The unbreakable trinity of despair?

After engaging with Professor Maniates last Friday during our teleconference, and learning of his "trinity of despair" theory, I've come to a greater understanding of why many environmental scientists and activists have such a negative view of the possibility of effective citizen action to prevent our further submergence into the current environmental crisis. Firstly, the ambivalence demonstrated by the majority of the population regarding the state of our environment, and our overwhelmingly negative impact on it, is a result of Maniates' "human nature" point of the triangle of despair. He describes our inherently selfish nature as an obstacle to our effective environmental action, and thus the primary inhibitor to obtaining an effective course of action to stop the current course of environmental destruction. I very much agree with Maniates on this matter, I believe that the majority of the inhabitants of our planet are either unaware of our harmful effects on our ecological surroundings, or simply do not care enough to curb their actions into more eco-efficient, or environmentally friendly ways of being. In my opinion, this point of the triangle is the most important obstacle we need to overcome in order to change our ways, but at the same time, represents the most difficult aspect of the triangle to modify-in that it regards our inherent ways of being as the human race.

Maniates second point of the trinity regarded "social change". Basically, Maniates stated that unless we have a sufficient number of people on board and committed to environmental action, that the current environmental groups and organizations that exist, which are fighting to bring about environmental change, are holistically irrelevant. Until we have the majority of the world actively interested and engaged with the issue of curbing our behaviours to coincide with lifestyles that will either halt or reduce our impacts that lead to climate change and global warming--we will not be able to summon an adequate amount of action at the community level to bring about any real change. Maniates believes that the only way an increase in citizen action will occur will be as the result of some sort of environmental crisis. I agree in some sense as well. I feel that since we are not able to perceive the tangible effects of climate change on a daily basis, the impacts that will effect our everyday lives, that people don't feel the need to change their habits. Until we experience some sort of actual, dramatically obvious changes to the environment that effect the whole of humanity, people will remain indifferent and seemingly inactive in the matter. On the other hand, I do not by any means see the environmental organizations that currently exist in our communities as completely ineffective or excessive. I think these grassroots organizations are vital for stirring up the activism that will eventually lead to an overall awareness of the environmental issues we are currently facing, and the vitality of addressing these issues. We see the results of the effectiveness of these groups everyday, such as in the current "green" trend that is popular in many regions of the world. It is now "chic" and "in" to live, or at least to convey a lifestyle which is seemingly green/eco-friendly, and thus cohesive with nature. I contribute this positive trend to the actions of environmental groups, which are dispelling awareness and information about the environmental crisis to new mediums, such as to the young-20 demographic and to the likes of hollywood stars & celebrities, who have an important impact on our community and planet as a whole. Therefore, although eco-organizations and environmental activists will not provide the solution to preventing a further and intensified environmental crisis, they are at least the first step to acquiring the fundamental awareness and motivation needed to bring about cohesive behavioural, social, political and institutional change we need.

Maniates third point of the triangle referred to the existing environmental strategies we've seen applied as an attempt to solve the environmental issues. The most prominent of these strategies are the bottom-up approaches to consumerism, which encourage global customers to purchase more environmentally friendly small household and other consumer goods, such as eco-clothing, lightbulbs, food items-that are less environmentally destructive than the alternative options available in the global market. This is the point of the triangle about which I am most optimistic. I believe if consumers, overall, commit to buying these items on a small scale, that we can make a dent in the current energy accumulation/waste habits we currently incur. I am optimistic about these strategies because they also have something to do with the negative parts of our inherent human nature/behaviour. Since we as human beings are inherently selfish, I believe these products will appeal to consumers in the global market because while they are generally more expensive up-front, because they require a modification in their production process, they will provide an economic benefit in the long run because they are more energy-efficient, and therefore require us to spend less of replace the objects over time. Instead of buying 30 lightbulbs in a year, we can buy one, that will last maybe 5-10 years, reducing our expenditures overall. Of the three points of the triangle, I feel the application of these environmental strategies, albeit seemingly miniscule, represent the environmental action we, in today's state, are most capable of effectively taking.