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.