Assuming we don't wind up in some Fallout-esque post-apocalyptic wasteland within the next 200 years, I imagine DC will look much like it does right now. This may seem counter-intuitive to some readers. Shouldn't the United States be a dried up husk of its former self, ravaged by climate change, flooding, and environmental degradation? Well, the truth is much of the environmental havoc that we've been wreaking on the planet is being done in places outside the United States. It's true that we still have pollution here, and there are environmental issues here such as mountain-top removal, nuclear waste, and coal slurries. But the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the harm being done to the environment is happening outside the United States, in places where most of the production for our goods is done, like China and India.
It's been said that breathing the air in some parts of China is the equivalent of smoking a pack (possibly more) of cigarettes a day. India has very serious problems with its water and the impact its having on agriculture in the subcontinent. Countries throughout the developing world are becoming the recipients of our waste products, toxic or otherwise, and their air and water quality is going down as a result of this and the shift of production to these countries. Whereas the most pressing issue that the developing world has to come to terms with is global warming (and a very serious concern it is), developing nations have a whole host of issues that bedevil them, such as soil degradation, water pollution, species extinction, and even ecological collapse. The environment in many of these developing nations is being visibly altered for the worse.
By contrast, the US environment has more or less stabilized. Yes there are still problems with deforestation and the side-effects of coal mining and oil drilling. But these problems are more localized than before, and many steps have been taken by the US government and citizenry to better protect their environment, such as reforestation, wetlands protection, etc. That's why environmental degradation has been slowed or even stopped in many areas of the United States. These steps are sadly lacking from many developing nations and they are the ones who will suffer as a result. While climate change could have a major effect on our lives and surroundings in the United States, the inland areas of the United States (including Washington) will not be nearly as affected in 200 years as those developing nations who shoulder much of the burden of production.
Friday, September 25, 2009
What Will 2209 bring?
I think that if we continue on the same path that we are currently on, DC will be in for some major problems. If we keep polluting the atmosphere as much as we do now, DC probably will be nonexistent in 2209, because climate change would’ve grown exponentially and most, if not all, of the polar ice caps would have melted. AU might be able to survive, since we are at one of the highest elevations in the entire district, but I don’t have much hope for the National Mall and the rest of downtown. If somehow we avoid being covered in water, I think that DC would still be a disaster area. With all of the restrictions on downtown growth, more of the areas that are currently residential will begin being transformed into commercial areas in which the American consumer can shop. This means that people will have to move further outside of DC to find places to live, which will keep creating this suburban sprawl that is already quite large. As people move further away, not only will we have to create more roads for the cars that they will be driving into the actual city, but we may also need to convert the farmland that lies right outside of most of the current suburbs. The areas that we could be using to grow local, more sustainable food would be turned into more housing developments and “dirty energy” power plants to make sure that the people live as comfortably as they would like. All of these predictions, however, come from the idea that people would keep trying to live here; in reality, if we continue this way, many people might leave the area since it will be too polluted to live healthy lives.
If people today really stopped to consider what the future might look like, they would be more open to thinking of new ways of creating a better future. In the DC of 2209, I would hope that there would be much more sustainability in all aspects of life. By this time, production nationally would be done in such a way as to reduce waste in all parts of the cycle. We could still be building new buildings and prospering, but these materials would be completely sustainable (either recyclable or from previously recycled materials) and the process in which they were made would have cut wastes. In order to power these new, green buildings, we would use alternative types of energy, such as wind and solar energy. The areas outside of the city would be kept for farming; they would also be reverted to family farms which produce a wide variety of foods instead of large, commercial farms that only grow one crop and sell their products across the country. There would also be greenhouse buildings, multilevel structures where fresh produce can be cultivated year round instead of just in the summertime. Not only is it better for the environment, but it is also healthier for the population to eat fresh grown foods. All buildings that are built would also have their own water purification systems, so that excess rain water could be turned into useable water for the building, so we would not need to rely as heavily on underground water sources. Overall, with drastic changes in our policies now, we can ensure that life in DC and the rest of the world will continue comfortably and sustainably.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Red, White, and Green
If the inhabitants of Earth continue on their current path of environmental negligence, I envision the DC of 2209 to be completely different from the one in which we currently live. Firstly, the District would know longer be the capital of a democratic nation; the destruction of the biosphere and its respective ecosystems, as we have read, outlined, and discussed in class, will eventually cause complete ruin to our society. Well, complete ruin could be a hyperbole, but at least a solid amount of disruption. Assuming a Malthusian outcome, food supplies will dwindle as populations skyrocket; as population density increases, disease will spread more quickly. Also, climate change will invoke a number of devastating effects, among them being a swell in sea levels, causing a flooding of coastal towns. Although these predictions are a bit apocalyptic, it is not unreasonable to assume that fear, panic, and disorder will arise in the midst of these ecological disasters, prompting a police state response. After a national emergency is declared, the marshall law will fail to be lifted, and government of strict control and obedience will be instated. A bit dramatic, yes, but I envision DC with a heavy smog over it, government buildings grey and decrepit, not unlike the scene in The Matrix that shows the actual crumbling New York City. New environmental regulations may be passed, but it will be too late; the pollution and degradation of nature will force every one indoors, prey to the whims of an altered environment.
That is the cynical view of the future. Hopefully, DC will resemble something much more sustainable and greener, both figuratively and literally. DC may be the epicenter of world politics, but I would like to see focus on local efforts and resources, especially when it comes to food and energy. As a Virginia resident (begrudgingly), I'm aware of the delicious produce that the fertile Piedmont soil can grow; the Mid-Atlantic is extremely capable of sustaining itself nutritionally. Also, DC should take advantage of the nearby coast in harnessing tidal power for its energy needs, as well as use the Appalachians for wind turbines. The city itself is small, and perhaps too urban already to completely isolate itself, as suggested in Tom Butler's article; although not as ideal as farming in the District itself, gleaning resources from Virginia and Maryland is a major improvement. Amongst other practical solutions, DC should take a cue from New York City, and severely cut the number of cars allowed in the city through heavy fees, as well as taxi quotas. By promoting public transportation and bicycling (the addition of bicycle lanes would a welcome addition), DC can be a thriving city and urban role model.
Washington DC 2209
Not to be pessimistic, but I believe if the US continues on its current path it will not be able to sustain itself. I think if DC is not under water or tons of smog, it will be abandoned or at least not the vibrant city it use to be. I think if the United States does not change it will lose its dominant role in the world. Also I doubt other countries will look kindly on the US since in 1900's and the 2000's it was a major player in environmental destruction. It's really hard imagining what could be. Honestly, I in-vision the United States as no longer "the place to be." I could imagine Americans leaving the United States to join countries that are self sufficient. Another negative possibility is that the weather may be so bad that people may have to move underground. But who knows?
I would hope in 200 years that the buildings in DC would look more like the new SIS building. Hopefully they'll be more advanced but with the same idea "sustainable." Their materials will not harm the planet. They would have their own water filtration system so water can be reused on the site. I would hope they could produce their own energy on the spot through water, solar, wind or some another natural energy. I would also think people would try and recycle old buildings as well. Hopefully the overall population will go down but I think cities will still be present. Instead of DC being so spread out, it may be denser and the buildings just taller. The surrounding area of the city will be farms, so food won't have to travel such long distances. It would be great if we could make a good percentage of what we needed within just a few miles from the city. If the city was denser transportation would be easier. I think the metro would still exist just faster and cleaner. I think DC would still have a lot of parks and "green space" because I've read that cities with more "green areas" are cleaner and have happier people. Hopefully by 2209 DC would have also solved its gentrification problem. In the future, being green won't only be for the rich.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
In 200 years, the path we are currently on will undoubtedly include a large scale growth of urban environments, both in size and population density. Cities across the world will grow both upwards, with the construction of newer, taller buildings, and outwards, with the continuing forces of suburbanization and urban migration. However, Washington DC is in a very unique position. As an urban center, it is constrained both by height and area. No buildings in the city will ever be built higher than the Washington Monument (barring a revision of this norm, which I find extremely doubtful). In addition, the city limits are constrained by the borders of the District itself, so any commercial buildings wishing to add to the commerce of the city will soon run out of a very limited space.
This being said, I think that DC would undergo a large scale zoning reform, allowing more and more areas of the district to convert to commercial rather than residential. Meanwhile, the suburbs in surrounding Virginia and Maryland will continue to spread further and further away from the city, likely to be accompanied by increases in traffic congestion and air pollution.
This is the city we should expect if we dont make the necessary changes to combat our attack on our natural environment. The DC I would like to see in 200 years would be entirely dependent on local agriculture for its sustenance. I dont see the physical layout of the city changing much, especially because so much of the city's form and function pay homage to the founders of the country, monuments which are unlikely to be altered. However, the suburbs of the city will slowly transition into sustainable communities, and the farmland in Virginia will be utilized for the support of the people of DC. Energy sources, factories, and most other essential goods and services will be provided by the local community and the local resources available. Obviously, this setup will require a transformation in the expectations of American consumers. We can no longer expect fresh fruit in the middle of December, but we can instead find technological solutions to the constraints of our agricultural climate. These changes are absolutely imperative if we want to continue living in relative happiness for the next 200, if not 500, years.
This being said, I think that DC would undergo a large scale zoning reform, allowing more and more areas of the district to convert to commercial rather than residential. Meanwhile, the suburbs in surrounding Virginia and Maryland will continue to spread further and further away from the city, likely to be accompanied by increases in traffic congestion and air pollution.
This is the city we should expect if we dont make the necessary changes to combat our attack on our natural environment. The DC I would like to see in 200 years would be entirely dependent on local agriculture for its sustenance. I dont see the physical layout of the city changing much, especially because so much of the city's form and function pay homage to the founders of the country, monuments which are unlikely to be altered. However, the suburbs of the city will slowly transition into sustainable communities, and the farmland in Virginia will be utilized for the support of the people of DC. Energy sources, factories, and most other essential goods and services will be provided by the local community and the local resources available. Obviously, this setup will require a transformation in the expectations of American consumers. We can no longer expect fresh fruit in the middle of December, but we can instead find technological solutions to the constraints of our agricultural climate. These changes are absolutely imperative if we want to continue living in relative happiness for the next 200, if not 500, years.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Easy is easy for a reason
I'm not going to say that we should shy away from hard solutions to our environmental problems, because in many cases that's the only thing that is going to work. But in all honesty the forces arrayed against any sort of meaningful change in the way we treat, or even view, our environment are so powerful, that any attempt at these great, sweeping changes, will almost inevitably be blunted or co-opted to the point of being ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst.
The process of reform is slow, and always has been slow. It took at least a hundred years for labor conditions in the US to improve, and that was because of constant struggle, bordering on rebellion in some areas. Considering that, it seems like trying to change the way we structure our economy to better recycle and consume goods would be an even more herculean task, if only because of the detachment most people feel from the issue. Easy solutions may not seem like they help, but if nothing else it improves the psychological environment for change. Social psychologists call it the "foot in the door" phenomenon. You take little steps toward a goal that would normally seem outlandish, and the more you do, the closer and less strange that goal seems. Maybe recycling won't cure all our ills, but a population that consciously recycles will not be so averse to things like reusing bottles, or cutting consumption.
Normally this would not be so much of an issue, but with global warming there seems to be an implicit deadline for when we can actually take steps to blunt it. We have to take such things in stride, because if we force our own hand on reform, nothing close to what we need will be done in response.
The process of reform is slow, and always has been slow. It took at least a hundred years for labor conditions in the US to improve, and that was because of constant struggle, bordering on rebellion in some areas. Considering that, it seems like trying to change the way we structure our economy to better recycle and consume goods would be an even more herculean task, if only because of the detachment most people feel from the issue. Easy solutions may not seem like they help, but if nothing else it improves the psychological environment for change. Social psychologists call it the "foot in the door" phenomenon. You take little steps toward a goal that would normally seem outlandish, and the more you do, the closer and less strange that goal seems. Maybe recycling won't cure all our ills, but a population that consciously recycles will not be so averse to things like reusing bottles, or cutting consumption.
Normally this would not be so much of an issue, but with global warming there seems to be an implicit deadline for when we can actually take steps to blunt it. We have to take such things in stride, because if we force our own hand on reform, nothing close to what we need will be done in response.
A Step in the Right Direction
Maniates brings up a great idea; let’s completely revamp the entire American way of life and make sure that everything is green and sustainable. It sounds wonderful, right? I’d be all for it. I think that we need a complete makeover, otherwise our future isn’t looking too good. I don’t personally have a financial stake in a turnaround. I plan on working in an NGO or doing translation in the future; my parents are in the medical and shipping fields. None of us have a huge stake in agriculture, production, or transportation. This is not to say that we are not affected by it. I am just simply saying that we don’t have a reason to be opposed. Other Americans, however, who receive their main financial security from these systems that pose the most threat to the environment also would be risking the most in order to create this big overhaul.
He compares the “lazy environmentalist” movement to other revolutionary ideas in the past, such as the American revolution and the civil rights movement. While none of these people went around talking about how to do nothing but still create change, these monumental changes did not happen overnight. Decades passed between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, women did not get the right to vote until nearly 150 years after we became an independent nation. The environmental movement arguably needs to occur faster, but at least we are starting it now. If we can get people today to start “tweaking the edges,” we will be better equipped to create the more monumental changes in the future.
He compares the “lazy environmentalist” movement to other revolutionary ideas in the past, such as the American revolution and the civil rights movement. While none of these people went around talking about how to do nothing but still create change, these monumental changes did not happen overnight. Decades passed between the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement, women did not get the right to vote until nearly 150 years after we became an independent nation. The environmental movement arguably needs to occur faster, but at least we are starting it now. If we can get people today to start “tweaking the edges,” we will be better equipped to create the more monumental changes in the future.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Hey, That's the Name of Our Blog!
Touche, Maniates. The Washington Post article, "Going Green?" was an interesting contrast to the Stanley Fish opinion piece we read earlier this semester. While the latter dragged its proverbial feet when it came to any sort of environmental action, the former vehemently criticized this approach, that somehow a solution to today's current ecological crisis can be solved by what Western society would consider cheap, efficient, and quite frankly, mindless.
As discussed in the first response blog, I would have to fall on the side of Maniates. While it can be debated that large changes can develop from smaller alterations in behavior, in a sort of snowball effect, the collective, radical alternatives presented in "Going Green" represent the mindset that is essential in combatting global climate change and its subsequent effects. Actions such as recycling and changing a lightbulb are not to be scoffed at; every little bit counts, but actions alone are not going to absorb excess carbon dioxide, bring species back into extinction, or reverse population explosion. The macroscopic changes that Maniates proposes, ones that are institutionalized, or call for greater civic and governmental actions, also demonstrate a paradigm of sustainability and biocentrism that is vital to fully repairing the current degraded state of the Earth.
Response to Discussion 3
I have never come across an article that addressed this issue before, however I have seen many "how to be green" books. I always was really fond of those simple, "how to" books to be honest. I think one of the reasons of why environmentalists simplify possible solutions because if they were anymore radical people would be turned off to the movement.
He argues that, "Paul Revere didn't race through the streets of Middlesex County hawking a book on "The Lazy Revolutionary." Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism. And it's unlikely that Martin Luther King Jr.'s drafts of his "I Have a Dream" speech or his "Letter From Birmingham Jail".' However those situations were all different from the Environmental one. Those challenges were all having immediate impacts on people's lives. All were in danger of violence, intimidation, and civil liberties were being violated. No one who has power has directly been effected by environmental problems. The only thing currently threatened is people's way of life if we try try to change our habits for the environment. Therefore I see no harm in using small steps to help rather than scare people away.
However, I do agree that we need to act as a community and we need to not only change our consumer habits but also our policies and the way we do business.
He argues that, "Paul Revere didn't race through the streets of Middlesex County hawking a book on "The Lazy Revolutionary." Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism. And it's unlikely that Martin Luther King Jr.'s drafts of his "I Have a Dream" speech or his "Letter From Birmingham Jail".' However those situations were all different from the Environmental one. Those challenges were all having immediate impacts on people's lives. All were in danger of violence, intimidation, and civil liberties were being violated. No one who has power has directly been effected by environmental problems. The only thing currently threatened is people's way of life if we try try to change our habits for the environment. Therefore I see no harm in using small steps to help rather than scare people away.
However, I do agree that we need to act as a community and we need to not only change our consumer habits but also our policies and the way we do business.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Presentation Friday
So, I figure since there are 4 of us in this group (thats what it says on this blog), we can each talk about one of the 4 environmental issues that Lomborg brings up, and his response to it:
1) Natural resource depletion
2) Population growth
3) Species extinction
4) Air and water pollution
Each person can present Lomborg's argument about why the issue is not as dire as environmentalists claim it is. If I'm wrong about the numbers in our group, one person can give an introductory explanation of Lomborg's position and its relationship to Cornucopianism. We can divide up roles on Friday at the start of class. If anyone has any other ideas about how to organize the presentation, feel free to share. I just thought I would throw it out there.
1) Natural resource depletion
2) Population growth
3) Species extinction
4) Air and water pollution
Each person can present Lomborg's argument about why the issue is not as dire as environmentalists claim it is. If I'm wrong about the numbers in our group, one person can give an introductory explanation of Lomborg's position and its relationship to Cornucopianism. We can divide up roles on Friday at the start of class. If anyone has any other ideas about how to organize the presentation, feel free to share. I just thought I would throw it out there.
Its just as easy to get involved
I definitely agree with the bulk of Maniates' argument about the 'easy' efforts of the environmental community. For the most part, convincing the average American that their role in the big picture is to conserve and recycle on a personal level creates a nationwide pandemic of complacency. If someone is given an easy out like this, then they will stick to their simple life changes and deny allegations that it will never be enough. Letting Americans get away with this type of social change is highly dangerous. Not only does it prevent meaningful action from starting at the grass-roots level, it also allows consumers to feel more comfortable continuing their destructive lifestyle, with the rationale that they are "doing everything they can".
On the other hand, I think mobilizing America into action on environmental issues is a very tall order. It is not going to be easy to get our government to enact meaningful legislation to begin reevaluating our impact on the planet. Therefore, the first step must be to create a national sense of environmental awareness. This is often most effective, as we have seen with the movement so far, with the "10 easy things you can do" mentality. However, we need to revitalize the American public using this same methodology, but with a different aim. It is just as easy for the average citizen to add their name to a petition or call their Congressman as it is to change all their lightbulbs to CFR's. It is no more difficult to attend a rally or a conference than it is to buy a Hybrid car. Instead of giving Americans easy ways to lessen their environmental impact, we need to give them easy ways to join the environmental movement. After all, change starts from the bottom up. Maniates used the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., which I think is very appropriate. The civil rights movement was full of people willing to give their lives over to an important cause. There are just as many, if not more, people willing to do so for the betterment of our planet. All we have to do is show them where to sign up.
On the other hand, I think mobilizing America into action on environmental issues is a very tall order. It is not going to be easy to get our government to enact meaningful legislation to begin reevaluating our impact on the planet. Therefore, the first step must be to create a national sense of environmental awareness. This is often most effective, as we have seen with the movement so far, with the "10 easy things you can do" mentality. However, we need to revitalize the American public using this same methodology, but with a different aim. It is just as easy for the average citizen to add their name to a petition or call their Congressman as it is to change all their lightbulbs to CFR's. It is no more difficult to attend a rally or a conference than it is to buy a Hybrid car. Instead of giving Americans easy ways to lessen their environmental impact, we need to give them easy ways to join the environmental movement. After all, change starts from the bottom up. Maniates used the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., which I think is very appropriate. The civil rights movement was full of people willing to give their lives over to an important cause. There are just as many, if not more, people willing to do so for the betterment of our planet. All we have to do is show them where to sign up.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Somewhere in the Middle
It's unfortunate that some groups of thought in the United States can't look at their values and actions critically without feeling attacked. Instead of addressing the film's message of consumerism, Roy Cooper just picked apart the movie, taking quotes out of context and attacking the narrator's Green Peace background. I was surprised he actually posted the video below the article but I thought it was funny how he used a low quality youtube video instead of sharing the link. He also passively dissuades people from watching the movie. As upset as his article made me, I do agree with parts of it. I don't believe elementary age children should be watching it. I highly believe that environmental courses should be taught at a young age and children should learn about consumerism and how their choices have effects on people in developing worlds. However, there is some sarcasm in the film that children might not get. I don't think a child of 8 or 10 years old will be able to gasp major concepts. Yes, they will get that consumerism is bad but they won't necessarily know why and the film uses simple yet strong graphics that may scare children into embracing anti-consumerism. I don't want children scared into the green movement. I want children to learn the consequences of their actions, and make up their own mind. Anyways, I don't think the film was designed specifically for elementary children.
I liked the Steve Cohen article. It looked at the film critically. I agree with Cohen that it didn't really offer any great solutions. It would have been nice if the site included a plan of what to do next. I liked the video but I feel like there must be a better way to motivate and empower people to change their lifestyles. I would like to see a project that used incentives for people to "green up" their lives.
I liked the Steve Cohen article. It looked at the film critically. I agree with Cohen that it didn't really offer any great solutions. It would have been nice if the site included a plan of what to do next. I liked the video but I feel like there must be a better way to motivate and empower people to change their lifestyles. I would like to see a project that used incentives for people to "green up" their lives.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Story of the Story of Stuff
There is no debate that Annie Leonard's The Story of Stuff is a provocative, controversial, and a seed for squabbling. The subsequent discussions of the assigned blogs, however, perhaps better demonstrated how support for the environmental movement can be successfully garnered, and how that advocacy can turn into action.
The conservative thought from the Heritage Foundation was at first terribly frightening, until I realized that it was a reactionary piece, based on gut instincts and subjective values. We may wonder at how intelligent people can preach so adamantly against the environmental "agenda," but what we perceive as an extremism of thought is really just a retort to what they see as our extremism. I roll my eyes at their disdain for anything perceived as "anti-capitalist;" as a environmentalist/feminist/socialist/vegetarian/every other obnoxious left-wing -ism, however, my liberalness is probably just as scary and scoff-worthy. If schools started showing films about the absolute dangers of same-sex marriage to our society, a view held by the Heritage Foundation, I would surely be equally defensive of my dearly-held values that were being attacked. While they get no empathy, I suppose I can sympathize with the Heritage Foundation's response.
The article by Earth Institute is much more crucial to our understanding of the future of the environmentalism and the impending reality of climate change. Although Steve Cohen supports the message of sustainability, and recognizes the current system as inherently wasteful and something that needs to be at least moderately overhauled, he still views Leonard's complete rejection of capitalism and consumerism as much too extreme. The film did provoke in him, however, a renewed recognition of an immediate need to make improvements to the current waste management system, concentrating on renewable resources and responsible consumption. This reaction, from a moderate, though environmentally-conscious, school of thought, shows that The Story of Stuff's extremism may not inspire such radical action in the every day consumer, it is enough to get the ball rolling, which is all one can ask for.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Getting the Whole Story
I personally really enjoyed watching "The Story of Stuff" in class on Tuesday. When people try to address environmental issues, many times it just ends up being a long, boring speech that people begin to tune out about halfway through. This video, in stark contrast, kept it simple and for the most part, to the point. It gave viewers a lot of information that many of them may not have known before.
Therefore, I think that the debate is rather ridiculous. One of my favorite lines as I read the NY Times article was about the 9 year old kid asking his parents if buying more Legos would hurt the planet. It is great that kids this young are asking such important questions! It is much harder to "teach an old dog new tricks," or in this case, to get adults to change their consumption habits. This line, however, was pointed out as a major problem in the Heritage Foundation article.
The debate doesn't solely focus on the issue at hand; rather it nitpicks at a few things that may have been a little too extreme for conservative or even moderate viewers. I'll admit that when I heard the statistic of 50% of taxes being spent on military, I was a little skeptical. One of the main problems that then arises from a small point being factually incorrect is that those who were already somewhat skeptical of the whole message may now completely disregard anything that is said. It also very easy to see the biases that the Heritage Foundation held about the topic right from the beginning of their article. By focusing only on these few potential exaggerations, they chose not to focus on the much more important big picture of consumption.
The Cohen article, on the other hand, gave a better, less biased review of the film. He brought up interesting points in that we need to know what will happen next. If the film had a more conclusive ending with some real prescriptions for change, the Heritage Foundation may not have been as into bashing the few problems they could find.
It will be very difficult to ever reconcile these distinct differences between the two sides of the debate and come to some sort of an agreement. With the conservative side always championing the cause of the corporation and the liberal side championing the cause of the people and the world, it may be hard to make that happen. With more concrete goals, there can be better discussion towards a common solution and hopefully less debate over the little issues.
Therefore, I think that the debate is rather ridiculous. One of my favorite lines as I read the NY Times article was about the 9 year old kid asking his parents if buying more Legos would hurt the planet. It is great that kids this young are asking such important questions! It is much harder to "teach an old dog new tricks," or in this case, to get adults to change their consumption habits. This line, however, was pointed out as a major problem in the Heritage Foundation article.
The debate doesn't solely focus on the issue at hand; rather it nitpicks at a few things that may have been a little too extreme for conservative or even moderate viewers. I'll admit that when I heard the statistic of 50% of taxes being spent on military, I was a little skeptical. One of the main problems that then arises from a small point being factually incorrect is that those who were already somewhat skeptical of the whole message may now completely disregard anything that is said. It also very easy to see the biases that the Heritage Foundation held about the topic right from the beginning of their article. By focusing only on these few potential exaggerations, they chose not to focus on the much more important big picture of consumption.
The Cohen article, on the other hand, gave a better, less biased review of the film. He brought up interesting points in that we need to know what will happen next. If the film had a more conclusive ending with some real prescriptions for change, the Heritage Foundation may not have been as into bashing the few problems they could find.
It will be very difficult to ever reconcile these distinct differences between the two sides of the debate and come to some sort of an agreement. With the conservative side always championing the cause of the corporation and the liberal side championing the cause of the people and the world, it may be hard to make that happen. With more concrete goals, there can be better discussion towards a common solution and hopefully less debate over the little issues.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Stuff of the Story
I was deeply impacted by Leonard's video that we watched in class. I found it to be very compelling, and a good synthesis of the kinds of relationships and complexities we have been discussing. I found the ontent of the lecture itself to be provocative, and well informed. Therefore, I was irritated (not surprisingly) by the conservative bash of the video. The criticism offered by the Heritage foundation, and the small critiques included in Cohen's piece, focused almost entirely on the structure and presentation of the video. In fact, the Heritage piece did not delve into the specifics of Leonard's argument, but instead concentrated on the implementation of her video in American classrooms, and a small discussion of the language she used.
I find it infuriating when right wing analysis of environmental positions appear like this. I rarely see criticism that is based on scientific findings or contrary evidence. It is always concerned with the presentation of the ideas, and the east coast liberals trying to indoctrinate Americans for their own personal gain. I wish for once that criticism of an argument like "The Story of Stuff" was rooted in factual ideas, rather than obssessed with the story itself.
I find it infuriating when right wing analysis of environmental positions appear like this. I rarely see criticism that is based on scientific findings or contrary evidence. It is always concerned with the presentation of the ideas, and the east coast liberals trying to indoctrinate Americans for their own personal gain. I wish for once that criticism of an argument like "The Story of Stuff" was rooted in factual ideas, rather than obssessed with the story itself.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Intro!
Hi!
This is the first environmental class I've taken at AU. Honestly I took it because it fulfilled a requirement however, since the first class I'm really happy I added it. I've always tried to be environmentally conscious and I'm a vegetarian. I know its only been a few classes but now I'm rethinking my concentration and thinking of looking into environmental studies. Currently, I'm also trying to decide between studying abroad in Australia or Brussels. So if anyone wants to give their advice on it I'm totally open to it. I've read a few environmental books and I love "how to green books." I liked reading Sarah's entry because it reminded me when I was younger. When I was 8 my favorite subject was science. I loved the rain forest and I wanted to become a marine biologist. However as the years went on and science class became more difficult,, my love for the rain forest and marine life faded. In high school I was a big proponent of the being environmentally conscious though.
Currently I'm a full time student that interns at RAINN and I am involved with Student Advocates for Native Communites. This summer I co-led an alternative break to the Pine Ridge, a reservation in South Dakota. The theme was the role of development and environmental justice within indigenous communities. We worked with a group that was trying to promote gardening as a source of income. They were also combating a mining company that was polluting the local water source. We also learned about the challenges the Lakota community faces when trying to create wind farms. It was a really interesting trip.
I definitely agree with Sarah and Collin. I think its a great point Stanley Fish makes and I don't think you can talk about environmentalism with out touching on it. I can definitely relate. Freshmen year of college, I made a very large effort to go green. I tried to cut down my dairy intake as much as possible (I tried to go vegan at one point). I bought very little for myself. I took a lot of time and energy and focused on recycling. But nothing ever felt good enough and I ended up burning myself out. It was just too much and it was very discouraging. So I gave up and went back to my old ways. Professor Nicholson said something in class the other day about how it is unrealistic to put all the responsibility on the individual. He said for the green movement to be successful it needs to be put into policy. I really agree with this. Buying expensive light bulbs is nice but its not a luxury everyone can afford.
This is the first environmental class I've taken at AU. Honestly I took it because it fulfilled a requirement however, since the first class I'm really happy I added it. I've always tried to be environmentally conscious and I'm a vegetarian. I know its only been a few classes but now I'm rethinking my concentration and thinking of looking into environmental studies. Currently, I'm also trying to decide between studying abroad in Australia or Brussels. So if anyone wants to give their advice on it I'm totally open to it. I've read a few environmental books and I love "how to green books." I liked reading Sarah's entry because it reminded me when I was younger. When I was 8 my favorite subject was science. I loved the rain forest and I wanted to become a marine biologist. However as the years went on and science class became more difficult,, my love for the rain forest and marine life faded. In high school I was a big proponent of the being environmentally conscious though.
Currently I'm a full time student that interns at RAINN and I am involved with Student Advocates for Native Communites. This summer I co-led an alternative break to the Pine Ridge, a reservation in South Dakota. The theme was the role of development and environmental justice within indigenous communities. We worked with a group that was trying to promote gardening as a source of income. They were also combating a mining company that was polluting the local water source. We also learned about the challenges the Lakota community faces when trying to create wind farms. It was a really interesting trip.
I definitely agree with Sarah and Collin. I think its a great point Stanley Fish makes and I don't think you can talk about environmentalism with out touching on it. I can definitely relate. Freshmen year of college, I made a very large effort to go green. I tried to cut down my dairy intake as much as possible (I tried to go vegan at one point). I bought very little for myself. I took a lot of time and energy and focused on recycling. But nothing ever felt good enough and I ended up burning myself out. It was just too much and it was very discouraging. So I gave up and went back to my old ways. Professor Nicholson said something in class the other day about how it is unrealistic to put all the responsibility on the individual. He said for the green movement to be successful it needs to be put into policy. I really agree with this. Buying expensive light bulbs is nice but its not a luxury everyone can afford.
Every Little Bit Counts
So as you may know, my name is Lindsey. I am originally from a very small town in central Pennsylvania. In fact, I'm not actually from a "town" at all; I still had a rural route box number address until about 2 months ago. My house was 2 miles outside of the town of 500 people. While I didn't grow up on a farm, I think the fact that I spent 17 of my first 18 years living next door to a cornfield (or soybeans depending on the year) was very influential in my passion for environmental issues. I love having the opportunity to just get outside and enjoy the fresh mountain air while I am at home. Junior year of high school, I spent a year abroad in the Philippines as an exchange student. While there, I got to experience beautiful beaches, exotic flora, and wildlife not found anywhere else in the world. It is quite disheartening to know that if we keep going the way we are going now, some of these amazing things may disappear within my lifetime.
While these are only a few factors that have brought me to this class, I really look forward to learning more about the environmental problems that we all face and ways to go about fixing them. As an International Studies major, with a concentration on Peace and Conflict Resolution, I really hope to be able to better connect environmental justice with creating and keeping peace for those who may not be as fortune. I also hope that I can bring some of my own rural "country girl" upbringing to those in the class who may have never had to wait for a cow to cross the road before they could continue driving.
There were a lot of things that just didn't quite sit well with me in Fish's article I Am, Therefore I Pollute. I believe that his view in general was much too fatalistic; he believes that changing one little thing isn't worth it because it doesn't change the big picture enough. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that we need more education about the "big picture" issues in environmental change, such as global warming, ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity. But how can we go about actually changing anything?
During class, Professor Nicholson brought up that he doesn't think that caring for the environment should or really even could be put back on the individual. While I agree with this, I think that until there is widespread regulation from governments across the globe, these small things are what can get us going in the right direction. I am a vegetarian, mostly for environmental reasons. Does it make a huge difference that I have decided to eat a salad instead of a steak for dinner? No, probably not. If there are 100,000 people who decide to stop eating meat for similar reasons, will it make a difference? Possibly.
Every step, no matter how small, can make a difference in the long run. With ever increasing population numbers, every step that we each make can mean the difference between sustaining the Earth and creating disaster.
While these are only a few factors that have brought me to this class, I really look forward to learning more about the environmental problems that we all face and ways to go about fixing them. As an International Studies major, with a concentration on Peace and Conflict Resolution, I really hope to be able to better connect environmental justice with creating and keeping peace for those who may not be as fortune. I also hope that I can bring some of my own rural "country girl" upbringing to those in the class who may have never had to wait for a cow to cross the road before they could continue driving.
There were a lot of things that just didn't quite sit well with me in Fish's article I Am, Therefore I Pollute. I believe that his view in general was much too fatalistic; he believes that changing one little thing isn't worth it because it doesn't change the big picture enough. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that we need more education about the "big picture" issues in environmental change, such as global warming, ozone depletion, and loss of biodiversity. But how can we go about actually changing anything?
During class, Professor Nicholson brought up that he doesn't think that caring for the environment should or really even could be put back on the individual. While I agree with this, I think that until there is widespread regulation from governments across the globe, these small things are what can get us going in the right direction. I am a vegetarian, mostly for environmental reasons. Does it make a huge difference that I have decided to eat a salad instead of a steak for dinner? No, probably not. If there are 100,000 people who decide to stop eating meat for similar reasons, will it make a difference? Possibly.
Every step, no matter how small, can make a difference in the long run. With ever increasing population numbers, every step that we each make can mean the difference between sustaining the Earth and creating disaster.
Fish: Majoring In Environmental Apathy
Environmentalism, for some reason, has been a cause close to my heart from an early age. After uncovering my second-grade journals, I discovered an entry about my future plans, where I explained that I wanted to be the President when I grew up, because then I could outlaw the destruction of the rainforest. I don't know how an eight-year-old learned about ecosystem degradation, but the lesson stuck, and I've been that girl who glares at you when you throw away a recyclable ever since. I was even voted "Most Likely To Go Green" for senior superlatives, which was kind of exciting, not to mention tempting to put on my resume. Anyways, as an environmental studies major, I'm taking this class as a major requirement; I'm also a chemistry minor, so I thought that this class would be an excellent balance to the heavy load of science courses. On a non-environmental note, I also really enjoy coffee, Scrabble, and celebrity gossip blogs, and will gladly partake in a cup, game, or gab session with anyone friendly enough to offer.
Fish's article, I Think, Therefore I Pollute struck a chord with me for several reasons, some more serious than others. Firstly, my roommate and I were just discussing how ridiculous people sound when they name-drop Foucault, and sure enough, Michael found himself smack-dab in the middle of this refreshingly candid commentary on an individual's approach to environmentalism. Secondly, the example to which he refers at the end of the article, about his friend's wife making the former unplug his appliances, could have been extracted verbatim from my house this summer. Every day, after making a cup (er, four) of coffee, I would unplug both my machine and my mother's. About two hours later, they would both be plugged in again by my mother. After several heated debates about the merits of energy efficiency v. aesthetic dearth caused by clumsy cords, we reached a stalemate.
The coffeepot conundrum makes a point about Fish's view of collective institutionalism over personal responsibility; I concede the point that one's consumers purchasing power, one recycled can, or one unplugged appliance, is not going to solve the mammoth of today's environmental crisis. However, disregarding the momentum of these small actions is arrogant, as it conveys that one believes one is above nature, and that one's decisions are exempt from the realm of environmental ethics. Also, if everyone thought the way that Fish did, talking the talk but only begrudgingly trudging the walk, we would be in a lot of trouble (or, more than we currently are). There is no way to be 100% environmentally friendly at all times, but it's worth striving for, and the effort must be there at the very least if there is to be any positive change.
Living green in America needs to mean both taking those small, tedious tasks that Fish so "resents," and also changing our world views and decision-making process from an anthropocentric mentality to a biocentric one. There needs to be responsibility taken by each individual citizen to do his or her part to prevent further environmental degradation, as well as the initiative to make larger, global changes that have the possibility to reverse the damage.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The First Post! How Exciting.
So I guess I'll begin by introducing myself a little more for you all. I grew up in a very liberal and environmentally conscious family. My mom works at the University of Massachusetts developing environmental science curriculum, and my dad works for a engineering firm that does audits and retrofits on government buildings to make them more energy efficient. Its not surprising I guess that both my sister and I have entered into environmental studies. My sister graduated from Brandeis as an environmental science major, and is working at MIT for a economics professor doing research on the economic impacts of the recently passed House Energy Bill.
Over the past couple of years, I have settled into environmental policy as a course of study. I am very dedicated to understanding all of the issues in the field, and I am very passionate when it comes to inspiring action on environmental issues.
As a result, I found the article by Dr. Stanley Fish to be very interesting, and crucial to any discussion of environmental politics. As Professor Nicholson mentioned in the first class, it is usually very ineffective for environmental change to come from individual actions and choices such as reducing toilet paper waste in a consumer household. While these types of decisions are respectable and admirable, I agree with one of the comments on the blog who said that the environmental community has become too caught up with these types of nitty gritty details, and is losing focus of the broader picture of consumer culture and carbon emissions. We can never hope to win the long term game if we are playing it with compact fluorescent bulbs and locally harvested cabinets.
For this reason, I found the New York Times article assigned for today's class to be out of touch with the root causes of environmental degradation. The author argued, along with many scholars, that affluence is the key to successful environmental change. I believe that this is entirely incorrect and could lead to a dangerous mentality of complacency and disregard for the problem throughout the developed world. However, I am interested to hear more arguments from this perspective, along with a host of other highly controversial issues that are sure to crop out throughout the course.
Over the past couple of years, I have settled into environmental policy as a course of study. I am very dedicated to understanding all of the issues in the field, and I am very passionate when it comes to inspiring action on environmental issues.
As a result, I found the article by Dr. Stanley Fish to be very interesting, and crucial to any discussion of environmental politics. As Professor Nicholson mentioned in the first class, it is usually very ineffective for environmental change to come from individual actions and choices such as reducing toilet paper waste in a consumer household. While these types of decisions are respectable and admirable, I agree with one of the comments on the blog who said that the environmental community has become too caught up with these types of nitty gritty details, and is losing focus of the broader picture of consumer culture and carbon emissions. We can never hope to win the long term game if we are playing it with compact fluorescent bulbs and locally harvested cabinets.
For this reason, I found the New York Times article assigned for today's class to be out of touch with the root causes of environmental degradation. The author argued, along with many scholars, that affluence is the key to successful environmental change. I believe that this is entirely incorrect and could lead to a dangerous mentality of complacency and disregard for the problem throughout the developed world. However, I am interested to hear more arguments from this perspective, along with a host of other highly controversial issues that are sure to crop out throughout the course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)