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.