Quotations

"And in this sense the extinction crisis- the race to save the composition, structure, and organization of biodiversity as it exists today- is over, and we have lost."

-Stephen M. Meyer, The End of the Wild

"A regulation is a signal of design failure..."

-Bill McDonough in the Cradle to Cradle film

Final Quotes

Our groups interpretation of the Lorax

"I won’t take the seed but I will take a stand
Against the capitalist forces destroying our land"

Cradle to Cradle

"What would it mean to become, once again, native to this place, the Earth--the home of all our relations? This is going to take us all and it is going to take forever. But then, that's the point."

Creating Real Change

I really liked reading the "Leverage Points" piece by Donella Meadows. I'll admit when I first started reading it, I thought that it was going to be very dry and full of a bunch of crazy ideas that made no sense. However, she was very clear about her definitions and the different jargon that she used. Her analogies were incredibly helpful in understanding just exactly what she meant when discussing the different leverage points that are in a system.

From her definitions of the different leverage points to intervene in the environmental realm, it seems as though today's environmental movement is stuck too far near the bottom of her list of 12 leverage points. Most of the actions taken by those who deem themselves as environmentalists are somewhere around number 12 on her line of effectiveness. It has become ingrained in the minds of most Americans that by simply tinkering around the edges of a major problem, we are actually solving it. By creating slightly more efficient cars, lightbulbs, and other electronics, we are saving the world. Or so says the conventional wisdom. However, these small changes are really only putting off the inevitable and are simply buying time.

Instead of focusing the environmental movement on these "edges," we need to begin to focus on the real issue at hand: the system itself. When we get to numbers 1, 2, and 3 on her list, we see how we need to change the goals of the system, the mindset out of which the paradigm arises, and to harness the power to transcend paradigms. These goals are all about changing the heart of the issue and acknowledging that without considering these problems, we will never really be changing anything. I think that if people who truly care about the environment and are passionate about creating positive change begin to look at these ideas, we can actually get somewhere.

But still many people think that it simply is not possible. They are content with playing with the margins instead of getting down to some real work. They always say that the system is too much a part of our culture and our lives to be able to be changed. I admit that I still think this way a lot of the time. There are so many people who may not be willing to go for these far-fetched, "crazy liberal" ideas. But as we have seen this semester, there are a lot of people on our side. In just 20 minutes in class, we came up with 5 off the wall ideas to create a real change in our society. So lets do it. Stop whining about how things can never get done and get out there and try. The future of the environmental movement need not be one in which we know nothing truly helpful will be done. The future can be bright if we are just willing to try.

With the given assignment to have a conversation about environmentalism and climate change, I set out over Thanksgiving to coax anyone willing to take the bait into a discussion. I'm normally extremely passive in my environmental views, speaking with others about them only when prompted or when they've shown interest, and I jumped at the opportunity to be a bit more aggressive in my approach. However, no one would entertain my activist advances, which I found strange, due to the often volatile nature of the topic. My first victim was my dentist, who engaged me in light conversation about college, how it feels to be back at home, etc. The reasoning was that even if the conversation didn't go well, she still had to stick around and clean my teeth. I divulged my major, environmental studies, which usually puts people on the defensive, now aware of my tree hugger ways. When she asked me how my break had been so far, I saw my chance. I said something about the increasing suburban sprawl in our town, especially the new Walmart that had been built right across from my neighborhood at the expense of farmland. Her response? Nothing.

I chose my mother as my next prey. She's been dealing with my pet causes and soapboxes since about second grade, so I knew that a discussion about consumerism, capitalism, and their connections to climate change would be no novelty to her, and while she might not listen, she also wouldn't explode in an offended rage. When she asked me what I wanted for Christmas, I told her nothing, explaining both the philosophical and practical reasons for eschewing the equivocation of love and goodwill with the acquisition of material goods that is the status quo during the holiday season. I expected at least some discussion, but all I got from her was, "Sarah, if you keep being this weird, you're not going to have any friends." Thanks, Mom.

I gave up on trying to talk to people about climate change, which was frustrating, because I felt that I had so much more to say on the subject, armed with facts and resources after having taken this class. It was my aunt's wayward comment at dinner on Friday night, however, that made me really think about how environmentalists perceive and express our movement. She asked me if my long-term vegetarianism was still ideological, or more of an identity. Perhaps the biggest hindrance to the environmental movement is that is has created a community and an identity, which can be a good thing, but can also alienate people. The best way to get people on board is to create a movement based on action, not identity.

Last Post :(

Over the break I talked to my dad a little about climate change. I am definitely not one for a provocative approach because I think that can easily turn someone off. I tried to talk about what I have learned this semester as calmly and as scientifically I could but on the spot I wasn't able to communicate all my ideas as accurately as I wanted. I have a hard time articulating my thoughts when I'm wrapped up in the heat of the moment. I tried to talk to him about the climate change and even how the individualistic approach isn't the right way to go about the problem. I also tried to talk to him about the wedges exercise in class. He thought some of the wedges were kind of extreme and not going to happen within the next half century. He was glad to talk about it though with me. I think everyone has different styles of communications and are better at some than other. Sometimes I feel like debates or trying to enlighten someone over the holidays just comes off as condescending. I feel like I am more of a behind the scenes person such as I would rather design promotional materials for my beliefs than talk about them. The project I'm working for the presentations is more my style. I hope to show him it when I go back for break.

Although I did end up having a brief environment related conversation with my grandmother over the break, I avoided having the discussion I should have had with my cousins out of fear. My cousins are slightly older, both graduated from college, and live in Pittsburgh. I dont see them all that often, but when I do I always notice the differences between their experiences and my own. Although they hold most of the same values that I do, and were raised in a more or less similar family, their actions and beliefs about the world are drastically different from mine.

The reason I avoided speaking with them was due to a handful of conversations I have had in the past with them, including one on environmental issues. Even though they are substantially liberal guys at heart, they tend to be much more passive and pessimistic about politics and social change. For some reason, they have gone through life with the understanding that big systems like government and the economy are neither fundamentally misguided or succeptable to change, so they have somewhat given up on supporting any real change. When I discussed climate change with them a few years ago, they essentially agreed with all of the points I made, but they refused to accept that any of the proposed solutions would ever work. They cited pragmatism and practicality when arguing about changing our transportation system, and hid behind governmental inertia to ignore claims that meaningful legislation to curb emissions would ever come to pass.

It seems to me that this is a common affliction among Democrats in this country. Sitting back and refusing to participate in social movements is easy, and the arguments against getting involved can be convincing. After all, changing the way we structure our economy is an extremely daunting task, and its hard to blame someone for feeling insignificant in the fight for sustainable living. However, I ended up regretting my avoidance of the conversation, because I bet that the new ideas that I picked up this semester, especially recently, such as leverage points, and Professor Maniates trinity of despair, could have been much more helpful in convincing them that their attitude about environmental change could be improved without too much effort.

I have always prided myself in being a pragmatist, and avoiding grandiose idealism, something that seems common in environmental politics. However, one of the many things this class has taught me is to never give up on long term goals, and to believe in the power and importance of every small step in the right direction. I hope the next time I see my cousins I will get up the courage to engage them about their beliefs, and maybe I can convert a couple more people to subscribe to a more optimistic and involved view on envrionmental issues.

Oh hey, blog group!

I know this is kind of far-fetched, but would anyone be interested in perhaps putting our CRADLES idea, or something like it, into action over winter break? We have the vision, the contacts, and the time (I know I don't do anything but eat cereal and watch It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia over breaks), and Professor Nicholson's reaction made me think that this is all very feasible. Or maybe I just woke up on the right side of the bed today. Thoughts?

Cradle to Cradle

Cradle to Cradle is definitely different than all of the other pieces that we have read so far this semester. While many of the other pieces focused heavily on what was wrong and only gave a small view into what we should do about it, this book focuses more on the future and what can be done to truly create positive change in our society. The way that the authors go about explaining the different topics is also very interesting, discussing the two separate nutrient cycles and the 3 key points to master in order to understand their ideas. They make extremely valid points in an easy to understand way. As I read through the book, I kept feeling like "oh yea. Why hasn't someone thought of this before?" Their ideas seem so simple in theory, but I do worry about the implementation of these ideas any time soon.

I think that in order to actually convince any producers to start creating their products as "cradle to cradle certified" or to create buildings in the way that McDonough and Braungart suggest, we must make sure that there is something in it for them. As much as those of us in this class may hate it, our society today is built on the economy and big business is not going to be willing to simply sit back and take massive cuts for the sake of the environment. However, if there can be quantifiable measurements on items such as worker productivity that coincide with the move to a new, greener building with more fresh air and natural lighting, more businesses may be likely to move to these buildings. It will be both benefiting the environment as well as their own business. For individual products, I think that these "cradle to cradle certified" products will remain a niche market for those of us who already believe it is important to buy green. That being said, legislation needs to be passed in order to make these ideas necessary. If the government regulates the amount of waste that is allowed in a final product, the industry will have to comply, and going to the cradle to cradle method is probably the most feasible choice. Overall, I think that these ideas are great and do seem like wonderful theories. However, there still needs to be a change in the mindsets of both producers and the government in order to truly see a change to this "2nd industrial revolution."

I found McDonough and Braungart's Cradle to Cradle to be enjoyable and interesting for many reasons. Firstly, it was such a novelty that the cover was waterproof; it was nice to be able to read a book while waiting for the AU shuttle in the rain. Secondly, my interests, and hopefully my future career plans, are in green chemistry, and scientific fields. The work that the authors have done was inspiring, and their innovative ideas about how to redesign society to create a system that mimics nature got my wheels turning about sustainable design and the future of technology in the environmental solution. While most of the articles we have read for this class have condemned the use of science and technology in addressing climate change, it was refreshing to know that there is a place for human intellectual creativity in the debate that does not aim to just increase our growth and repair as we go, but completely overhauls our current paradigms of consumptions.

Cradle to Cradle was optimistic, but not overly so. It is the healthy dose of optimism that makes the solutions proposed in the book more likely to be implemented. While most of the readings in the class have identified the problem, but not the solution, or have presented a solution so impossible and futile that it depresses the readers, McDonough and Braungart lay out answers that are completely feasible and sensible. This provides an outlet for action, without having to change the environmental ethics of a considerably anthropocentric population.

Cradle to Factory

The optimism of McDonough and Braungart when it comes to improved industrial methods and materials is palpable. And some of their successes are very impressive, especially the fabric that is completely organic and can be tossed on a compost heap to decay naturally. The idea that waste equals food is a seductive one for environmentalists, and it holds a lot of promise for the world of manufacturing and industry, if not global society as a whole.

That being said, and I hate always sounding like the pessimist, its not the only solution, nor is it practical for all things. The fact is our entire consumer economy is built on consumption of hazardous chemicals and petroleum. Everything from computer chips to cosmetics requires petroleum in its production, and not just to produce energy to power the industrial process. Some of these products can be made safely, others will probably have to be eliminated altogether. Whether we can live without the more dangerous products is not clear, especially given the absolutist nature of the waste equals food paradigm.

None of this means we shouldn't adopt the whole waste equals food paradigm. In fact, I wholeheartedly endorse it. It's just that it's not so easy when it comes to the more backbone products of our industrial society, and there will be much resistance to change, not least from the industries that make these products, but also possibly from the public at large.

Cradle to Cradle

It was great to read such an optimistic book before the class comes to a close. As with everything we have read there are some pros and cons but over all. I think the way of thinking about the environment they introduced was pretty revolutionary. They argue against what they call down cycling and and call for making products for their reuse in mind. Waste equals food, respect bio diversity, and use current solar income are also great concepts they emphasize.

One idea that struck me as really simple but at the same time beautiful, was to design after the greatest architect of all time: nature. Everything in nature has a use and can be reused and have another function. He also mentioned how shelter in nature is multifunctional. Not only does a tree provide shelter but it also provides food, reproduces, and creates oxygen among other things. I loved how his buildings tried to replicate this with the incorporation of plants and producing their own energy and filtrating their own water.

Another thing I thought was great was they seem to place the responsibility on the industry, which I think is a better idea because they have the funds and can reach so many different people that they can make a difference.

One problem though is just how feasible these ideas are. I thought about why hasn't this book been replicated, then I remembered what the price was. It's almost 30 dollars. Also the buildings and other designs sound amazing but how affordable are they. I think there still needs a lot of work that has to be done to make these more available to the general public.

I obviously don't think this is the end all be all solution to the environmental problems we have been facing but I think this approach of building for reuse rather than recycle could have a significantly positive effect.

Circles of Life

I definitely appreciated the optimism and hope outlined in Cradle To Cradle. In contrast to many of our other readings, McDonough and Braungart did a good job of providing much more specific answers and solutions to our environmental problems. Rather than dwell upon the complexity and overwhelming nature of the situation, the authors provided a realistic and logical approach to moving forward. I also agreed with their emphasis on waste and nutrient flows. It really makes sense to focus on the discrepancy between the linear nature of human economy and the cylical nature of the environment. It is certainly true that humans and our economy are firmly entrenched within the environmental systems that dictate life, and trying to force a linear model upon simply will not work in the long run. Learning from nature is always a good idea, since Mother Earth usually beats human ingenuity for form and function, and coming up with truly renewable resources and solutions is a perfect example of this.
On the other hand, I think the implementation of this trend needs to lose some of its rosy idealism. Like I mentioned in class, I think the fundamental problem with this pattern is the inequal distribution of sources and sinks throughout the world. Since the international community is broken up into nations that do not cooperate at a very high level, the closing off of loops could easily end up benefitting some at the expense of others. This could be especially possible in terms of the split between developed and developing nations. In addition, I feel that there are certain global populations that, by the very nature of their surrounding geography, are incapable of truly ending the concept of waste and resource degradation. The number of people that live in island nations without any discernable natural resources can never be truly sustainable, because they require the support of other countries for their wellbeing.
However, these challenges are not enough to prevent the Cradle to Cradle economy from functioning. I think the authors have prompted an important revolution in the environmental community, with their tenets of respecting diversity and not simply doing 'less bad' things. I hope we as a global community can ultimately understand and appreciate their genius and begin adopting more and more cyclical resource flows that foment real sustainability.

The Trinity of Despair

Before having the video conference with Prof. Maniates, I admit I was a bit skeptical about his ideas and his belief that individual action really doesn't account for that much. After all, that is what the "environmental" movement is all about in our country. When I read his articles for class, I thought that it just seemed almost as though he was against any type of individual action, but during the conference, he explained that individual action should be something as commonplace as personal hygiene. I still believe that individual action should be stressed, since in the collective, the action will start to actually matter. So I guess in this way, I am still a bit skeptical of his Environmental Strategy standpoint. I think that encouraging individual action is a good place to start getting people to think about environmental issues. By giving people some examples of things that they can do in their own lives, you are getting the ball rolling for more substantial change at a higher level. If people do not believe that changes on a grand scale will actually benefit the environment or themselves, they will most likely disagree with the changes.

Overall, I really liked the "trinity of despair" diagram. I think that the most important part to take from is the Social Change aspect, saying that we don't need 100% of people to be with us. I think that a lot of the time, we get too caught up with the climate skeptics, wondering how they can still be against the idea of climate change even when all of the science points to these anthropogenic causes. But as illustrated on the hand out, the number of people who believe in it/are worried about it far outweigh those who are in complete disbelief. I think that by keeping this fact in our minds, we can start to move away from the feeling of despair that we can't get anything done and instead focus on those that are with us. We have it by the numbers, so we just need to get going with it.

I think that all major social changes have to start somewhere. They have all begun at a grassroots level, convincing people on the street of what they can do to help the cause. It is time now, however, for us to start to move from the individual to the collective. By encouraging those who are with us to come together and ask those in charge to make real change, we might actually see something important happen soon. And as we all know, it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

The Trinity of Despair

After last class, I think the thing that most resonated with me was the discussion about social movements. It really does only take a committed minority to make great change. The key word there is committed. We have to really want the change, at the expense of other causes, and we have to be willing to make sacrifices in order to bring that change about. With climate change, I believe we have an issue to galvanize public opinion to the point where changes can be railroaded through. The sticking point is always Congress, and some serious politicking has to be done in order to get the government to change, but we can always lobby state governments and follow the example of California, which is pushing ahead on limiting emissions, leaving the Federal government behind.

As far as the little things are concerned, we have to be careful about how we use them. We shouldn't totally abandon advocating them to the public, but I feel that we've gotten carried away with extolling the virtues of little solutions because they're easy and tangible. And its true, that if everyone in the world did little things, we could make great strides toward solving our environmental problems. But the fact is that you'll never get enough people on board to enable you to combat environment issues just through little solutions alone.

For the last corner of the triangle, I don't believe that people are inherently selfish, but they are lazy or too busy to care when it comes to environmental and political issues as a whole, which often has the same effect. Whether people are selfish or lazy, it doesn't matter because its still a herculean task to get them to do anything to put pressure on private business or the government. However, I do believe that there will always be enough people who care to mobilize social movements to enact change, for the environment but also for other political issues as well.

After reading Maniates' article, I wasn't convinced about the futility of individual action. True, an even greater indebtedness to consumerism isn't going to solve any of our environmental problems, but could it really hurt to ask people to take small steps to helping the environment? This was my mentality before Maniates' video conference; it seemed that by convincing enough people to make the environmentally-sound decision, there would be an eventual shift in paradigm and mindset by the general public, swinging popular opinion in favor of stricter legislation. I was of the opinion that it was actually irresponsible to eschew responsible, personal lifestyle choices in favor of government action. It seemed dangerous to leave such an important issue to bureaucratic institutions, especially if it gave people an excuse to continue wasteful practices.

Now, I am entirely convinced of Maniates' point of the need for larger actions in place of individualized environmentalism. The most powerful example was that of the compost demonstration. Sure, changing the hearts and values of people is ideal and would definitely lead to change, but that's impossible, thanks to the "knuckleheads" Maniates so affectionately described. It would be simpler, and more effective, to completely overhaul the rules and force the system (or, The System, to extrapolate) to be more environmentally friendly. Intentions are great, but not necessary. I posted the Billion Trees Campaign to the blog earlier this week without realizing how perfectly it related to Maniates' presentation, but the ridiculousness of "encouraging" everyone to plant a tree as a solution for climate change is well, silly. It's not related to environmentalism, but I can see the future of environmental action to be a lot like taxes. You might not like paying taxes (I don't mind them, but that's for another post), but you don't have much of a choice. Taxes are not only necessary to a functioning society, but they're legally required as well. Today's environmental movement appears similar to the "optional taxes" option on IRS forms, which I'm sure do not garner much revenue. I am now completely with Maniates' in his opinion that we need to make change happen first, and then worry about shifting society's environmental values.

Video Conference

I was not able to make it to class on Monday but I did my best to read the discussion answers my fellow bloggers wrote so I think I have a grasp on his triangle theory. I think Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" is a great model but not absolute. I can even say I've felt the despair triangle freshmen year when I was involved with trying to green up my own life. Having to micromanage every meal I ate, every pruchase, and every car ride was really starting to get to me. I was convinced that nothing I did was enough because so many people around me did not do anything. That only a disaster would get people to change their minds about the environment maybe not even that. I eventually gave up for a year until I took this class. I think his triangle theory is correct. It can be very useful in analyzing the current movement and how move pass the trinity of despair. I read Collin's post and I would have to agree also with paragraph on social chagne. I had never thought about it this way but Professor Maniates is right about the fact that we don't need a majority of environmentalists to change policies. Small interests group lobby congress all the time and are able to accomplish what they want because they are small and concise about what they want. An example of this would be American farmers.

Of course his theory is not absolute but it is definately a good analysis tool to see what we can do better and to motivate activists.

I think the aspect of Professor Maniates' approach to the environmental movement that gave me the most insight was his perspective on social change. I confess that until his videoconference, I had a preconceived notion that social change did require at least a large majority, if not the whole population, in order to be truly effective. I think his analysis showed that real change can be brought about by a motivated minority, and that so many people in the world are passive or ambivalent enough to go along with it. This perspective has given me a new sense of optimism and positivity about the environmental movement. If we can continue working through governmental and local initiatives to essentially force people into making the right choices, there might be a way out of this mess.

However, I find myself remaining skeptical about the idea as well. I think that the graph that Professor Maniates used to emphasize his point about who is with us and who is against us was not fully indicative of social trends. Although a large majority of Americans may either believe or not have an opinion on global warming, a great deal of those people are also firmly entrenched in the economic system that they are accustomed to. When it comes to creating a wide-reaching compost system that essentially changes nothing about people's behavior, Maniates' idea of social change is very accurate. However, if we try to make systematic changes to the economy in order to slow down global warming emissions, or reduce our practices of deforestation and biodiversity loss, these changes will come with economic costs to the greater population. A certain percentage of Americans may be ambivalent enough to go along with a general trend towards sustainable practices, but when we start making their energy bills higher, I worry that we will lose their support rather quickly.

That being said, I think the 'trinity of despair' concept is extremely useful. The problem mentioned above is no doubt an important one, but it is something that we can perhaps overcome with proper education and policy implementation. If we get stuck in the current trend of environmental change, we wont even approach the solutions we are looking for.

Plant A Tree

This isn't for an official post, but just thought it was relevant to our past few classes, and funny in a sort of sad way. With impeccable timing, GOOD had an article today about UNEP's Billion Tree Campaign:

"Billion Tree Campaign
Posted by: francesco.franchi on November 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has launched a major worldwide tree planting campaign. Under the Plant for the Planet: Billion Tree Campaign, people, communities, business and industry, civil society organizations and governments are encouraged to enter tree planting pledges online with the objective of planting at least one billion trees worldwide each year. In a call to further individual and collective action, UNEP has set a new goal of planting 7 billion trees by the end of 2009. The campaign strongly encourages the planting of indigenous trees and trees that are appropriate to the local environment."

The best part of this is that they "encourage" tree planting. That sounds effective.

People soon started gathering 'round

and the message of the Lorax began to resound.

The more that they heard, the more they were moved

by the fate of the Truffulas and how they were removed.

A general consensus rose up from the crowd,

"This destruction of Earth- it should never be allowed!

We've had it up to here with this market-based liberalism,

what we need in this world is a dash of biocentrism."

Individually, they would have just gone on their way,

But together, the people decided to stay.

They made plans to talk, and plans to petition,

Changing social constructs became their sole mission.

The Lorax stood proudly and looked at the boy

Saying, "The voices of these people brings me such joy.

I'm so glad you looked past the power of the dollar

And saw that what people need to do is stand up and holler."

Continuing the story...

"You have finally come" he expressed with such glee
"Someone has cared enough to come and find me!
But just you alone cannot tackle this issue,"
the Lorax expressed, wiping his tear with a tissue
"We'll have to start now, we must go right away,
And tell all in the world what the Tuffulas would say."
They walked down the road, creating their plan
Deciding what they would say to "The Man."
They held a big rally in town as a call for attention
About the Tuffulas and the issue of environmental protection.
"If we do not act, the Tuffulas will be gone forever!
Please don't turn back now, we must all act together!"