but I never really considered the environmental impact of food until I came to college. I have given up bottled water and soda in any form. I do indulge in the occasional Powerade/Gatorade type beverage during a tough rugby game or something. But I try to drink nothing but filtered water. As far as food, I spend a lot of time in TDR. I do not usually understand the intricacies of what their policy toward environmentally friendly food, but I assume they are focused on cost effectiveness. It seems like they have more locally grown stuff this year though, and I try to eat a few items from the farm to fork section.

I would say that on my list of consumed food last week, I would say that the one that caused the most environmental harm was probably this instant coffee cake thing that my mom sent me. It was basically a little dish with powder and water that you mix in, stick in the microwave and voila!- you have a coffee cake! I really am not sure where something like that comes from. I mean, does it even contain anything aside from chemical compounds? Probably not. But, it was shipped from somewhere to somewhere else and then from my mom in Ohio to me. I cannot imagine that instant coffee cake could possibly be safe for the environment...or me, for that matter. I also realized that I eat a lot of grains. A LOT of grains. I have really cut back my meat consumption to the point where I only have it once a week or less. Now everything I eat seems to be centered around wheat and rice. I guess now I know why we grow so much of those two. Throw in some corn and we've got a party.

The Environmentalist in Me Would Be Happy if I Starved

Before I started taking an interest in environmental issues, I never used to put much thought into my food choices. I would consume several bottles of water or soda daily, I would purchase food which was prepared on the other side of the country, and I never did any real research into what I ate on a regular basis. Roughly a year ago, when I became much more interested in environmental protection, I realized that I had a rather large impact on the environment, solely based on the food choices I made. I stopped drinking bottled beverages regularly, and began drinking water through a faucet filter and consuming soda from cans instead; I started to purchase produce locally; and I began researching which national companies are friendlier towards the environment than others. Additionally, I have stopped eating as much as I used to, and average between two and three meals with no snacking in between. This is not only a personal health choice, but a choice made to reduce my own environmental impact.

When I reflect on the list which we made in class, however, I cannot honestly answer which of my food options has had the greatest environmental impact. The reason why I am uncertain is because most of the food I consume here, at American University, is on a meal plan provided by the school. American University has a record of being an ecologically friendly institution; however, I am not sure if the food which is served at TDR, Block Express, or the Tavern is locally produced or purchased from around the world. Of the items I consumed which were not provided by the university, I would say that the Jolly Ranchers I have been slowly consuming over the past few weeks have had the most environmental impact. The package says they were processed in Illinois; from there, they were sent to upstate New York; next, my parents sent them to me through the mail; and now, I am consuming them and disposing of each individual plastic wrapper which will unsuredly survive a century or so in a landfill somewhere.

FINALLY! someone else who's cynical !

Of COURSE technology isn't going anywhere! Joely you are 100% correct. WE are the ones who have to figure out how to use technology to our benefit and not to our destruction. It's not like we're inventing new farming techniques and then saying "OH NO...RUN...we can't stop the progress!" No...we continue to use it until it's no longer economically consistent/the soil turns to shit and we have to move elsewhere.

It's kind of like saying 'guns don't kill, people do'

Technology isn't destroying the planet, WE are USING technology to do that quite nicely on our own. As Joely said, computers aren't going anywhere, our affluence (and with that it's inherent partner: technology) is not going to degenerate, but WE, the makers of technology, can generate it to our liking.

On the other hand, new technologies won't save us either. We have to reprogram ourselves as well - our way of thinking about how we use it. We're never going to change what we do, but we can certainly adjust the way we do it.

The Eye of the Beholder: Technology

Technology is viewed as a necessity for maintaining our contemporary life. For some, it is the great mysterious entity that will eventually save us from the damage that we have caused. For others, it is the beast that has allowed all of this environmental destruction in the first place. I agree that technology has never been good for the environment and that farming and such has been gradually degrading the land since the first days of agriculture. The part I have trouble with is that technology may be destroying the planet, but we are the ones dictating how it is used. Right now, we are using our technology to over-fish our bodies of water and cut down our forests. But, it does not have to be this way. Technology will never be good for the environment, but we can at least try to stop the ways in which it is being used for blatant destruction.

I do not know if technology will save us or accelerate us on our path to total ruin, but I do know one thing: it is not going anywhere, so we better figure out a way to cope with it. We have reached a point from which we cannot retreat anytime soon. We have built technology into our lives. The question is, to what extent? No one wants to live without a computer. It is how we communicate, how we blog, how we learn, and very few will want to sacrifice that. Societal changes must be made to radically reduce consumption and the decline of the most destructive kinds of technology will hopefully follow. For better or worse, technology will be around for a while. We must decide how it will be used for the future. We have to be the ones to change, and demand change.

The Overhyped Savior

When I think about technology and whether it will provide a solution to our environmental problems, I am drawn back to our earlier discussion about the presidential candidates and the visions they have for America's environmental future. If there is anything both John McCain and Barack Obama have in common, it is their belief that technological innovation will be our savior, and will help correct centuries of wrongs which the developed world inflicted on our planet's stability. In fact, both candidates represent the mentality which currently exists in the United States, that through science and technology, we will be able to save the world before it is too late. Of course, I cannot help but scoff at the collective mindset, and I am not convinced that technological innovation alone will save the planet and put us on a path to maintaining a constant state of sustainable development.

Do not get me wrong-- technology is a beautiful thing, and many technological advancements will help us inch closer to solving many issues which plague our environment. Hybrid vehicles, for example, currently reduce our need for oil [though it does not eliminate that need]. Solar and wind power produce energy without relying on non-renewable resources extracted from the earth. Fluorescant lighting, mentioned here several times before, are far more energy efficent than incandescant bulbs. All of these are useful technologies which will help us slow down our impact on the environment, perhaps even put it at a stand still if enough people are willing to utilize them.

But we cannot rely on technology as a savior while we continue to live in a consumeristic society. As useful technology advances, useless technology is prone to advance as well. For every Toyota Prius we see navigating the streets of Washington, DC, there are dozens of iPods nestled in the pockets of our commuters. For every wind farm which is erected, hundreds of sixty-inch plasma screen televisions will be sold to consumers with a little extra cash to throw away. And as technology evolves, and the iPod gives way to the next generation music device, those obsolute technologies will eventually find themselves buried in a landfill somewhere, releasing toxins into the environment and taking up space which could be used for something worthwhile, such as housing and farming.

Perhaps technology will save us. Perhaps, decades from now, scientists will invent something so revolutionary, so extraordinary that human kind will be able to put its faith into it as a true savior of the environment. Perhaps we will figure out a way to utilize other planets as places for our trash, or maybe we will discover a renewable source of energy so powerful and clean, our energy needs will be met for centuries [such as Helium 3, which Chinese scientists are hoping to extract from the moon by 2030]. But for now, we cannot place all of our stock in technological innovation if we want to save the earth. We must rely on the legal system, international cooperation, and personal lifestyle changes to work coincidentally with technologicy if we hope to truly reverse our impact on the global environment.

Technology

We've come a long way since the Industrial Revolution. Each day new technological innovations are created further advancing our society. Even simple things baffle me in the ways they work; not all of us think of how a CD works...how a flat circular disk can hold information, how sound can travel through the wires of headphones, etc. And the technologies we have are far more advanced than these things. I can't even fathom how satellites and cell phones work.

But to say technology will save us, isn't the best idea. I don't think the creation of hybrid cars, and "green" grocery bags will alleviate the environmental harm we've put on the planet. What exactly could be created to prevent further ozone depletion? What can be invented to stop global warming? Technology has only helped advance our environmental harm. Bigger cars, more fuel, plasma televisions, more energy, and so on. I'm not saying technology is a bad thing; I've become conditioned to live with my ipod, cell phone, laptop, television and if either of those were taken away, I don't know how I'd survive. But I don't think it's capable of "saving us"

Talking about technology is a little like playing with fire.

Technology is to environmentalists as religion and politics are to family gatherings. If you do not want to get burned you just keep it to yourself. Everyone inevitably has very strong opinions on the topic. This was easily seen in just that one reading that we had for the class presentations. Davis thought that all post-Pleistocene technologies were inherently violent and exploitative. Nash thought that it was not the technology but the human values behind such technology that made it into a negative force. Why is technology such a hot button issue? It is because as westerners we could not get through our day without it. And it is not just obvious technologies like ovens or vacuum cleaners or cars. New technologies also become indispensable to functioning in society after a few years of introduction. Suddenly individuals who were born before the widespread use of television are required by their jobs to have a computer so that they can read company emails at home.

I feel that this pattern is insidious and cannot be allowed to continue. Does this mean that I am against the technologies we have now? I am against some of them certainly. Are cell phones with internet access (and whatever other jazzy new extras they have these days) really necessary? Hint, the answer is no. I would even go so far as to say we could probably do without televisions as well, but my television is shooting me a nasty look and hissing, so I won’t go there). This causes me think that technology as we are currently using it will not ‘save’ us, because we are using it for entirely frivolous reasons. And as long as we are wasting resources for these technological reasons it would not at all be sustainable to increase our technological uses in another area. What I am trying to say is that in order for technology to ‘save’ us not only must we switch to new technologies, but we must also reduce our overall usage.

In environmental terms, I would guess that ‘saving’ would mean stopping the worsening of global change, as well as stopping the worsening of widespread ecosystem collapse. ‘Saving’ would also entail a mitigation of human harms. The human population has been artificially swelled by the ‘abundance’ of food and medicine available because of unsustainable resource and farming usage. Far more people exist in bubbles of population than the area ecosystems could support if not for modern technology. Cities, for example, require a constant supply of outside resources in order for their inhabitants to survive, much the less live comfortably. If we must stop using fossil fuels because of global climate change, a newer, sustainable system would have to be put in place in order for us to not have a massive, unpleasant population die-off.

Americans

While incredibly inspiring...Maniates has failed to understand the very argument on which he stands: WE ARE AMERICANS. That means we are CONSUMERS, CAPITALISTS, and very much happy with this way of life. Yes we will stand up as Americans and fight, Yes we will come together in our time of need, No we will not give up shopping malls. If ridding America of English influence meant tossing away the bible, Paul Revere never would have said a word. And that's what Maniates is asking of Americans; consumerism is a faith, a religion. You cannot expect them/us/whomever to give up their way of life, move backwards, but you can tell them how to move forward.

It's not that lowering gas emissions by 80% or a decreased consumer agenda is too hard for the American People, it's just too unrealistic. People won't do it. And I put our government above thinking that we're too dumb to handle adult environmental concepts, they just know that it would start a riot at this stage. Baby steps.

What exactly would happen if we decreased emissions by 80% within the next couple of years? Maniates states that we have a moral responsibility to urge China and India (Both of which are US competitors) to do the same. Well while we're busy spending millions on better technologies that lower emissions and giving them the guilt trip, they'll be making consumer goods at a lot lower cost, pumping out carbon emissions like there's no tomorrow. We'll be out of the race in no time and then it won't matter what American's do, because half of us will be out of jobs and unable to afford electric anyway. That might sound extreme but there are economic risks to going green as well. It's a terrible thought, but it's realistic. And "ten easy steps to saving the planet" is a lot more appealing/likely than "put down your ipod, wear last years Tory Burchs, bike the 8 miles to work, stop shaving your legs, and hug a tree."

Personally, I have never been one to place much faith in the average American. And as much as I would like to believe that Americans are ready for the truth about the environmental crisis, I am not sure that that is true. I feel that most Americans are probably more all the Fish line of thought-laziness, indifference, and lowest price. Of course, the green trend is a growing one, but for many main stream stores this is just becoming the latest way to sell items. There seems to be this belief around the pop culture's green movement that nothing will really need to change. We can all still consume at the same levels as long as we are consuming "environmentally friendly" products. Maybe if our policy-makers stop treating us like children, like Maniates says, we would be able to differentiate between legitimately "green" products and selling points. Maybe we would even start to consume less all together, but I am not convinced. Whether we are aware of the specifics or not, all Americans know about Global Climate Change and we are more than happy to ignore the issues in favor of a continuation of our way of life. Then, when some highly qualified scientist comes into the public eye spouting the ills of consumption and the severity of the environmental issues, we either turn a def ear or worse, turn to some lame argument about how global climate change is all a hoax.

Where I do agree with Maniates is in regards to those of us who would really like to make a difference and simply do not know how. We are told to recycle, to take shorter showers and all that jazz, but then we find out that it really has no effect on the direction the planet is headed. I, for one, feel hopeless. I wonder why there are not bins for recycling in public places like movie theaters or shopping malls? It irritates me more and more everyday when I see a girl in the bathroom pull off 5 of the pre-cut paper towels just so she can throw them all away. If these types of people cannot even make a tiny sacrifice like having damp hands, then how can we ever convince them to listen to politicians who are calling for a change? I am ready to hear the truth about the Global environmental change, but I might not have been two months ago. Being educated about the subject has given me the desire to change and maybe the same would be true for others.

Pardon my Pessimism

In his article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” Michael Maniates argues that our society needs to do more to end the looming environmental crisis. More, in this sense, does not entail changing our light bulbs from incandescent to fluorescent, or recycling every plastic bottle we purchase; rather, we must do something greater, something which will truly have an impact on the environment and reverse the damage we have done over the past two centuries. He calls for the mobilization of our country, to reduce its carbon emissions by 80% over the next few decades, a radical change in our transportation sector, and new agricultural techniques at any cost in order for us to truly implement any sort of environmental change. The problem, of course, is that we are not thinking big enough. We are avoiding the larger picture, and instead we are focusing on minuscule aspects of environmental friendliness.

I absolutely agree with Maniates’s argument. In order for us to really install any sort of long-term, radical change to our environment, we must mobilize now, pursuing large-scale efforts which would truly turn around the mounds of environmental problems we have inflicted on our planet. His comparisons to Roosevelt and King are perfectly analogous of the situation we face: When faced with difficult times and circumstances in our nation’s history, they did not hold back. They did not call for less than what was needed; they got right to the point, and called for the change our society as a whole demanded. Not only do we need to call for these changes, but we need to fund them, whatever the cost is. Because the costs we endure today may be insurmountable, but the problems we will essentially eradicate in the decades ahead will be well worth the cost.

Of course, the problem we face isn’t necessarily the need for new ideas. There are plenty of long-term ideas out there, from scholars, scientists, politicians and activists, which would very well be implemented in modern times. The larger problem we face is the collective will of society to support such change, to think outside of the “recycling and carpooling” mentality we have come to associate with “responsible environmentalism” and actually support something greater. Can society revert to one-child households? Can society be willing to give up half of its income to support a “Manhattan Project” focused on cleaning up our environment? Will society be willing to consume less and change its habits in order for us to truly instill environmental change?

I am a pessimist in the sense that I do not believe it is possible to sway the majority of society to think this way. It takes us decades, even centuries, for us to reform our views on issues of social importance. Institutional racism, sanctioned by the government, took two hundred years to disappear in this country—though it still exists on the personal level today. It took nearly the same time for women to gain the right to vote, for homosexuality to be considered a sexual orientation and not a disease, and over a century for us to truly realize that the industrial revolution is having an effect on the environment. So how much longer will it take for us to realize that the time to act is now, that the time for us to change our habits to avoid an environmental catastrophe is upon us, and that we do not have much longer before any chance to fix these problems is past us?

We are stubborn in our ways, and I have a feeling our own stubbornness is going to destroy us.

Going green...

As I stated before I don't think our small efforts of buying "green" grocery bags, recycling, and turning off the water when shaving our legs will save the planet. Drastic measures must be taken to alleviate the environmental harm we have put on this earth. It's like the analogy Professor Nicholson used: we're driving to Canada but we need to go to Mexico; we can't just slow the car down. I can't give any suggestions as to how we can fix the planet, but I can say that just doing the minimum effort won't change the situation. One may feel good about themselves, and it may have a very very very slight impact, but it won't change things on a global scale. Kind of depressing...

Lazy environmentalism, the best America can do?

Are Americans grown-ups? Maniates proposes a bold concept. I have always left unquestioned the stereotype of the lazy and willfully ignorant American, numbed dumb by a life of forty plus work weeks, bleary-eyed commutes, television, shopping, and barcaloungers. Perhaps I was too arrogant with my judgment, perhaps Americans could rally to the cause, if there was one to rally to. But under this regime of corrupt politicians and multinational corporations there is no cause except the cause of consumption.* One example of this, of probable hundreds, was when Bush said, “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter” at the most recent G8 Summit. Not only will the American government and its proxies ruin the planet, but we will spit in your face as we do it. It is not the most rousing cry to national sacrifice ever given, except as an example of how not to be. Under the circumstances it will have to do, whether we are ready or not. It must.

*or at least the maintenance and growth of the GDP.

Obama, waiting to disappoint me until *after* I vote for him.

2. Obama’s plan to reduce overall use is a sound one, especially with his reduction of federal consumption. I had no idea it was that bad. He at least seems to recognize that we cannot over-consume resources to some kind of manna-filled greentopia. McCain’s plan to be sixty percent below 1990 levels by 2050 leaves us all between a boat and a wet place (those of in coastal areas that is). Barack Obama is more ambitious in this area, saying that we will be eighty percent below 1990 levels by 2050. If while in office he decides to alter that to a date as soon as 2015, that would be a start. Unfortunately, problems like climate change do not limit themselves to the nice square boxes and time lines our politicians would wish. In fact, they have a habit of spinning out of control.

Both Thoroughly and Liberally Marketable

1. Biofuels? Plug-in hybrids? ‘low-emission’ coal plants? Natural gas? Shale? Nuclear Energy? (!). I disagree with Sally; Obama is so safely within the industrialist/capitalist paradigm that the label of market liberal fits him all too well. McCain makes his alliances clear enough with the easy labels of ‘market-based cap and trade system.’ He also continues to make his policy frighteningly obvious by putting the phrases ‘rapid economic growth’ and ‘effective and sustainable climate policy’ in the same sentence.

Strategy vs Ideology

I agree with Jordan and Joely that both candidates are definitely market liberals according to Clapp and Dauvergne. I think that both McCain and Obama plan to use the market as a tool for environmental reform. However, I think that it would be naïve to take all of the information given on the websites as truths or set plans.
Both candidates are still in the running and at some points I feel as though they’re just playing a Cold War game. McCain plans to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 66% by the year 2050, where Obama boasts a haughty 80% decrease. McCains incentive plan will place a $5,000 tax cut in the hands of people who purchase zero-emission hybrid cars where Obama plans to hand out $7k to every owner of the 1 million hybrid cars he plans to place on the road over the next seven years. I think that Obama’s ‘goals’ in the environmental arena are equivalent to a 7th grade class presidential candidate running on a platform of no homework. McCain’s steps are more gradual.
We’re not going to enter a world of cleaner coal and wind power the day he steps into office. He knows that. He has strategic plans, where Obama simply has flashy goals with higher numbers than his opponent’s. Here is where I diverge from Joely. Yes, McCain is strategizing a break from FOREIGN oil, but that is just his first step and is quite a good one concerning foreign policy in general. “Strategic independence from hostile and unstable suppliers of oil” can’t be SUCH a bad thing for the USA. He does want to break the dependence on oil eventually however, he’s even budgeting to dish out a 300 million dollar prize, he is just doing it realistically and in small increments. First we have to rely on our own reserves, and then we will slowly enter a world of hybrid electric cars. He also understands that people aren’t just going to jump up, junk their SUV’s and say “I’m going to go green today and spend a large portion of my yearly income on a brand new hybrid car!” He has realistic incentive plans by implementing a graduated tax cut system for those who purchase lower emission cars. So not as many people will have unnecessarily large gas guzzlers.
Overall, I feel that McCain has a better grasp on HOW to get the job done realistically, I think we’ve all agreed upon that. That is not to say, however, that if Obama were to get us down to 20% of our current gas emissions by 2015, that I would not eat these words.