Discussion Question #1

Sorry I'm late on this--I tried to post last night apparently it didn't go through my internet functions only 50% of the time in my apt!

In my opinion, the most pressing environmental problem we are currently facing on a global scale is our overconsumption, especially our domestic consumption habits. If you compare the consumption habits of citizens of the United States to other countries, especially to those in the designated "third world", and thus our detrimental impact on the environment, it quickly becomes difficult to understand how we, as Americans, can continue to live such excessive lifestyles without the slightest pang of guilt, on a general scale. Obviously, there are those who are concerned about our effect on our environmental state--activists, environmental NGOs, biologists/ecologists, etc. Nonetheless, the overwhelming large portion of the population that is unaware of the problems we're causing, or simply don't care--is frankly shocking and frightening to say the least. Every aspect of our society, from our gigantic SUVs, to our constantly climate-controlled houses/offices, to our shopping habits, and penchance for disposable products/materials in food and consumer goods, is excessive and absolutely unnecessary.

I understood just how ridiculous our habits are even more after spending a year abroad in Brussels, Belgium and Santiago, Chile. Brussels, while not a part of the third world is surprisingly eco-conscious. Their metro systems have lighting and escalators that only function when they sense people are around, saving loads of energy. They have an extremely recycling-intensive garbage disposal system in which waste products are separated into three different categories in separately colored bags, enforced by fees that are charged to citizens if they do not follow disposal rules. Santiago, on the other hand, is considered "third world", and their environmental awareness is, sadly, much higher than that of citizens of the US. Most of the homes are without heating nor air conditioning, and the cars have restrictions for heading into the city enforcing car-pooling and the use of public transportation. These are just a few examples of how these two distinctly different countries are eco-friendly, but it just proves that much more how poor our consumption habits are. In this capacity I think the proper solution, or perhaps the fundamental way in which we should begin to solve our problems is by raising environmental awareness among US citizens. Increasing media coverage of the environmental crises, offering classes to children at a more elementary level on environmental friendliness, and stressing the dangers of overconsumption to adults as well.

In this capacity, I found Stanley Fish's article dissappointing, yet unfortunately familiar. Although he is aware of the negative impact of his overconsumptive ways, through his wife's insistence on using eco-friendly products and the like, he would rather choose the easy/cheap way out and stick to what he knows, the products he's used for his whole life--those which are harming our ecosystem. This is also rudimentary to the problem, we as Americans are accustomed to lavish lifestyles in which we can afford to live luxuriously without detriment. We as a nation need to learn that this luxurious behaviour does in fact have a cost. And that cost is our future.

Every Little Bit Makes a Difference!

There are so many things wrong with the environment, that it's difficult to say which one is the most outrageously harming factor, since they are all so inter-connected. Our consumption causes pollution, which causes a hole in the ozone layer, which causes the greenhouse effect, which causes acid rain, and so on and so forth. People have been debating about this for years and will continue to debate on it, so I might as well jump in also.

The aspect that I'm most interested in and worried about, is what comes before all that. In other words, why does all of this happen and why does it continue to happen? Mindset. To me, the attitudes and lifestyles that most people have adopted in the world today is the most pressing challenge on the environment, because that's where it all starts, and is the most difficult to change.

Attitudes of negligence and resignation are just not acceptable anymore, time is running out. What do I mean by attitudes of negligence? Well, take the comment from the person Narise was talking about. "I don’t believe the Greenhoax Effect one bit. The evidence for global warming is scant and questionable. The evidence for an anthropogenic cause is nearly absent. Who ended the last ice age, Fred Flinstone?"..."Green is the new Red." Green is the new Red????? Someone who pulls communism out of environmentalism is truly too blind to see their own impact. What I cannot comprehend about this manner of thinking is the inability to see the ridiculousness of their own argument. Let's just pretend for a moment that global warming exists only because of natural variations in the Earth's temperature as it has been occuring for eons now and we have nothing to worry about because we're not even accelerating the process. Is it still such a criminal idea to want cleaner waters and fresher air? Do these people not like the oxygen they breathe or the water in their shower that helps them stay stank-free everyday? Is planting trees (which provide them with the beautiful Burr Walnut wood veneer in the interior of their Bentleys) some sort of crop-circle ritual to them? I just do not see the logic behind that sort of rationale.

Attitudes of resignation are manifested by people who acknoweldge that there is a problem, but are overwhelmed by it so much, that they prefer to do nothing about it, because they believe they can't make a difference. But that's not true, every little bit makes a difference! For example, I too was very enthused with the three R's, growing up. I first learned about them in Ranger Rick Magazine, which I loved to read and learn about creative ways to recycle things like egg cartons and the like. When my schools had competitions on newspaper recycling, my class always won by a landslide because I would make my dad bring all the used newspapers from his coworkers! Now, I am a vegeterian, I buy as much local and organic produce asI can afford, I continue to recycle as much as I can, I buy Seventh Generation products and other eco-friendly brands, I don't have a car, I turn lights off when I'm not in the room and unplug unused appliances, and I definitely do not leave the water running while I am brushing my teeth! All in all, I thought I was doing a pretty good job taking care of Mother Earth. That is, until I realized I have an eco-footprint of 4.6 Earths!!!!! What a downer. How is that possible? Well, I do travel and fly A LOT. And I'm telling you right now, while I feel really guilty of my footprint, I am not going to stop seeing my family or exploring new countries, which I realize is probably a negligent attitude to take (however it is much better if I go see my family, than if my entire family comes to visit me!) I will also say this much, if Richard Branson, or any other entrepreneur, comes up with the first airline powered by ethanol and corn oil, I will give up my United Plus miles, and become Green Air's premiere frequent flyer.

So was it depressing to find out just how much I still leave a big, fat mark on the world? Yes. But can you imagine the alternative? What if I didn't do all those other things like eat meat and start driving an H3? I would probably use about 9 Earths...and that is far more depressing!

So when it comes to Stanley Fish, I completely understand his frustration, and I applaud him and his wife for continually changing their habits and products in order to make my footprint less noticeable.

Why people can't be bothered

As for the first question, I think the most pressing Environmental Issue of our time is our levels of consumption. I am also taking my senior seminar in Environmental Politics with Prof. Shapiro, and what I have taken from the readings and literature in both classes so far is that consumption seems to be at the root of every problem. Yes, population is a large problem, but it is truly how "big" we are that is causing population to be such an issue. People in sub-Saharan Africa do not have nearly the trail of consumption that most middle-class Americans have.

In Green Planet Blues, it has been reiterated that population comes second to consumption as an enviro. problem. What's more, they proved that the relationship between consumption and happiness is weak. I know that I am a happier person that Brittney Spears, even though she could probably buy my modest house as a house for her dog! Consumption leads to an overworking of Earth's resources, which leads to loss of biodiversity, climate change, global warming, you name it. These symptoms are all related to the same disease, consumption. I also think that consumption represents the attitude of many in developed nations. It is in our economy to consume. Capitalism and goods and resources are seen as circular, and in the neo-classical view, no outside forces have an influence on growth. To many, growth is the most important thing. But what about sustainable growth? What about resources, which definitely have an effect on the economy? It is this point of view and ideology that leaves me the most frustrated, yet at a loss. I sometimes feel like the problem is so big, that I am unsure where to start. I recently read The Weather Makers for my other class, and was an annoying roommate for the duration of that week. I hassled and followed everyone in the house around, making sure they turned off the lights, took shorter showers, and air-dryed their clothes. I have been walking and taking public transportation to school, while they still drive their cars. It is hard to convince people to change their lifestyle, but we have to act now. Our generation will experience some setbacks, and some moans and groans from people who want to resist change, but without it, we may be looking at a collapse of mankind in the future. And even worse, a collapse of all the other species on the Earth who are powerless to act for themselves. You don't see polar bears emitting CO2, but they will surely suffer for our mistakes. So a small annoyance now, for the survival of your children, and your children's children. It all seems to make sense. So for now, I think the world needs to cut back on consumption, which will be no easy task. The total system will need to be re-worked to include less focus on media and advertisements, healthier food choices, easier trash collection and recycling, etc. I am not saying it will be easy, but we can start small now.

As for the Fish article, I found it most interesting. While it did seem like the cankerings of a cranky old man, you could also sense the subtle wit and intelligence. He is clearly trying to make a point. I feel like his attitude represents that of many Americans, yet he is actually making the changes necessary. I even find it hard to do the research on which companies are enviro. friendly, which do not abuse animals and the like. I also have a hard time spending the extra money on the "green" items in whole foods and natural and organic products. Simply because I am a broke college student with limited funds! I think we need to set realistic expectations for everyone to get used to these changes, and set specific markers and milestones to hit on the road to leveling consumption.

Also, what I enjoyed most about this article were some of the responses from people right on the website. Scrolling down you see a post from a person that I did not think was truly real, the complete denier in a global environmental crisis. I have heard of people being skeptical and wanting more proof, but it seems this person is out to close his eyes and remain stubborn until we are wiped of the face of the planet.

For people like this to change their opinion, I hope our next president will issue some sort of special sessions on the Earth and the environment that people can watch and hear a voice of authority and not just those "crazy" environmentalists. While I do not agree with this view, we have to do what we have to do. If people need the President of the U.S. to tell them we are having a huge problem, then so be it. And where is the rest of Congress, etc. on these issues? It is often depressing to think of the state of our nation to me, where powerful people back away from environmental issues like its the bubonic plague. No one wants to champion that cause, as it surely leads to an axing from next years election. So instead pork barrel projects are rolled through the budgets, many exemplifying the current problems.

As we all can see from this class so far, the problems are myriad, depressing and often overwhelming. But there is a light at the end of the tunnel. If we act now, we could recover a majority of the "hole in the ozone". If we act now to curb our population growth, our children may someday have green space to play on. Lastly, I would like to end with this quote from today's reading that really was striking to me, "We don't inherit the Earth from our fathers, we borrow it from our children" David Brower.

We need to act now, and stop worrying about the present to focus on a sustainable future.

1: Going Green

Stanley Fish seems to be exhausted by the efforts of his spouse to make their marriage a green one, but there are worse things to be exhausted by.

The laziness of those who simply refuse to make any effort to reduce their own individual impact on the environment remind me of classmates I knew who expended more effort avoiding their high school assignments than they would have used actually doing them.

I'll be perfectly honest.

I understand the rejection of environmentalism that many Americans feel. I'm the same way. And if it's hard enough for me, a nineteen-year-old, to habitually do the right thing for the environment, I can only imagine how mentally distressing it must be for those from earlier generations, who lived before the mantra of "recycle, reuse, reduce" was drilled into the heads of elementary school students nationwide, must feel.

I admit (not without some shame) that I don't strive to be as environmentally friendly as I (as an American with a carbon footprint necessitating 4 worlds) ought to be, but I haven't given up on trying. Unfortunately, I'm afflicted like many Americans with the "I'll do it if it's convenient for me" syndrome. (In other words laziness, yes.)

Sure, I prefer to bike rather than drive or take public transportation, I recycle what I can, and I don't leave the faucet running when I brush my teeth (and scorn people who do); however I don't go out of my way to find green alternatives when less environmentally friendly products are exponentially more convenient to get to.

Because of this I appreciate the efforts that other people have made towards making it easier to lessen my carbon footprint. Those blue recycling bins make it 80% more likely that my recyclables will see a recycling plant rather than a trash dump. The actions of companies to tout their "environmentalism" will prompt me to support them over their less green competitors when there's no insurmountable difference between the products offered.

To live in an environmentally friendly way in the United States today means to support sustainable practices and production methods. It means to lessen your individual contribution to pollution by taking the extra second to turn off the lights as you leave a room, in winter turn the thermostat a little further down and in summer a littler further up than you may like it. Pay the extra money for local foods and suffer the indignity of public transportation.

In order to truly be environmentally friendly, we would ideally all return to village and/or nomadic life. No more cars, cities, or shopping malls. No more factories, mass production or international expedited shipping.

Is this possible? Of course. Is this likely to happen? No, of course not. Not until the next Ice Age, WWIII, or Armageddon.

So what do we do? We compromise. "Sustainability" is a concept that is generally understood to be the way to go. Sustainability won't save the wild but it will likely ensure that humanity survives longer than it would if we continued to live unsustainably.

1: It's getting hot...

Hello fellow friends of nature! I thought I'd give a shot at blogging first...

Whether we call it "global warming," "climate change," or the "greenhouse effect," this phenomenon is happening. Why do I think that this is the most pressing challenge? I know what you're thinking...you think I have made global warming the most pressing because I'm worried about the Polar Bears. You're absolutely right! Of course I'm worried about the Polar Bears, but it's not just about those cute, cuddly creatures that most of us adore. I think that global warming is a phenomena that is leading to many other destructive problems for the environment, and ultimately the entire planet and its people. What is scarier than thinking about the problems that have come about or are exacerbated due to global warming; such as the increase in atmospheric temperatures, are the anticipated problems that some of us have come to accept, ignore, or fear. Such a problem includes a rise in sea levels, which some predict could put most of the East coast of the US under water. What about the impact on agriculture, plants, animals? The string of problems connected to global warming is grand and continue to get more serious as each day passes.

I find this problem truly difficult because we feed its process each day, whether we drive our cars to work or whether I decide to use an aerosol hairspray can. It's hard to believe that deciding what kind of hairspray people use can have an effect on the environment. Maybe we think that the impact isn't necessarily that big...after all, it's just hairspray, right? Or is it?

I think this can lead into Stanley Fish's article. We know what happens when we drive our cars, it adds to air pollution, which can then lead to health problems for people who breathe in pollutants, and then another slew of problems that follow. We still drive our cars, but does that make us bad people and environmental "haters?"

To me, living environmentally friendly in the US doesn't mean very much. Many of us say that we are saving the environment by recycling, riding our bikes, using less water, etc. Aren't these the same activities that we were taught in elementary school? In elementary school, I for one felt more pressure to follow the environmental "rules" of "reduce, re-use, and recycle" because I feared what my peers and teacher would think of me if I did not. These basic "rules" are rearing their heads once again, yet this time we have a choice; without the fear (at least for me), whether to act or not. I follow these "rules" though, probably because they've been ingrained in me. I care about the environment and like Mr. Fish, I do what I can for the environment and "try to reach compromises when I can't."

I'll end my entry now by saying that I rarely use hairspray, but when I do...it's the non-aerosol pump kind.