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.

McCain v. Obama: the Environment

After reviewing the energy plans for both presidential candidates, it is clear to me that both are market liberals. Their approaches differ, but in all likelihood neither will make a big enough dent fast enough in regards to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. They both have long-term plans, but we all know how that goes; if Congress even passes it, the plans are supposed to be in place for the next 40 years or so but there is no guarantee that the next administration will carry on with the previous administration's plan. Thus, it is hard for me to believe that either plan will be able to do much good within the next eight years.

The first thing I noticed on McCain's website was the emphasis on breaking away from FOREIGN oil, which implies to me that he is not really interested in ending dependence on oil all together. I think that his plans to start domestic drilling would only prolong our oil dependence and make oil cheaper, so that people will be able to use more of it for less money. More is clearly not the best choice for our planet. As for climate change itself, he seems to be planning to bide his time until some new technological discovery comes about to save the environment without anyone having to make sacrifices in lifestyle. The first point on his climate change platform is, "Climate policy should be built on scientifically sound, mandatory emissions reduction targets". I am all for scientific evidence, but who determines which information is "scientifically sound"? There are still those people out there who think climate change is a myth and it sounds to me like McCain is, at the very least a skeptic or in denial. I agree with Jordan that McCain's plan is more comprehensive (on the website)and he makes some good points about implementing carbon emissions permits, etc. While I do not know much about nuclear energy, I would be concerned about waste if we are going to have 100 new nuclear power plants in the next fifty years, at the same time that China and Russia are also exploring increasing nuclear power. Every possible solution should be thoroughly considered with regards to sustainability.

As for Obama, he is annoying ambiguous. He has grand plans to increase the use of renewable energy sources, but does not go into much detail with regards to how he will go about this. What I like about his ideas is that he is trying to encourage/create a connection between "going green" and boosting the economy. If these two ideas remained separate ideals, they would only end up preventing each others success. Reducing green house emissions 80% by 2050 was kind of shocking to me. I mean, of course that would be awesome, but that would entail a rapid increase in the production of hybrid-type vehicles and making them appealing to the average, SUV all the way, American. That is ambitious. It could happen and I would like it to happen, but forgive me if I do not hold my breath. However, I like that Obama is focusing more on the poorer of American families. The way things are going in the market liberal direction, these people will need to be in a position to buy a new hybrid car and pay for the privilege of cleaner technologies.

At the end of the day, I cannot decide which platform would be more beneficial to the environment. I have trouble placing any kind of trust or reliance on presidential campaigns and with an issue like climate change, which entails a change in the "American way", it will be difficult to convince 300 million people that they cannot go on as they have in the past.

McCain and Obama on the Environment: Common Ground?

Upon analyzing the environmental platforms of both Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL), it has become apparent to me that they are both market liberals, as defined by Clapp and Dauvergne. Both presidential candidates appear to be taking a market-based approach to environmental reform, encouraging investments into alternative energies and technology in order to make the United States less dependent on fossil fuels. McCain and Obama both support cap-and-trade policies which would place limits on carbon-based emissions and would offer the industrial sector the opportunity to buy and sell emissions permits, making the search for carbon-capture and sequestration technology economically competitive. In other words, they support market-based incentives which would encourage clean technologies, a fundamental belief held by market liberals. Additionally, McCain supports offering a $300 million “prize” for those who harness a state-of-the-art car battery which would “leapfrog” hybrid and electric car sales at thirty percent of the current cost for hybrid cars currently on the market. He also believes that investing in nuclear energy will serve as the cornerstone to America’s clean energy movement, and that investing in alternative energies will create millions of jobs and spur the economy.

Meanwhile, Obama supports the creation of five million “green collar” jobs in the energy sector, which would essentially help alleviate the unemployment rate while directly bolstering the economy. To put this in context, according to Clapp and Dauvergne, Obama apparently believes that two factors contributing to the environmental crisis is weak economic growth and poverty. By eliminating these problems, Obama believes we will not only create technology which would help reduce our impact on the environment, but would also provide economic relief. Furthermore, Obama’s insistence that new technology—whether in the form of clean energy, carbon capture technology, or lower vehicular emissions—will help solve the problem goes hand-in-hand with the market liberal approach to solving the growing environmental problems our country (and the world) faces.

Because both candidates, in my opinion, have similar visions for the environment, it is difficult for me to decide which one of them has the better energy policy. I am a fervent Obama supporter, but McCain is actually talking some sense on environmental issues and economic issues affecting the environment, though I strongly disagree with McCain’s call for domestic oil drilling. While I do believe that domestic drilling could potentially reduce gas prices, the price of gasoline is not what I am concerned with. I am concerned with eliminating carbon emissions, and reducing our dependency on all oil—not just foreign-produced, but domestically produced as well. Additionally, I do not support alcohol-based fuels, as he does. Alcohol-based vehicles still produce pollutants, and only serve as a “distraction-based alternative” which takes our focus off of reducing emissions in favor of energy and economic independence. However, I strongly support his call for expanding nuclear power. Nuclear power produces a lot of energy, and it is clean. While there is a problem with nuclear waste, government-funded storage facilities should be built to contain such waste. And while some are concerned that nuclear power plants may experience meltdowns, I have researched this topic extensively and discovered that technology exists in countries such as Germany and Japan which have made nuclear plants “meltdown proof.”

As for Obama, I support his steadfast support for creating green collar jobs and investing in wind and solar energies, which I believe could contribute significantly to our energy revolution. I also support his decision to open up the petroleum reserves, rather than drill domestically, to provide a short term solution to our “pain at the pumps.” While I am opposed to continuing our reliance on oil, it seems to me that his vision for our environmental future is rooted in alternative energies, and making those energies a staple in our now-stagnant economy.

Environmental Platforms

After reading the platforms for environmental reform for each candidate, it is clear that both Obama and McCain have different approaches to address the environmental crisis we are enduring.

I personally think that McCain falls into two categories: market liberals and institutionalist's. He wants to utilize a market system approach to change the environment and also plans to rely on advanced technology.

I would place Obama more in the social greens category. His main goals are to reduce the reliance on foreign oil, create "green collar" jobs, and reduce greenhouse gas emission. He does not focus as much on technological advances to improve the environment. He takes more of an economic approach - putting caps on trade programs, etc. He only plans to utilize technological advances when it comes to putting more hybrid cars on the road and developing "clean coal" technology for green collar jobs.

I was able to gain a sense of how McCain would utilize technology and resources to change the environment when reading his platforms, unlike when I was reading Obama's, where it mostly states what the goals are. After reading both platforms, I'm not exactly sure which one I agree with more. In general I don't know how I feel about technological advances changing the environment, because I personally think technology and consumption go hand in hand and they are the two biggest factors that are contributing to environmental degradation. If I had to choose, I would side with Obama. I think his efforts to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and creating green collar jobs will be more helpful than McCain's technological and economical growth.

The discussion about meeting before the discussion

Helloooo everyone, this is just a non-essay post for us to figure out when/if we are meeting to go over the #3 readings. You can just respond in the comments and hopefully we will find some sort of consensus. Thanks, enjoy your weekend.


And I thought this article was interesting as well.

Green Trends are getting "Fish-y"

On an annoying broad spectrum, I definitely consider consumption the most environmentally detrimental instrument in the U.S. Under my ambiguous definition, I include cars, food, and stuff. I see a twelve year-old walking around drinking a Starbucks latte and talking on their cell phone and I want to (among other things) vomit. What preteen crisis could possibly be so pressing as to cause the use of a personal cell phone? Honestly. BUT, in the US, since the post WWII economic policy of BUY, BUY, BUY!, a person's worth has been determined by their stuff. All kinds of stuff, but mostly big stuff, expensive stuff,and new stuff. This is the American trend that will be hardest to diffuse because we all take the things we have and the resources that seem to come so limitless to us, for granted.

Living in the French countryside, I learned pretty quickly the ground rules of public services: don't flush the toilet, don't let the water run while you wash your hands, shower every other day (at most) and lots of blankets are just as good as a radiator. I'm not trying to accuse us Americans of being intentionally careless, but we're unique because we're one society who has never really had to "go without" things. We've never had our cities ravished by war to the point of starving citizens and no transportation (Ok. I know. I'm not counting the Civil War). We've had our moments of misfortune, to be sure (like the Great Depression), but the middle class always seems to power on without too much disruption and environmental concerns have stayed low on the radar because when you think about it, it's pretty cheap to get by with the bare necessities around here. (Unless you start off poor, but that's a whole other issue that I can't distract myself with right now. One crisis at a time.)

Jordan is right on with his thoughts about the future of oil and the direction that cars should take. Yeah, ideally it would be awesome to be able to someday phase out cars all together. However, cars have allowed people to spread out and it's hard to reverse that kind of process. Just in my family: my dad lives 30 minutes away, my sister lives in Nebraska, and my brother lives in Virginia. That doesn't even consider extended relatives (although, them I think sometimes I could do without). The point I'm trying to make is that, like most issues involving the environment, what's done is done and we can't move backwards. I will fly (or, God help me, drive) to Nebraska at least once a year to see my sister because, while there are many aspects of my consumer life that I'm willing to sacrifice, my dis-functional family is not one of them.

Stan Fish's article amused me while also managing to piss me off. While I understand that change for most people is difficult and even a hassle sometimes, I can't stand those like our friend Stan, who probably won't live long enough to see the society reach its environmental end, yet resist and resent efforts by my/our generation to make a difference. Yes, being environmentally conscious is not easy for anyone and the little things we do aren't enough, but it's SOMETHING. We're expressing that we are willing to see and adjust to necessary changes in order to preserve a slightly less depressing future for everyone (all ecosystems included). And the wealthy ones are the worst offenders. I have no doubts that our friend Stanley could afford to pay twice as much for the kitchen that he bitches about and I give his wife credit for dragging him through the new deal, but what about the rest of us? Not all poor people want to shop at Wal-Mart, but it's not like they have another option. The difference of a couple of dollars might not seem like much to us, but when you're living on social security, it adds up. The US needs to make efforts to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor because, like it or not, being green takes some dough.

Okay. I apologize if my thoughts seem scrabbled and disjointed. I'm sure I've made some outlandish connections, but I hope that I've at least contributed something without sounding like a ranting fool. Go Green!

"I am, Therefore I pollute"

I've always thought I "did the right thing" when it came to the environment. After reading Fish's article, I realized I was barely doing anything at all. I recycle as often as I can, turn off the lights when I leave a room (but that's also out of habit), and recently I started buying the "Go Green!" products at the grocery store. However, I doubt I would stop buying paper towels, and I know I would never halt redecorating my kitchen because the wood I would be using would require extra storage and transport.
The difference between Stanley Fish and I when it comes to the environment poses a question of the degree in which people use resources and life their life in an environmentally friendly way. I don't believe there is a set book of rules and regulations that states if one is living in an environmentally friendly way. To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US could be a range of things. You could buy a Hybrid, recycle, become a vegetarian, use a Brita filter instead of buying water bottles every week, etc. It just depends on the degree in which individuals in the US change their lives according to these "environmental standards." I'm sure there are some people who do all the above, and some who do nothing at all to protect the environment. Some individuals (to me this only pertains to celebrities) wake up and buy a Hummer every other month; some may not recycle and just throw everything into the waste. And then there are some people in the middle, like me. I try to do what I can, but there are some things in which I choose not to do. For example, I drive an SUV, but I also recycle everything I can, have a Brita filter, and save as much energy and water as possible.
In the past few years, people have become conditioned to do simple things for the environment such as recycle, but as stated above, some people simply don't. To me, living in an environmentally friendly way in the US means not buying a Hummer every other month, recycling as much as you can (even though it just slows down the waste process), and being cautious in general in terms of energy and water. People in the US have high standards, and even though people are becoming more aware of the global environmental crisis, many decide not to alter their lifestyles. It would be impossible for everyone in the US to completely alter their life to an environmentally friendly way. However, I do think to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle in the US people simply need to make small alterations in their life to do their part...i.e recycle, refrain from buying plastic bottles, buy a Hybrid, use less water and energy, etc. If one decides to do all the above, then great, however if some people choose to do a few out of all these options, I still think they are putting forth an effort to live an environmentally friendly way.

2: What are we Willing to Sacrifice?

In his article, “I Am, Therefore I Pollute,” Stanley Fish discusses the assorted difficulties and annoyances associated with living in an environmentally friendly manner in the United States. He discusses how difficult it is, for him, to use washable rags instead of disposable paper towels (the rags often become soiled, whereas you can throw out the paper towels after use); how fluorescent light bulbs are expensive and offer poor lighting; how eating local meat is also expensive and of a lesser quality because it was not processed by a major, corporate meat processing plant; and other assorted personal problems he has faced with recycling and remodeling his home. In the end, he concludes that, while he supports the environmental goals of politicians such as Al Gore, he does not feel he is capable of living in an environmentally friendly manner.

While I am often unimpressed with the argument that people do not want to change their habits to assist the environment, I must confess that I have had several problems changing my own habits to become environmentally friendly. Though my family uses fluorescent lighting in our house, I agree that they are dim, and that the amplitude of the lighting often gives me a headache. I could never use washable rags over napkins or paper towels, only because paper towels are far more convenient to use and require less attention. Recycling is one of the only complaints Mr. Fish has which I feel does not affect me; it is not hard to separate items into recycling bins before the garbage is collected on a weekly basis, nor is it too hard to me to put my recyclable items in recycling bins here on campus.

But I do understand that living in an environmentally friendly manner is “better said than done.” Our society prefers things to be easy and luxurious; sadly, that is just who we are. We like our SUVs big and our produce ripe with pestici-- excuse me, flavor. Because our culture is also stubborn, I do not expect people to personally become environmentally friendly.

This, of course, is why I believe regulations and laws are the only way to enforce environmentally friendly behavior. Phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of fluorescent light bulbs seems like an intelligent idea. Banning bottled water in certain cities and promoting faucet filters seems like an intelligent idea. Phasing out full size SUVs in favor of compact SUVs or crossover vehicles seems like an intelligent idea. However, these regulations and laws would require a sacrifice on our part. Sadly, our willingness to give up some of these luxuries for the benefit of the planet is something which has yet to be seen.

1: Oil

Whenever I am asked to answer the question, “what is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment?,” the first thing which pops into my head is, quite stereotypically, “global warming.” However, in recent weeks, I have come to the conclusion that, while global warming is a pressing concern which we as a planet need to address immediately, there is another problem which I believe will have a far greater impact on the global environment in the near future. The problem I am referring to is the world’s addiction to fossil fuels—specifically oil.

The debate on oil has been reignited in recent months, particularly due to the surge in fuel prices in the United States. The presidential election has also caused the top two presidential contenders, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), to make energy issues one of the highest priorities of the next presidential administration. While both men have discussed energy issues openly with the American public, it strikes me as if neither candidate has a true solution to the crisis we are about to face as a nation. Far worse, it seems that neither candidate truly understands that that crisis goes beyond the cost of energy, and actually lies with consumption.

As a college student, I have considered purchasing a vehicle in recent years. I have become disenchanted with public transportation in DC, from the increase in fares to the often ridiculous delays on both the Metro and Metrobus systems. My ideal vehicle would be a subcompact car with a fuel economy above thirty miles per gallon highway, which would be both cost effective and “friendly” to the environment. In fact, my ideal vision for the world would be the end of the Sport Utility Vehicle and the rise of the subcompact or hybrid car.

But the problem, as I have realized, is not fuel economy, or price. It is the simple fact that the vehicle I would eventually own would run on oil. And if everyone owned a subcompact car, or hybrid car, that would not alleviate the problem of consumption which underlines the oil crisis. It would only serve as a temporary distraction, where everyone would think that they are helping the environment by utilizing vehicles which run on less oil. While everyone would indeed be using less oil, they would still be using it.

My opinion was swayed last year, when I took a chemistry course on environmental resources and energy issues. In class, the professor discussed a new vehicle—the Tata Nano—a small vehicle which would be produced in India, that uses less oil and could be purchased for under $3,000 USD. At first, I considered such a breakthrough to be magnificent. I thought, “I can’t wait for that to hit the United States—I could use something small and affordable to get through this city.” Then, the problem which shrouded the Tata Nano came into light. The fact that almost anyone in India could afford the vehicle, and the oil which fueled it, meant that over half a billion models could be on the road in developing nations across the world. India, China, Russia, various African and European nations would have access to a vehicle which consumes oil. The impact on these consumers’ wallets would be small, but the impact on our environment could eventually become catastrophic. Demand for oil would increase, consumption of oil would increase, and our environment, as well as our global economy, could be thrown off balance.

As a result, I have become a strong advocate of alternative energies, as well as a decrease in reliance on all motor vehicles. The hydrogen fuel cell seems like the best alternative to oil we could explore as a nation. Additionally, I support the use of compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel. Both can be manufactured en masse, and would have a significantly lower impact on our environment. Unfortunately, both fuels seem to be far off on the horizon. Instead, for now, we have to look forward to the resurgence of the electric car (as Chevy will introduce the Volt in 2010), a vehicle which does not run on oil though still uses fossil fuels to produce the electricity which charges its battery.

I hope that, regardless of who becomes president, the next leader of the United States will see the greater problem facing our energy crisis. I hope that we will see a surge in alternative energies and energy production, that our reliance on oil will plummet within the next decade. But my cynicism tells me otherwise, and when I look at the potential emerging crisis in developing nations such as India and China, I do not believe the world’s reliance on oil will come to an abrupt end. I fear that the addiction will become far too severe, and that we as a planet will not be able to overcome the looming catastrophe we will suffer as a result.

It was so tempting to title this "It's not easy being green."

1. No matter what localized environmental problem a community is facing, it will most likely be accelerated by global climate change (although I just thought of one that would not, the New England pet issue of acid rain). One example of this is the Amazon rain forest. The continuous cutting and burning of said forest (which means major loss of biodiversity) leads to carbon being released into the atmosphere. This accelerates global climate change. One of the predictions for global climate change is that this area will become savannah rather than rain forest. So even if the cutting of the forest stopped, the ecosystem would still be endangered. Such interconnectedness however also means that many problems will be solved if work is done to fight global climate change. Even acid rain, something which would not be accelerated by global climate change, would probably be lessened if work was done to stop climate change, as both those issues have some of the same causes, the burning of fossil fuels. I see stopping climate change as the most urgent task facing the globe today.

2. The mainstream corporate media* often frames the conversation around environmental issues to be one of personal change and ‘sacrifice’. The usual offenders are that we should recycle, use public transportation, and buy their spiffy green appliances. Although all of those things are positive, they are also used as a sort of sing and dance show distraction in front of the wider societal problems. For the example of ‘eco-friendly’ appliances it is important to ask, who will be able to afford these appliances? Where will the raw materials for these new appliances come from, who will have to harvest or mine them? What will happen to the old appliances? Will they go straight to the dump? Will they be recycled? When will these new appliances wear out, are they built to last? Recycling has its own set of invisible, often ignored issues. Why is there so much packaging to recycle to begin with? Once the recycles are sent to the transfer station, will they actually be recycled? Or just sent to the incinerator or dump with the rest of the trash?

And then there is my favorite, public transportation. Except for some personal peeves with public transportation, I think that it is just about one of my favorite things (don’t tell the trees!). I love smart cards (the swipey things and not the paper tickets); I especially love systems that let me use smart cards for every aspect of their public transportation. I love the comparative efficiency to driving. I love never having to worry about finding parking, crashing the car, hydroplaning, and black ice. Unfortunately the joys of public transportation are not to be experienced in many places. Take for instance my state, New Hampshire. We have the Dartmouth Coach, and in some of our ‘cities’ we have taxis. Where I grew up (see if you can spot the metro system in this picture, I swear I’ll give you ten bucks) you walked, biked, or drove. In winter walking as transportation was only done with snow-shoes, ski-poles, and a death wish. One of my pet dreams for public transportation in NH is that gondolas (regard) will one day be in mass use. I also hope that instead of highways we will have railways.

All of that adds up to why I do not believe that it is possible to live in an environmentally sustainable manner in the current United States. There might be some places where this is possible, but not many. We can attempt to not worsen the problem, but yes, 'I am therefore I pollute'. Excuse me while I go turn off the light in the other room.

*and the whiny self-aware men that make up their Opinion Sections. I’m looking at you, Stan.