How to make thanksgiving dinner interesting

This year, since I spent Thanksgiving in Vermont and am in general glued to my phone, I decided to remove myself from all forms of technology, except for the stovetop of course, so I actually didn't even see the blog assignment until I returned home the following saturday. Fortunately, as a result of my "disconnection" with the world, as described by my family, an environmental conversation occurred nonetheless, in which my family grappled with my "environmental" ways, and I sat back and listened to their opinions.

The conversation began when I asked my 15-year old cousin Mary why she insisted on using the bottled water in the refrigerator instead of pouring herself a glass of some of the cleanest water in the country, vermont spring water, from the faucet. My Aunt overheard me speaking with my cousin, but kept silent. Mary replied she thought it was easier, and that the water tasted better anyways. The conversation continued at dinner when my Aunt mentioned to everyone else the conversation that had occured earlier between my cousin and I about her bottle use habits, and how I had mentioned how much waste that could accumulate. My uncle retorted, complaining about the environmental activists that were persistently knocking on his door, and how bothersome they could be. Everyone else agreed. I asked, then, how did they think actual environmental change could come about, thinking of Michael Maniates trinity of despair we had just learned about, but not explicitly mentioning it. My uncle said he didn't think we were facing such a problem that we needed to take concrete action. Fortunately, the rest of my family was somewhat stunned by his statement, and my Aunt began to rattle off the facts she gathered from watching Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, about the photos of the rapidly melting icebergs she'd seen, and the statistics on global temperature rises.

My father mentioned some of the difficulties he saw for the environmental activists concerned about bringing about environmental change. He said that until the industries, which were the primary agents for environmental destruction, were committed to creating products that were environmentally friendly, that the government, citizenry, and subsidiary manufacturers wouldn't be able to achieve the kind of environmental change we actually need. My uncle, aunts, and the rest of the family surprisingly agreed with my father's insightful commentary.

After my father's "sermon" of sorts, my family vowed to recycle more vigorously for the rest of our stay in Vermont, and my cousin agreed to stop using the plastic water bottles while hanging out around the house. Thus, no revolutionary environmental progress resulted from our discussion, but, I think some knowledge was created and dispelled, which is a progress in itself of sorts.

One small step for the McIntosh family!

Subject Not Appropriate for the Dinner Table

I was surprised to learn that our assignment was to have a conversation about the environment with people who may have differing views because I was going to have dinner at my cousin's house, and this is something I mention every single time I go there. However, this time I tried to focus more on the listening part and less on the talking part.

My cousin and her husband moved to the suburbs in Virginia about two years ago, they both work in Washington so they drive to work everyday for about 45 minutes, and my cousin recently gave birth to a girl. Oh, and they don't recycle (or downcycle as McDonough would say). I have always cringed at their waste habits because absolutely everything goes in the same waste basket, plastic, glass, biodegradables, cans, etc.

During dinner, I decided I would mention something minor just to bring up the topic and see where the discussion followed. I told them that I noticed at last week's birthday party for my baby cousin they had been throwing everything away in the same bag. Everyone just stared at me and my cousin said "not now, we're eating." I knew I had approached the topic the wrong way, and obviously at the wrong time. Instead of bringing up the topic on a personal note, I should have made a more general comment like "so what do you all think about Obama's energy/environmental policies?" Or something of the sort.

After dinner we all sat down in the living room and that's when the discussion ensued. I was asked why I'm so "obsessed" with the environment, and I just told them that they always hear me talk about it, and that I preferred to listen to why they don't care at all about the environment. They said that there are just so many more important things they need to focus on, like raising their daughter. They can't take the time to separate their trash like at the birthday party, because there were about thirty kids that they needed to help look out for. Plus, the environment is there, always has been there, and will always be there, but their daughter is not always going to be one year old. They want to protect their daughter from immediate threats and not from hypotheses...

They awaited my reply. I didn't want to say too much because I knew it would seem like I was trying to control their lifestyle, so I tried to be as brief and factual as possible. I said that while I admired their priority to be good parents, there are other things in the world which are just as important as raising a child, and by neglecting them they are actually doing a disservice to their daughter. I mentioned some things from Cradle to Cradle, such as the toxins found in toys and clothes, but I also mentioned how much personal gain is in looking out for the environment. I told them to think about how much money they would save if they drove to the metro station and from there rode to Washington, they could even wake up later because they wouldn't have to worry about traffic. In the end, they would also have more time to spend with their daughter. They could also save money by unplugging electronics that they didn't use at night, but at the same time they would reduce the risk of disease.

In the end, they all just kind of laughed and said that they at least understood why I had given my baby cousin an organic stuffed animal for her birthday. I think that even though my family doesn't like to hear about this topic, they at least respect me when I am able to back up my arguments with actual evidence and reasons for thinking and behaving the way I do, which means that little by little, if I am just persistent enough, they just might buy that second trashcan.

And I think that is the way with most people as well. As long as you have good enough reasons for thinking the way you do, and present them in a calm fashion after you have let them voice their opinion, they will slowly start to see your point and may actually agree with you. I just hope it doesn't take my family another two years to finally change their habits...

Computer games, cosmology, the universe, and the environment

This year after eating my Thanksgiving turkey but before we served apple pie, I had an interesting discussion with my brother, cousin, and father's friend's son. The conversation started with my brother, cousin, and father's friend's son (let's call him a friend) bonding over computer games. I asked my cousin (a senior in high school) what other interests he had (we only see one another once a year at Thanksgiving) and he mentioned being interested in space. The three boys being well studied in the marvels of Wikipedia, the Discovery Channel, and Ted—and myself and brother having taken an astronomy-related course in college—the dialogue ranged from the cosmological principle to finding water (or not) on Mars. We eventually reached the point of discussing the possibility of other sentient life being "out there" in our universe and had a neat discussion on how likely we were to be inimical to them or them to us ("if they're radioactive they're probably not going to come looking for a planet like ours, they'll first seek planets that have environments similar to their own home planet."—"Yeah, like how we're not digging at every planet within our reach."—"But if they're advanced enough to go beyond their own solar system they'll probably just "glance" at other planets and focus on finding ones they can terraform to suit their needs...")

At some point the discussion segued from "radioactive sentient life" to "nuclear energy" to "global warming" and we had a nice, long, somewhat fruitless discussion about just how much mankind is responsible for the current crisis. My brother and family friend took the view that humans couldn't be held as responsible for global warming as many environmental activists make us out to be. My cousin and I took the counterargument, and "debated" with them, trying to convince them that humans were more responsible than they were giving us credit for. I was very tempted to whip out some of the graphs/charts/figures we've looked at in class, but that would have (logistically speaking) been rather counterproductive, so I stuck to arguing with the facts and figures that I could dredge up at that moment. Thankfully, all of use were at least somewhat informed about the issue, so we all had some reasoning to back up our arguments. My brother and family friend were aware of the cyclical nature of climate change so they threw out the argument that every so often our planet undergoes a drastic change in temperature ("like the last Ice Age," commented my brother). His mention of ice reminded me of the ice cores drilled from Antarctica to measure carbon levels. I also brought up the history of the ozone regime.

Nevertheless, despite our differences, we all agreed that human-induced carbon emissions were a serious problem for the sustainability of our planet. Our only real disagreement was regarding the extent of human influence on the environment. We went on to discuss future capacity for alternative energy. The family friend was studying to be an electrician, and he was excited about the future prospects for photovoltaic technology, and the nitty gritty of making homes more electricity-efficient. My cousin was interested in the dynamics of carbon storage, and I talked a little bit about nuclear energy (bringing us back for a moment to the radioactive alien discussion).

Needless to say, it was a very interesting Thanksgiving night.

Shut up and pass the mashed potatoes...

I've heard it time and time again that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I thought I could open a few eyes and ears this Thanksgiving in light of our assignment.

Nearly five months ago, I persuaded my cousin to switch from paper/foam plates and paper napkins to real plates and cloth napkins to accomodate her family of 5 and the environment. My aunt and uncle came over for the annual Thankgiving brunch and asked where the paper towels, napkins, and foam plates were. My aunt mockingly responded by saying "They're trying to save the environment." I took mild offense, knowing that cutting down on a few paper plates wasn't going to "save" the environment and that she was mocking the effort in trying to do something...anything. My family has never been big on environmental issues and are more concerned big houses and big SUVs. So I asked my aunt what she does, if anything to respond to the current environmental problems. My aunt and my uncle both said nothing they will do matters, and it won't have an effect on them because they'll be dead before anything happens. To tell you the truth, I wasn't surprised by their answers because they have this really old mentality that anythign they do can't possibly change the way things are. I can't blame them for having such beliefs because their parents were oblivious to pressing issues and they immigrated to the US over 30 years ago. They say they have seen what hell looks like back in Cambodia, so the environment is barely a concern for them. I asked "What about us? What about your grandkids? We're/They're going to have to deal with what happens...we will be the ones to suffer the consequences, no?" The room went silent. I could tell they were thinking about what I had said, but I didn't get an answer.

My cousin tapped me on the shoulder and said that's exactly what she thinks about. She thinks about the future and what kinds of life her children may have if we don't stop to think about the environment and the consequences of our actions. I was surprised because I thought I was the only one in the family who really gave a damn. This Thanksgiving, I found a new and proud "tree-hugger" in the family.

The Conversation

The conversation I had with my family went surprisingly well. My family is has very mixed opinions about the whole environmental crisis, and also has mixed political feelings as well. My mom and I are of the tree-hugging sort while the rest of my family members are more moderate. Yet, when I brought up the idea of an environment in crisis, they all agreed that their was a problem. We differed on the severity of the problem, and the actions that needed to be taken to stop these problems.

I brought it up over the Thanksgiving meal, after I was warned to keep it appropriate. I have a tendency to say whatever I want, and was talking to them about the book Omnivore's Dilemma I read for my senior seminar with Judy Shapiro. The book has some interesting insights about where our food comes from, and you will never feel the same after reading it! After sharing a short passage about how chickens are slaughtered, my family was skeptical. So, I introduced the topic by simply stating my assignment. They were listening. Then, one by one we went around the table, and I asked them to tell me if they thought the crisis was real, what should be done about it and how they are helping.

Everyone believed in global warming, but they were unsure how much humans had contributed to the matter. My uncle and Dad stated that the levels or carbon in the atmosphere have fluctuated the entire time humans have lived here. I agreed, but gave them the specific ppms carbon and the threshold levels we had already surpassed this year. My uncle then promptly got up and shut off all the lights expect for the ones in the dining room, he said I made him feel guilty for it, and he was mostly trying to be funny.

So, my discussion went well, and they did recognize a problem, but they were unsure how much impact humans had on the matter. I reassured them, we had the MOST impact. I told them all about the new extinction period, where our food comes from, and the success of the Ozone Regime. They thought answers may lie in the Cap and Trade system that Obama is going to use, but I also pointed out that that system is only market based. I tried to explain how we needed a combination of market based and also regulation to make any change. Another interesting thing, they all seemed to be technological optimists. They thought something new would be invented that would change our atmosphere for the better. While I do think someday we might find something, I do not think we should hold out for it.

Overall, I talked and listened. I convinced them that we had a much greater impact that they had realized, and we are all very hopeful for the Obama presidency to produce the top down regulations we need to curb our environmental problems.

The Triangle...

I think Prof. Maniates was quite persuasive in presenting his "Trinity of Despair." When thinking about the lack of effectiveness in the environmental movement, the three corners of the triangle seem to be three concrete obstacles that stand in the way of real progress. This is not the first class where students have attributed man's inherent flaw (being inherently selfish) to the many problems of the world. I think it's natural that we make this assumption because we see it play out it our daily lives. People are out to get what's theirs and often what belongs to others. Perhaps the persistence of this flaw should open our eyes and make us realize as Leigh Ann said to "break the mold." Prof. Maniates said that humans are inherently social creatures and are a coopearative species. I think it is difficult to grasp our minds behind this idea because it may be a rare occurence. When I see cooperation take place, it's usually when there is a problem that needs to be solved--a large one at that.

This leads to the corner of Social Change. I liked his key phrase about finding "pressure points" in order for the system to change. While it may be ideal for everyone to be on board, we know that it probably won't happen. Therefore, even if everyone is not on board, we can't allow this to discourage the small masses who call for change and believe in the power of change. Personally, I think those small masses probably need to get a bit bigger before they can take off. I think it's also important that those small masses contain powerful voices and key players. Gathering the right spokesperson, leader, etc may make a big difference in getting more people interested in the environmental cause and getting the wrong people may "turn off" those who started out with minimal interest.

The Environmental Strategies corner is a place where I may still disagree with Prof. Maniates. He makes a good point that the simple environmental strategies lead to the problem of just being "good consumers." The light bulbs and green living books do not allow people to put "pressure" on something else. I go back to the last paragraph in my previous blog regarding his article we read, "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. ... 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."

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.