Yet could "easy" be a start?

I would definitely have to agree with many points that Michael Maniates makes in his article, yet I am not willing to condemn small actions as not being enough. I think that in order to get this "revolution" started we truly need to take baby steps. I really liked his analogies to Paul Revere and the "Lazy Revolution" and other plugs for radical action. Yet I also think that the American Revolution took years to finally come to such a point. So while Paul Revere is not lazy, their were meetings called to order, laws passed, secret societies formed and the Boston Tea Party, all steps that finally pushed Americans over the edge to fight the British. However, I do feel that this is a sad state. I agree with Maniates that it is absurd to sit around and wait while the Earth goes into climatic crisis and that big changes will certainly alter that. Yet, I think that Maniates is too condemning of the American public.

In the United States, there are many people who cannot afford to be environmentally friendly. They are living on welfare, food stamps and are trying to make a living to support their families. In a lot of cases it might be simply bad luck, but often times it is deep rooted structures in our society involving race, class etc. that cast people into these molds. How is someone supposed to care about saving baby polar bears when their own child may be dying of hunger or disease because they can't afford health care? I know, I even feel terrible typing those words, but I also think it's the sad truth. In other parts of the world, people are even worse off and even more uneducated. Many are simply unaware of how the environment works, why their is a crisis, and how humans are involved. Yet this may be ok, since a herdsman in Africa certainly has a much smaller footprint to someone who simply chooses to remain ignorant in a Western nation.

As such, I feel it is truly the responsibility of the government to put some deep rooted structural changes in place, concerning energy use, endangered species, climate change, global warming, overfishing and all the myriad of other environmental problems that are slowly becoming worse. Even though I would like to see smart, sophisticated people inform the American public about environmental change, the truth is, can you blame Al Gore for hosting Live Earth Day? People look up to celebrities, and will listen to what they say. I would rather them hear the message from Paris Hilton than no one at all. This is something in the American consumer culture that I think we would be very hard pressed to change. It simply is. So if it takes Cameron Diaz to tell women to turn the water off in the shower while shaving their legs, and 1,000 women do, I will take that as a small accomplishment.

I believe the reason we may be treated like children when asked about environmental issues is because many people simply have not had environmental education. Our parents and grandparents might even be unsure of the terminology we use to talk about such a crisis. People need time to adjust to these new steps, and for now I think that every little bit helps. While every little bit helps, I think we should only account on the people who truly only desire to do a bit, to just do a bit. We need to balance that out with people who are willing to do 1,000,000 bits. It could be the researchers the social greens, the people who are truly calling for a revolution. Also, although it may be just the idealist ramblings of a college student, I am really looking forward to the November election for some change in U.S. policy. While both candidates have similar environmental policies, I think even more change can be procured once a candidate enters the White House. That is my hope!

But, as in any situation, you can't wait on hope. We do need to do large things, but we also need to do small things. Once we have everyone doing the small things, maybe then we can take the next step. The only way I think that people will be willing to make radical changes is if it comes from some sort of ordinance from the government, which I would not be opposed to. Heck, lets make gasoline even higher priced and see how far it will take for people to truly start biking, walking or using public transportation.

So, while I do agree with many of the points that Maniates makes about the environment, I feel his article is too harsh to the general American public. Not everyone is as educated and privileged as we are at American University, and some people may not even value the environment as much as we do in this class. Others are just ignorant, but hopefully can be taught. I feel that radical action does need to be taken, but I think Maniates article is a little too "social green" for me. I am willing to do as many little things as I can right now to help make a difference, and maybe one day lobby the next president to continue to make good policy decisions about the environment.

Facing the music: The real dangers of our consumption.

Michael Maniates "Going Green: Easy Doesn't Do It" presents some important basic fundamentals of our American society that are seen an inhibitory in our efforts, or those of a portion of the population, to induce real environmental change. Most important of these, he asserts that on a general plane, Americans are individually-interested creatures, with the well-being of ourselves and that of our families as the driving motivators in our daily behaviour. To this end, he describes how only the cost-effective, simple methods of implementing environmental change are currently appealing to the American public. But unfortunately, these methods are the least effective of all measures, since they represent the easy way out, and instead of halting or reversing environmental change, they simply slow our environmental damage on a lesser scale.

This display of ambiguity towards environmental change, in my opinion, paints a horribly self-interested and unaware picture of the United States to our international counterparts. As the world's great economic power, at least up until recent days, we should present ourselves as perhaps on the strongest activists combatting environmental depletion, since are one of the few nations in the world who have the economic resources to impart such change. If we were to take on this active role, as environmental rescuers, and pioneers in the field of innovation to increase efficiency and thus decrease our negative impact of the planet, we would surely have an impact on other countries who look to us as mentors, and possibly coerce them, subliminally, into revising their methods of production and ways of living into methods that are environmentally conducive as well.

I believe the biggest inhibitor to this environmental change is caused by our short-term vision as a nation. In general, I think the citizens of our country hold a relatively limited view of our world, and thus the future and impact of our current behaviour on our planet. Despite the fact that politicians, scientists, activists, etc., are constantly coming out data concerning the negative impact our lifestyles are imposing on Earth, we take them with a grain of salt, and disregard them as exaggerations to scare us, or conspiracy theories or something of the like. We are unable to see past our current situation, in which we are living luxurious and worry-free lives in which our consumption habits are virtually unlimited, for we see no need to limit these habits in the present. If trees were to ignite in flames everytime we wasted paper, or if our backyards were to dry up everytime our showers went a bit too long, perhaps we would take the advice of the political leaders and academics of our country into stride. Unfortunately, the effect of our behaviour on the environmental plight is a prolonged process, in which we cannot, in most cases, tangibly identify the damage our existence on earth is reaping.

I disagree with Maniates' proposed solution of having our political/national leaders impart real answers to our queries on "what can we do?" I think instead of relying wholly on our country's leaders to be the catalysts of change, we need to look inward, and ask ourselves, when we pose such a question regarding our potential actions, if we actually see ourselves completing such actions. For example, even if our leaders presented American citizens with a laundry list of potential, effective actions we could take to curb our environmental detriment, what percentage of US citizens would actually go ahead and infilitrate those suggestions into their actual ways of life? The solution lies with individual awareness and stake in environmental well-being. We must realize the actual, effectual impact our actions have on earth, the toll our lavish lifestyles will bear on the future of our ecosystem, and thus on future generations of humans as well--and thus, how they'll impact our ability to sustain ourselves and continue to exist as entities on our planet.

On Making Progress

I agree with Michael Maniates that while recycling and other environment-saving measures can and should be taken on consumer end, that is not enough.

Personally, I have always liked to focus on individual action because that is something that I can easily do. I've never read "It's Easy Being Green" or "The Lazy Environmentalist," and most likely never will, but since I know (since I've been taught since elementary school and onwards) that when people recycle it "helps" the environment, I have tried to do that. In this case "helps," as Marianates points out, does not mean a reversal of environmental degradation, but some slowing of the damage.

Watching The Story of Stuff in class provided me with some hard evidence that helped me realize that consumer-end action isn't enough. I don't feel that we're "treated as children" by our government and corporations when they list for consumers "10 easy steps," but I do agree that we're being sold short, mostly because those on the production end don't really want to make the costly transition towards sustainability on their end.

However, I also believe that it's not just about attacking corporation practices. In the first place, consumer-driven consumption is what motivates companies to produce and fuel economic growth, encouraging further consumption, increasing affluence, and therefore human impact on the environment. It's a vicious cycle.

The conclusion I've drawn from this dilemma resembles Maniates' conclusion: worldwide progress towards economic and environmental stability needs to be driven by the little people, the consumers, the proletariat—whatever you want to call us—but this progress is not something that can be pursued in the fashion of "It's Easy Being Green." It's a slightly more revolutionary prospect that requires real effort to be made to push governments and corporations to meet consumers halfway when it comes to saving ourselves and the world from environmental degradation.

Too little...but is it too late?

I must say that Michael Maniates makes some interesting points in such a short article. It's easy to dismiss Maniates because it seems as if he undermines the "easy" tasks that many of us perform on a daily basis such as shorter showers or turning the water off while we brush our teeth. He is not denying that these things are important. Rather, he is stating that this just isn't enough. We're doing the simple things for ourselves and our children. But when we turn the lights off before leaving a room, do you think about how that may impact the life of your grandchildren? Will flipping that switch save the planet and reverse the planet's path?

Mahatma Gandhi said "We must become the change we want to see." We will all be wearing our "Live Green" t-shirts in our homes lit up by these environmentally friendly light bulbs, while glaciers continute to melt and average temperatures continue to rise. Is this all that we want to see in out future? I can be critical of Maniates because he himself does not offer any solutions or ideas as to what bigger steps we should take in responding to the "planetary emergency." He basically tells us to confront the issue at hand. In today's world, I believe it is easier to confront the issue and face the facts that the environment is changing and we are responsible for that change. It's not so easy to discover the solutions to solving our environmental problems.

I think most of us are "short-term" problem solvers. The price of gas is high, so I will ride by bike or take the bus. I will then pat myself on the back for helping the planet for one day. Does anyone see a problem with this? We are concerned about the environment when we are forced to. We can easliy manipulate a situation and turn it into an environmental crusade.

In our group discussions last week with TA Emily, we talked about how being "green" is a fad. And I don't think this is a good thing because like all other fads, they come and go. Maybe this explains the rise in the number of "environmental self-help" books that Maniates speaks of. While it is great that people want to be informed, are they doing it for the right reasons? When will the "green" fad be outdated? And what is more important to address is what could possibly replace the "green" fad.

I think it's great that people make the effort to become aware of the environmental issues and make small steps. However, it is impossible for the small actions of one man to save all of mankind. In regards to the title of my post, I believe that most of us have probably done too little in the past or even in the present to tackle the environmental problems that face us. Call me an optimist, but I'm a believer in that it's not too late to change our ways.