Quotes

"Ugliness signifies a more fundamental disharmony between people and between people and the land." -David Orr

"a series of great opportunities desguised as insoluble problems." John Gardner as quoted by Thomas Freedman in reference to "confronting today's energy-climate challenge".

My 2 Favorite Quotes

"Wisdom demands that we appreciate and work within the conflict between the contradictions of modernity and the comforts that it affords."
-Simon Nicholson

"Most people are eagerly groping for some medium, some way in which they can bridge the gap between their morals and their practices."
-Saul Alinsky

What NOT to be Thankful for

When I was first faced with this assignment, I was genuinely worried about the lack of convincing my almost unanimously liberal family would need in terms of having a productive and revealing environment-themed conversation. My expectations were substantially unmet; the response disheartening in a way I hadn't even anticipated. First, I realize that I myself fell victim to the politicization of environmental issues we have so been warned against in this course. In my first and perhaps most poignant lesson, generally liberal ideology does not legitimize an assumption that the same ideology will translate to environmental issues.

Perhaps the most disheartening portion of my Thanksgiving conversation was the lack of family members willing to entertain it. Because I was mostly expecting viewpoints that would be harmonious with my own, I took a pretty lax approach in terms of igniting conversation. I broached the subject with my most recent academic news--usually a crowd pleaser. I informed my family of my switch in concentration from International Economic Development to Global Environmental Politics. This, combined with my summer job working for an non-profit organization called Environment New York prompted a multitude of "tree-hugger" comments and jokes. Likely attributable to the intoxicated state of my family, I hardly took their jokes to heart. As my failed attempts to further ignite conversation became increasingly apparent, however, I became truly disheartened by the stigma attached to environmental conversation. Any points I attempted to make seemed to fall on deaf ears, as various points geared towards various family members continued to be cast aside. Acknowledgement of environmental problems seemed enough to brush aside any attempt to substantiate or explain the issues, and I was-- at the most-- met with a polite but unsettling response of little more than the concession that environmental problems exist and are at least partially man-made. It became overwhelmingly clear how complacent my family was. Their utter resistance to entertain any substantial conversation seemed, at least to me, attributable to a discomfort with their own knowledge. They seemed content with the fact that they were "educated" enough to recognize the issue, and to know some political current events surrounding it.

A large part of my failure, in hindsight, was the approach I took and who I took it with. My older family members simply were not prepared to entertain "tree-hugger jargon" at the Thanksgiving table. Also, the genetically modified foods subject I chose as my conversation starter (it seemed relevant on Thanksgiving) was probably a bad idea for the very same reason. This just reiterates the fact that people stray from any discomfort in terms of the habits they are unwilling to break with. In retrospect, I also realize that despite my initial diplomatic attempts at conversation, I eventually got a little too fiery and extreme in the face of my family's refusal to--essentially--take me seriously. I explained my switch from economics to the environment with my exaggerated belief that economics is increasingly useless and almost everything will fall victim to environmental degradation if we continue the way I do. Indeed, this was largely fueled by the semester's earlier discussion of our preponderance to measure happiness by GDP and the fact that we are modeling ourselves off of economic models that merely look pretty on paper, but are far from sustainable. This point, surprisingly enough, was driven home by environmental discussion in unlikely places-- including my International Economics course as well as my Analysis of US Foreign Policy course. I realize, however, without information and out of context this is quite an extreme opinion. I perhaps could have concluded rather than led with this point.

In an ironic mirroring of the semester's general pattern, my mostly depressing findings culminated with a ray of hope. Perhaps because Thanksgiving was simply not the time nor the place, perhaps because of the rather intoxicated state of the majority of my family, I found more success post-Thanksgiving-- at home with my sister and father. I assumed that I knew them well enough to not expect any passionate objections OR affirmations in terms of environmental issues. Thus, I did not target them much on Thanksgiving, as I had a sea of family members whom I thought would yield much more interesting results. Instead, I found both of their responses surprising and encouraging in different manners. I began talking to my sister about Maniates' and other author's belief in a systematic approach to environmental change. After giving her the watered-down facts, mainly pointing to a need for much more than individual change, she reiterated and even provided material on my point. I was honestly floored and elated by her response. Without having even touched upon what kind of systematic approaches we might change, she whipped out a fact sheet from climatecounts.org. She has a food blog, and companies often send her food samples in hopes that she'll review them. The fact sheet was sent along with samples from a relatively green company, and delivered a poignant message. Ranking various types of companies by how green they are, they encourage consumers to "vote with their dollar," sending messages to big companies by putting their money towards environmentally friendly companies. She seemed well-versed in the voice we could gain if we systematically alter how green big companies are by our combined consumer power.

Even more surprising was the interaction I had with my father. Throughout the course, I have been shocked by how unintentionally green of a life my father lives. He keeps his own garden, and mostly eats from that alone. He is a runner, and often runs to work and carpools home with coworkers. He almost never buys new things unless they MUST be replaced. In fact, we have had the same broken-down, 9/11 surviving family car since I was 2 (I'm now 20). To my families dismay, he simply refuses to part ways with it. In reality, my father is only relatively environmentally conscious. A large portion of the aforementioned are directly attributable to his frugality. This is why, throughout the course, I have been floored by how environmentally-friendly my father lives solely because of his cheapness. Of course, he was more than happy to learn about my revelations-- as any accrediting of his frugality is almost enough to make the large sum of money he pays for my education worthwhile. I discussed the storyofstuff with him, iterating how he naturally escaped the prevalent ideology so many Americans have adopted. Unintentionally, this was an enlightening lesson. If this wasteful ideology can be replaced, Americans can live green on frugality alone. This adds to the likelihood of change, as even those generally unconcerned could be part of real change. This also, however, reiterated the embededness of this truth. My family--including myself--have often chastised my father for his cheapness, considering his actions ridiculous. I, for one, will never again chime in on any cheap jokes. In fact, I may have found the perfect leeway into environmental conversation for attempt round 2!

I spent most of my time at home with my mom and stepdad over break. They are both liberal and progressive in their views and don't necessarily oppose what we've talked about in class. However, I wanted to challenge their ideas of action. They own a Prius and shop at farmers markets; the easy things. But they leave their computers on and plugged-in at all times and though they have a large, beautiful backyard, they don't compost or grow any of their own food. Nor do they get involved in larger-picture actions, though they're involved in other political debates, like health care. I spoke with them about their easy-way-out tactics and though they seemed to agree, they kept avoiding any real discussion because it was "too depressing", they couldn't be bothered. For instance, I suggested watching Food, Inc. together for our traditional Thanksgiving movie, but I was told that it was too depressing and I could watch it on my own time. So anything that was an extra effort or infringed on their mood was not pursued.

One of the big things I learned is that in these conversations, there's a balance. There's a space between encouraging them as they laugh at me and scoff at my depressing interests, and jumping down their throats and being combative. I tried both of these extremes, unfortunately and found that I really need to find a balance in the way I approach things. So I went to talk with my grandpa, a former oil man ,with my new approach. I started the conversation by asking if the christmas lights lining the main downtown center near his house were LED lights by any chance. He didn't know what I was talking about, so I explained. He scoffed at first, but expecting this, I let him scoff and went on seriously, but not forcefully. I explained what we've learned in class about global warming and CO2 and suprisingly, he listened. He responded by saying that it seemed that I knew a lot more about the issue than he did and he was impressed by my knowledge. I took this to be success, at least for the time being. At least he understood what I was concerned about and accepted that there was information out there about which he was ignorant. Not only did I respect myself more for the manner in which I talked with him, but I respected him more for admitting that these issues are out there and not for dismissing them as I expected an ex-oil man to do.

Converting the Cynics

Over Thanksgiving break I was limited in the selection of people I could talk to, and so was not able to encounter anyone that explicitly disagreed with the reality of global climate change and warming. However, I did have an interesting conversation with my uncle. He is very environmentally conscious in his daily life- he separates his trash into more categories than I thought existed, drives a prius when he isn’t riding his bike, and spends as much time outdoors as he possibly can. While this is all well and good, when I began talking about this class with him, he rolled his eyes. He asked me why I was taking a course that was so depressing and worthless in the sense that no change big enough would ever come, which he attributed to the apathy of the public and the politicians’ exploitation of said attitude. First I appealed to him and explained that I used to feel the same way, helpless and cynical. But then I began to share with him the work of McDonough and Braungart. I explained their concept of remaking the way we make things, the way we live, and the way we function as a society. I told him, with great enthusiasm, that changing the apathy of the public does not have to our goal, and that instead, we can use pressure points like corporations and policymakers to influence and incite institutional changes. At first he still did not think that we could get around self-interested politicians, but as we continued to talk, he seemed to change his mind and even began brainstorming a social revolution! (kind of like we did in class)

I felt so powerful to have changed the perception my uncle had, and to spark a bit of optimism and inspiration within him. By merely laying out some of the fundamental suggestions presented by McDonough and Braungart, and explaining the idea that the public need not be entirely on board, my uncle’s view of our situation shifted, and he was able to open his mind to many possibilities. My favorite was an idea he had to work with corporations like Kmart and Target to have only one of every item out on display in a store, and the consumer would have to swipe a card or scan the item to add it to their list, and then collect all their items at the very end from a storage house. This way, none of the items had to be packaged in ridiculous ways and amounts of plastic, and could simply all be bound together in one giant bundle and then distributed, unpackaged, to consumers, which would reduce waste.

I learned that although it is easy for people to grow cynical about this situation, with the tools we have used in class it is just as easy to help them grow optimistic. I learned that in order to generate constructive change, it is important to reach out to people like my uncle, who are determined to do their individual part but still feel hopeless as a community. People like my uncle are waiting for the knowledge that we have acquired in this class to spark them and become involved in taking the next step.

Thanksgiving Break

Over Thanksgiving Break, I decided that I wanted to ask my 13 year old brother about his views on climate change and the environment. I know a lot of people who fall on both sides of the issue and have had conversations with them in the past and really am pretty familiar with how that conversation would go. It seemed more interesting to ask a kid about his views, what he knew, where he learned it and what he thought about everything.

First of all, I was very impressed with the way he described everything he had heard about climate change because he started out by explaining that he did not think he had learned enough about the subject to really have a strong opinion. It was impressing because there are many adults who can not recognize that one source of information may not be enough to prove a fact or that the reliability of a source is not always secure. He started out by saying that he saw on the Discovery Channel that global warming is partially, but not mostly man made----he also was a little confused about the difference between global warming and ozone depletion. He was very receptive when I explained to him why ozone depletion is different and that I had learned in school that even though there are natural causes of climate change, since the industrial revolution, people have really increased the speed in the process to an unnaturally high level.

I asked if any of his teachers ever talked about global warming or environmental issues in school. He said no, which I thought was interesting. Is it because the issue is too politicized? Maybe it is not a part of the 8th grade curriculum? It is also entirely possible that he was too busy being sociable in class to remember what the teacher said...

When I asked about ways that people could make changes, I was really impressed. He told me that it is a good thing to recycle and all do our part but that really, its big companies that have the power to influence a lot of people so they should be the ones to make and encourage change. He got this idea from a "go green" campaign on the Disney channel and explained to me, "Think about how many people see those commercials and think about those issues? That's a lot of people. If big companies can make changes and influence people who buy stuff from them, a lot more people will be reached."

I learned from this discussion that A) my brother is a pretty smart kid and B) that people can surprise you in the way that they think about and analyze issues. If an environmental movement is built from people like my brother who understand that there is a lot of noise out there and you have to sift through the information to find the real story, than it could probably be pretty successful. I'm hopeful that there are more people out there who are willing to listen carefully to any debate and evaluate all sides of the situation. I think these are the people who will find that environmental issues are important and big change is necessary.

Cradle to Cradle

This book has been quite a motivational read for me. William McDonough and Michael Braungart spell out some exciting concepts that I hope to become involved in mainstreaming and institutionalizing in my lifetime. None of the other readings we have covered have been this inspirational to me; I don’t think that their optimism is misplaced at all.
All this talk about changing the fundamentals of things is simultaneously realistically optimistic and completely overwhelming. I think what helped to reinforce the optimism for me was Professor Maniates’ example of imploring Starbucks to implement a mug-return policy. His example helped to highlight a feasible starting platform for someone such as myself to take initiative on the fundamental level.
Their idea of living on current solar income and looking to the environment as a guide for ways of living is so obvious, as someone in class said when you read it it’s a “duh” moment. This is optimistic because the solution is such a simple concept. It is not as if we have to gather all of the world’s most intelligent scientists and engineers to create a new technology from scratch- everything we need is right here and has been forever. What takes away a bit of that optimism is the reality on the ground of the way our society has evolved to function and the systems ingrained in place that are barriers to a shift to this simpler, more effective and efficient way of life.
Their proposal for the elimination of the entire concept of waste is also so novel, yet so obvious. The Earth has done it forever, why haven’t we been taking notes? While the ideas of technological and biological metabolisms sound, again, abundantly clear, this book for this very reason has motivated me. It makes me want to get out into the world and help to push these unmistakable solutions to the forefront and change the way people conceptualize society. The author’s make such a convincing and simple argument that it is nothing but optimistic. Of course as we have discussed, changing society is no easy task, however we have the tools to fix the system, and this book has made me even more eager to graduate and use them.

Cradle to Cradle

The most sensible and reoccurring theme at this point in the course seems rather simple: we need change on a larger scale. While this scale may be currently unfathomable in light of our current system, it is clear that reaching for fixes within our system will inevitably have a cap. Instead, then, we must fix environmentally threatening problems systemically. We must part ways with many of our habits that we may not have even found harmful thus far. The answer is as clear as the answer to this sort of problem can be. The varied and multifaceted problems plaguing the environment have one thing in common-- their existence and persistence are most noticeably a function of our severely flawed system. Admittedly, this realization soon grew frustrating. Albeit broad, we now had the closest thing to an answer handy. It then became troublesome, however, to think of how we could actually change this system. Authors repeatedly pointed to systemic problems that need fixing. Not once, however, did an author state any clear way to fix or even approach this largely flawed system.

In an environmental hallelujah moment, Cradle to Cradle came into play. At the risk of singing its praises too adamantly, McDonough and Braungart's book seems to provide the answer I didn't even know I was looking for. They offer a way of addressing this flawed system face on, discussing design and even answers. Just when the environmental rhetoric I had been exposed to seemed to overwhelmingly hold no answers, Cradle to Cradle seemed to offer solutions, and offer them optimistically. He provides design in a way that makes us question why we continue to live the way we do with readily available alternatives. While it would be naive to accept these without the social implications they'd inevitably be attached to, it is at least assuring to know we aren't working at dismissing a system without any idea of what alternative we are seeking. Further, the solutions he offers are generally simple. Things suddenly stopped seeming as stark or hopeless as they had started to.

One of the most effective parts of the book for me--surprisingly enough-- is the symbolism behind the design of the book itself. The completely reusable book seems to qualm any concerns of complexity in both the technologies they discuss and the social and political problems we might assume. In essence, they are practicing what they're preaching. Their widely read book was solely manufactured with these materials, showing that the things he discusses are really that achievable. This was the most subtle but striking showing of optimism for me. I am thoroughly enjoying the book, and while I hardly ever find myself relating to entirely optimistic sentiments, I truly think it is necessary. Iterating and reiterating the problem can only go so far. We need to know that an answer is not so far away in terms of both time and technology. While problems certainly arise in their argument, such as failure to address crucial aspects such as consumerism, environmental debate is already full enough with talk of that sort. Ultimately, I find that what the book foregoes in attention to detail or covering all their bases, it makes up for in the rarity that is its optimistic approach to environmental problems.

cradle to cradle

My first impression of this book was, "How cool is this? This book is waterproof, can be turned into another book when I'm done with it and, bonus, the pages don't tear even when I try to rip them." As I read farther into the book, I was really caught up in the optimism and innovation of the authors. It is so great that there are people out there who can come up with these technologies and can totally rethink the way we live - people who can create a book without paper and come up with a totally new concept of consumerism. It is a really neat thing to think about a world without waste.

I also really appreciated the section which talked about how being "less bad" is still not good. It seems like a lot of times, we get really caught up in thinking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit pollution. I can see how this sort of thinking, though important for the short term, will not suffice in the long run.

I do have some concerns about the book. The first is that it does seem to oversimplify problems by relying on technological changes. I am just not ready to think that these changes are that easy not only in terms of technological developments but also in terms of social feasibility. I can't help but wonder what sort of environmental impact mass production of water-proof books may have before the transition from paper is complete. Basically, I'm not convinced yet that there will not be any side effects of this general transition. The solutions are also private-sector heavy and I do think that any substantial improvements to our system will need to at least in part come from public sector regulations.

Despite these doubts, I love the optimistic attitude of this book and know that people who think big are key to environmental improvements. Even if an idea is flawed, we will never get anywhere if people only put their ideas out to the world if they know they are perfect. In this sense, the ideas in this book are exactly what we need to push forward in environmental innovation.

Response to Cradle to Cradle

I am very much enjoying this book. I think what I like best about it is that it's not just an argument, it's also a method. It's not just about a new approach (one that is similar to others we've read), but it's about exactly what the approach looks like. The approach looks like a building full of windows where solar income is maximized, it looks like textiles made of materials that can decompose without leaving behind harmful substances. It looks like ink without the toxins and paper without the tree. That's what's so optimistic to me about this book. It gives me concrete examples of the technology that is already out there to make everything we produce and consume not "less harmful" to the environment, but part of nature and therefore, NOT harmful to the environment. It's not just talk, it's action. Before reading this book, I felt like I could argue all I wanted for changing the system, making things differently from their conception, but if anyone asked me what that meant or how that looked, I would be at a loss. So although this book doesn't address what I consider to be serious problems of consumerism, affluence, and population growth, it does give me solid evidence for what the world should look like if everything we made was made to fit into the natural world; a world where environmental doomsday no longer lingers. To know that there is that technology out there is a huge step in the right direction in my mind and I was happy to hear about it.

Reflections on an argument

Well, let's just say Professor Maniates got into my head. I have been mulling this all around quite a bit, even arguing with friends about it regularly. First off, I was totally convinced. I mean, the Trinity makes a whole lot of sense and I can see its truths in my own life; the way I have come to have a negative view of human nature and the way I've been convinced that my daily actions can somehow lead to big change. I recognize and agree that this is historically, and presently untrue. I accept that, and I accept that the environmental movement needs some rewiring, some of which is happening as we speak. But here's what I think is missing from Maniates' analysis (although it is not missing from his actions and the systems he has put in place at his university- i just think it belongs in the trinity); though most current actions on the small scale leaves the system of degredation in place, intelligent, well thought-0ut, system-oriented small scale individual action CAN make a significant impact.

So agreed, social change does not come about by getting everyone on board, and easy stuff based on small individual acts won't make the big change, and yes we need to change our perception of human nature, but we also need to change the perception of small individual acts. Not all small scale acts are a waste of our time- even Maniates gave an example to defend this. His students' actions to implement a composting system at school is, compared to the larger problem, a small scale act based on individuals; it was one university system changed by one student. Is that not small scale individualized action? It is. But it's also well thought out, creative, and focused on changing systems. So I suppose the argument comes down to this: small scale ndividualized action is only negative when it follows the routine of the current "green" fad (eating organic, changing lightbulbs, etc). However, it can be incredibly positive if it follows a different path, a system-oriented path, focusing on small impacts that change larger (though still somewhat small compared to the scale of the problem) systems.

In conclusion, the trinity should be a trinity-plus-one (not sure what the technical term is for that). The plus-one should be "GF: or 'Green' fad actions;" the idea of what an individual action entails must be changed. An individual action for the environment is not changing a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean individuals can't make a difference. Individual action framed around system-oriented change can remind people that yes, individual actions can make a difference (as Maniates says, it takes a small group of people to create social change), but only if their focus is like that of Maniates' student who, through an individual act, changed a small, but significant system. This helps empower individuals, while changing the perception of individual action.

Individualization of Caring?

Having read a number of his articles, I found Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" both exponentially useful and an apt summation of his works. An inherent social construct of the environmental movement is the defeatist attitude that many--including myself-- are guilty of adopting. Indeed, if we continue to filter the likelihood for environmental change through our "all or nothing" attitudes, we cannot expect or even hope for change. Professor Maniates clearly urges a shift from the individualization of environmental action. Conversely, he begs us to part ways with the idea of the individualization of caring. The trinity of despair, then, is a simple and effective cue in how to approach environmental change.

The assumption that human nature translates to automatic selfishness is a notion we MUST rid ourselves of. The distinction between self-interest and selfishness that Professor Maniates highlights is important. The idea that people are selfish will only serve as a deterrent against change. As in all other arenas of human nature, some people are selfish and others are not. An overarching theme of Maniates beliefs is that we mustn't concern ourselves with those who are selfish or don't care. The parallel he drew to MLK or Susan B. Anthony was helpful. Harping on the people we don't have on board, rather than the ones we do, will only make our efforts less effective. It is important to realize this first leg of the triangle, as assumptions about human nature can easily begin to dictate our defeatist attitudes.

The second leg of the trinity of despair--environmental strategy-- is even more spot on. The environmental strategy the public (especially the children) are offered is the approach of doing the "easy stuff." Glorifying that which we already are doing-- using energy-efficient light bulbs, turning the water off while we shave, etc-- will get us absolutely nowhere. This is a multi-faceted and hugely hindering problem. If the public are only offered unchallenging and simple options, then they will only practice simple and ineffective options. Likewise, if we continue to pat people on the back for doing things that in reality are not going to provoke change in the significant way huge environmental problems beg, then the idea will be created that we needn't do more. Essentially, it will hinder the likelihood of people ever stepping out of their comfort zones.

The third leg, then, is the one that addresses social change. This rests on the assumption that we can solely achieve change if we get everyone on board. This is unrealistic and leaves us in the proverbial uphill battle. Again, we are brought back to the idea that we cannot focus on those who are not in sync with the environmental movement. Much can be achieved without concentrated or even majority support of an issue. If we sentence ourselves to working within this ideology, we are sentencing ourselves to a limited possibility of change and more importantly, working forever in and against a flawed system.

The fact that well-educated students had adopted these beliefs was striking and disheartening. If the few people that do care are defeatist, there is little hope for those who may need some convincing. In the same way environmental issues beg systemic changes, our own environmental beliefs need some serious readjusting at a fundamental level. I have personally seen the development of such defeatist attitudes. After just one summer at the environmental non-profit that I worked at, the aspects of Maniates' triangle were all too realizable. Passersby scoffed at people trying to make changes at the federal level, either limiting themselves to the individual change they already make (best case scenario, unfortunately) or claiming that expectation of any such change was simply naive. I have further seen examples here on campus. The case we referenced of TDR's tray removal was highly revelatory. Indeed, the "few" made a decision and implemented it for "everyone." As a student, I was not even addressed prior to the change-- an undeniably good thing. This was social change at its best, forcing people into getting on board rather than asking them to and hoping they would. Another sort of hybrid example is the reusable mugs system. While they are not yet mandated on campus, drinks are significantly cheaper if you bring one. This economic incentive represents a change in policy, as pricing is readjusted for everyone who partakes. It leaves room for individual decision, however, by still offering alternatives. This meet-you-halfway idea is useful, I found. However, I cannot speak for the entire student body. Either way, enough people are clearly on board to be making changes. It is clear that the triangle of despair is an unfortunate reality, and with this realization, we must rid ourselves of these beliefs.

Trinity of Despair

Professor Maniate's Trinity of Despair seems to be a very helpful tool to use in understanding the problems in thinking within the environmental movement which prevent it from being fully effective. I particularly appreciate the first element which he discussed - the idea that people are self interested as opposed to inherently selfish. The difference between self interest and selfishness is an important distinction to make because selfishness implies that people only look out for themselves where as self interest opens up the possibility that people may consider that the well being of others may also be good for their own interests. It is tempting to just toss aside the entire environmental movement under the pretense that nothing will ever be done because people are selfish and will never make sacrifices or think outside their own personal space.

The second part of the Trinity of Despair, the idea of environmental action as easy and individualized is an interesting element because this concept is so widespread. Elementary students learn about using less water or recycling, adults carry their groceries in reusable bags and on AU's campus, we get to feel better about ourselves by reading our paper coffee cups which tell us that by using this product, we are able to save enough energy to power a household for 810 years. These actions have become the base of the environmental movement and even the people who embrace these ideas may not recognize the small impact that they have. At the same time, how do you ask people to address this large issue when it seems like only a few people have the power to really make changes to the system?

I am most guilty of getting caught up in the third element of the trinity, the idea that everyone must be on board for the environmental movement. This is because I can not imagine policy changes that can occur without strong Congressional support and if people vote out legislators who support environmental protection, nothing will ever happen. After thinking about this part of the trinity, though, I recognize that living in DC has made me think only about government action and completely forget about the private sector. Professor Maniates talked about changes that companies could make - like Starbucks halting the use of paper cups - or changes in schools and other institutions. This seems like the place where the most progress could be made in the environmental movement because it is the place where a few individuals can take charge and alter the system without requiring the permission of hundreds of thousands of people. I am interested to know about more projects and ideas that look to make large scale change outside of government policy.

the trinity of despair

Professor Maniates’ “trinity of despair” is a very accurate assessment of the barriers to effectiveness of the environmental movement. The three assumptions he suggests are ones I have seen dishearten many, including myself. Because Maniates confronted these assumptions head-on and explained how they do not necessarily have to be barriers to momentum in environmental change, I am able to think in a different way about how to be an effective environmental change agent. For example, he stressed that in order to build social movements and create change, it is not necessary to have a majority of the population on board. I think this assumption is especially difficult to breakdown because without overwhelming support, efforts feel futile and resignation sets in. I think what helped me to accept Maniates’ proposal that we don’t need large-scale support in order to be successful is that the most effective changes we can make need to be at the policy level, where we make eco-friendly activities a natural part of every day functioning (like his example about instituting a mug-rental in all Starbucks shops). It doesn’t take an army of supporters to make fundamental changes in how we function in every day life.
For example, when computers were first introduced, there was no mass social movement behind implementing widespread use of the new technology. However, the technology became institutionalized by the few, and now we use computers for everything in our every day lives without even thinking twice about it. Not having an email address has become taboo. The same needs to be done in the environmental protection arena. A small group has the ability to implement institutional changes, and as a result create a shift in the American way of life. Driving an SUV while eating McDonald's out of a styrofoam container needs to become taboo.

Continuing "The Lorax"

By communicating through email, Ashley, Melissa, Maggie, and I compiled the last of our addition to "The Lorax." Our addition is meant to be tacked onto the end of the book, as a continuation.

But the boy knew he could not act alone
so he picked up his seed and marched on home
"Mom! Have you heard of the Truffula trees?"
"No," she said, "explain it to me please."
So he told her the tale
of the Once-ler and his greed
and they picked up his pale
and knew just what to do with the seed.

So they went on their way, two generations united
rallied neighbors and friends, everyone was excited.
They planted the seed, but it didn't stop there,
they marched to the office of Mr. Dontcare.
They told him the tale of the Truffula trees
and he laughed and he scoffed at his citizen's needs.
He shooed them out the door, told them they couldn't stay.
The little boy was disheartened, then his mom yelled "No way!"
"If you wait just a moment and listen, you'll see
the Earth's as important for you as for me.
It's not really thneeds that everyone needs
and we must stop now before all that's left are the weeds.

But it's not just the Brown Barbaloots who will suffer,
oh no, even for you, things will get tougher.
One day you too will live as the Once-ler does
alone in the smog, wishing for what once was.
Because someday soon we'll run out of trees,
there'll be no more fish, nor flowers, nor bees.
We'll even run out of that goop in the ground
that you put in your car to make it go round."

"What? This can't happen!" cried Mr. Dontcare,
"How can I fix this?" he asked, pulling his hair.
"We must change the whole system," an old man chimed in
"leave consumption behind and everyone will win.
We must measure our economy with yuzzamatuzz, not GDP
To raise the standard of living for you and for me."

"You're right!" exclaimed Mr. Dontcare,
as he raised his fists and jumped off his chair.
"We'll set the example for living with less
and the whole world will follow; we'll all fix this mess.
We'll show one and all that our land matters more
than factories, machines, and thneeds galore.
Gather all scientists, leaders, and friends
Once-lers and citizens, the list has no end!
We'll need everyone together, the rich and the poor
to come up with ways to change lives at the core.
So come along! We're off! It's a new day!
Soon, under Truffula trees we will lay!"

How to Talk to a "Friend of Science"?

While the "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" websites are both arguably lacking, their discrepancies are quite useful. Actually, I found that the two websites were largely representative of the real climate change debate that we come across in our everyday lives. Generally, there are a great deal of global warming believers; people who may or may not know all the details, but have heard enough to know that the backing science exists. Conversely, there are the people--though I am repeatedly shocked to find that these people truly exist-- that cling to opposing claims, however few and far between, to "secure" the notion that climate change is largely exaggerated. In an increasingly environmentally aware and conscious society, however, this claim grows more difficult and more ludicrous. Thus, to operate within the context of society, the non-climate-change believers often have to mask their view under a variety of pretenses. While the context of society works in both directions-- fostering strong environmental convictions on either side of the spectrum in people that don't necessarily know their facts-- it is apparent in both real life and in the world wide web. Certainly, the respective websites followed suit with the overarching debate at hand.

The purpose of each website, then, is mostly clear but muddled to a certain degree. The purpose of the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website is to offer rebuttals to common claims of skeptics. The general idea, then, is to provide the facts of climate change in a way that could fuel a debate supporting its existence. Another purpose is to seemingly add to the wealth of knowledge of already existent climate change believers. It multitasks, offering ideas from both sides in a sense, as it must address the concerns in order to provide rebuttals. The purpose of the "Friends of Science" website, conveniently less discernible, is an apt example of the masking of opinions that most who oppose the existence of climate change resort to. The website purports to be on the "side of science," rather than the harsher claim of not being on the side of global warming. Though this is exactly the purpose of the website, it offers its overtly biased "facts" under the pretense of adhering to science; furthering scientific research on the issue. In reality, it sites rather old data and finds basis only on counterarguments, failing to address any arguments in favor.

This is where the "Climate Skeptic" website far exceeds the capabilities and legitimacy of the "Friends of Science" website. Indeed, the Climate Skeptic explores and breaks down opposing opinions-- many of which are the very claims made by Friends of Science. Contrarily, "Friends of Science" offers its facts, claims to support further scientific research (as if the plethora of already existing research is not adequate) and stops at that. This, of course, lends credence to the Climate Skeptic website and forces us to seriously question the Friends of Science website.

It is important to note that "Friends of Science" is a non-profit organization, and are actively seeking donations on their site. This, of course, could be a huge factor in the lacking validity of Friends of Science sources. Further, the fact that their overall concern is seeking donations could ultimately limit them to certain convictions. For example, while they might have a more moderate stance in reality, they may feel forced to take on a particularly strong stance in order to maximize their supporters. Further, it is difficult to fairly read these websites without a bias. After reading my peers' responses, I realized I had given the "Climate Skeptic" website a lot more credit than it deserved. While, as they pointed out, it was seriously lacking in many regards, I overlooked much of this. Because the site affirmed many of my opinions and disproved many of the Friends of Science claims I had just read in quite a bit of disgust, its legitimacy was almost immediate in my eyes. These reactions, I am sure, are largely present in the public. This fact is very important to note when considering that impacting abilities of websites.

how do I know what's real?

These types of websites influenced me to register for this course in the very first place. Although neither “Friends of Science” nor “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” contain legitimate source lists, for the average viewer who is simply out there to browse for “the truth,” these sites provide enough information to take back to the cafeteria. It is exceedingly difficult to weed out fact from fiction on a topic that you know nearly nothing concrete about. This class has helped me to understand that it is not merely the “truth” that is important, but also an understanding of the different arguments that exist in order to create a framework for understanding the debate that is taking place, and to ultimately take an informed position.

The fact that “Friends of Science” posts a link to various treaties and UN memos should not cover up the glaring detail that the facts posted in contrast to their proclaimed myths have no references to speak of. While it would be convenient to regurgitate such neatly laid out arguments in the workplace, it is unwise to assume that simply because they are convincing that they are accurate. The same goes for “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”. When I looked over this site, I immediately drew a parallel to the way I feel when FOX news is on and I turn the channel to John Stewart. I am more willing to blindly accept and pass on the arguments I have grown accustomed to agreeing with. Although “Friends of Science” aesthetically looked more like a legitimate source than the other site’s blog-like appearance, I found myself more convinced by the latter because it felt more comprehensive with its exhausting list of arguments.

With all this being said, I think that it is excruciatingly important for anyone looking for the facts to find reliable sources on the subject (this goes for everything), and to acknowledge his or her reasons for accepting an argument. When it comes to scientific details, the average Joe is not going to be able to critically evaluate a claim, therefore I would argue that finding a list of references even before reading the claim would be beneficial.

Confusing Positions

After looking at the websites for Friends of Science and How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic, I can understand why people are either confused or convinced that the opposite side of the climate change debate is lying. Both of these websites address different sides of the same issue with equally overwhelming statements and less than satisfying references to strong academic resources.

First, I went to the Friends of Science Website and was more than a little appalled. After reading the assigned section of Friedman's book this week, it was really unsettling to see this website make unsubstantiated claims that "Hot, Flat and Crowded," intelligently shows are false. I was really frustrated that the website said that there is no evidence to show that global warming is man made when there obviously is a piling amount of proof. I went to the website's source page and saw something interesting: there is not a single source that they cited that was published later than 2007 and most of the sources came from before 2004. Even though people have been looking at climate change for a while, the newest developments in research seem to be the ones that are clearing up the questions and doubts that previously existed. Even if I was an unbiased viewer of this website, the lack of more recent evidence to support its claims would cause me to question the validity of this information.

I went to the second website hoping to see a well documented, organized account of global warming and the studies which prove that it is man made. I was pretty disappointed. I was overwhelmed by the number of links in front of me and had no idea even where to get a start. One part of this website's home page had a list of statements that a climate change skeptic might make - statements that were exactly like those that I had seen on the Friends of Science page. The problem was that when I clicked on the links, the "refutes" to skeptical claims were presented in the same way that the statements on the first website were listed. There were charts, graphs and links, but they were all vaguely cited and a person who was more inclined to believe the first webpage could easily assume that this second one was lying or exaggerating facts.

In the end, even though my prior reading has convinced me that global warming is very real, very serious and very man made, I did not find either website terribly convincing. In the end, if their purposes are to persuade opposing groups to change their minds about their position on climate change, they did not succeed. Mostly, the websites cater to people who already agree with them and serve to inflame the rhetoric between the two groups.

The Validity of Climate Change

I am really impressed with these websites. I've participated in a few conversations myself where referencing this information would've come in handy quite a bit. I think they're very useful in that they each pose similar myths/facts (just from the opposing perspective) so you can get straight to the problem or misconception and find out what information is out there to support either side. They're extremely straightforward and definitely give some insight into how polarizing (pun not intended) the climate change debate is.

The question of how to make sense of it all gets at a large societal issue, in my view. Being convinced of beliefs without questioning the facts is a pretty widespread phenomenon in this country and causes many problems. Unfortunately, climate change has been politicized to become an issue that is victim to this type of ignorance. To make sense of these things, I think the most important thing we have to learn is to check sources. For example, the Friends of Science website made many claims, but didn't provide links or sources to find out more, read reports, or analyze graphs, while the other website provided many links and included sources for facts that were given. Providing valid sources (such as NASA) should be a sign of good information. A lack of sources should signal to us that we should be skeptical of the information. We have to take the time to find out who is giving us this information and where they are getting their information and sources are the best way to do so. Also, I think there is something to be said for the expansiveness of the website that reports climate change is a problem. It tackles every myth that's out there with expansive information, while the Friends of Science tackles only certain myths with limited information. I think this can also signal who is informed and who has the knowledge to back them up.

Based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious at this point which "side" I support. I do believe there is much more valid evidence supporting the idea that climate change is caused by human activity and is a serious problem that needs addressing. I believe this because the information arguing this comes from reputable sources and many different elements of science and research, all culminating in the conclusion that climate change is a problem and is caused by humans. I am much less convinced by the Friends of Science article because there are few sources (and the ones that are included I've never heard of) and I don't believe them to be reputable, and their information is limited and seems mostly based on generalities as opposed to specific scientific evidence.

Saving Nature, NATURally.

The words thrilling, magical, and enchanting immediately connote positive thoughts. Some may find it ironic, then, that the first memory that came to mind when reading this prompt was a potentially near-death experience I experienced in my childhood. Despite the rather long-term relationship with nature that a plethora of family excursions and a father that had a mild obsession with insects provided me with, my mind kept wandering back to this one memory. Upon deeper contemplation, though, this seemingly unsuitable memory began to make sense. Sure, given freedom of word choice, the words I would have selected to accompany a retelling of this experience would have been more along the lines of terrifying, risky, and utterly disenchanting. In context of the thrilling/magical/enchanting word framework, though, it became apparent why my subconscious was so adamant on reliving this memory. It was, indeed, thrilling magical AND enchanting. Before anyone reading this starts casting me as a self-loather, I guess I should share the actual experience.
I was about 8 years old, on a family trip to New Hampshire. I can’t exactly recall what time of year it was, but it was a beautiful day in the hybrid fall-spring sense, where the weather is only made better by the knowledge that it should not be nearly as nice as it is given the time of year. I went with my father and sister to a river in the area. The overall area was a magnificent showing of nature. There were woods and lots of open space, all set to the unique tune of a gargling body of water. In fact, the river was characterized by certain sections of rapidly flowing water, and was shallow enough to have rocks protruding out of the water as far as the eye could see. Taking advantage of the beautiful weather, we climbed on the rocks, hopping from one to another so as to avoid the vibrant but too-cold water below us. I distinctly remember my older sister repeatedly warning me to stay away from the edge of the rocks, where the water had turned the semi-submersed portions of the rocks into slippery rims. Of course this only heightened the temptation to go closer and closer to the edges. Intending to only marginally defy my sister’s authority, I put my foot close enough to the edge of the rock to seem daring, but what I thought was far enough away to avoid actually slipping in. I was wrong.
While my memory of almost every other aspect of the day is fuzzy, I remember this part is if it had happened a mere hour ago. I can still vividly recall slipping into the river and immediately being sucked through the rapids. I remember the discomfort of the rush of water up my nostrils, managing to lift my head out from under the water only just in time to see the rock my head was about to crash into if I didn’t duck back down. Barely able to breathe, I gave up on the losing battle of trying to counter the force of a rapid river. My father immediately jumped in after me, and I can still recall cringing in the aftermath at his bloody back that had been scraped against a rock during his descent. I later found out that the river rapids I so graciously got to take a ride in led right to a waterfall. I now realize the event seems so magnificent, rather than traumatic as it perhaps should, due to just how human this "non-human" world was. I think the experience coincided with my realization of the power of nature. There I was, defying nature by testing how formidable an opponent I was against it. In a true engagement (perhaps too much of an engagement) with nature, I was made painfully aware of the answer. Not only was I not a opponent of any sorts, I was a tiny spec in its grand scheme, lucky enough to be enjoying its resources. The experience was thrilling in a way that is largely reliant on the fact that I made it out with no real consequences. It was magical and enchanting in the realizations it provided me with, and the profundity in how effortlessly it had overpowered me-- both physically and mentally.
My perhaps overly stream of consciousness recollection of my experience is actually relevant to the question of whether or not saving nature is something we should concern ourselves with. The only answer I can fathom is actually a question: how could it not be? To me, this question is as intrinsic as asking whether or not saving ourselves is something we should concern ourselves with. Essentially, that is what we accomplish in saving nature. We are unquestionably reliant--maybe even contingent--upon nature. As I noted earlier, nature is this huge force in which we are fortunate enough to be players in. This question is highly representative of exactly why we should concern ourselves with nature. It is so much a part of us, our past, our make up that we can unanimously recall a variety of instances in which our interaction with our natural environment has been profound. Clearly, nature is an integral part of our lives. Often, we lose sight of this because of cities and ever-increasing technology. However, we must not be fooled-- we rely on nature in a multitude of ways; ways we often cannot even detect. For ourselves, for future generations, even for animals that are even more reliant on nature but have no say in it, we must make saving nature not just a concern, but a priority.

Being with Nature

Though you are all well aware of this by now, I am from Colorado and I believe that being from an area where nature is cherished and a part of daily life makes a pretty big impact on how we see the world. I, for one, feel that my heart lies in the mountains of my home state and being away can only last so long before I go crazy with a lack of nature. I never feel more alive than when I am surrounded by natural beauty. I am not a religious person, but whenever someone asks me about my spirituality, this is the story I tell. The only time I have ever felt spiritual- a kind of overwhelming sense of peacefullness, oneness, beauty, and power- was when I hiked to the top of a "14er" (one of a cluster of tall mountains in Colorado) and finally turned around to see the mountain range behind me and hear the silence of the wind and the clouds. It was such an overwhelming feeling of a sort I had never felt before. I can still picture exactly how it looked and exactly how it felt- it was just that powerful. I get glimpses into that feeling everytime I am somewhere beautiful, so I am always seeking out this kind of beauty. I know I am an extreme example- I never feel fully content in a city and I know I belong in the mountains and I plan to get there. Feeling disconnected from nature, for me, is feeling disconnected from myself and all that is life. Because of how important nature is to me, it frightens me that we even ask the question as to whether or not nature should be saved. It shocked me when I began to travel outside of Colorado and realized that some people lived in cities all their lives and never felt moved to really experience nature, but I know this exists. Yet this disconnect has a bigger effect than just to shock me. This disconnect, I believe, is part of why we face this overwhelming environmental crisis. Nature should be saved and preserved- it must be for humans to continue to survive, let alone to be able to experience the kinds of spiritual benefits I believe nature provides. Ecosystems provide for humans too, not just the species that are going extinct. We need nature to survive and I believe we need nature to remind us what is important in life, something I think we've forgotten to ask ourselves. Sometimes only an overwhelmingly beautiful moment on the top of a mountain where all our petty human concerns are literally miles away can remind us just how important nature is and how much we have distanced ourselves from it.

SAVE NATURE!

From when I was about six until I hit thirteen and began rejecting my parents’ enthusiasm towards family trips, my parents, younger sister, and I would drive eight hours up into the Adirondack mountain range in upstate New York. Every summer we drove up and to go backwoods camping at Forked Lake- packing our gear into a canoe and paddling out to find a small clearing along the edge of the lake for our two weeks of tranquility. I grew up without television, and as a result had an incredibly vivid imagination; the non-human world to me was a fantasy-land. I remember one summer in particular I read The Mists of Avalon nestled in the roots of a giant fallen tree that jutted out over a waterfall. The story had come to life for me, and it was truly magical.
On one of the same trips, I remember walking to an outhouse by the side of a trail with my sister and my mother. We rarely, if ever, saw any other humans at Forked Lake, so we were alone with the stillness and the occasional squirrel or chipmunk. It was my turn and as I sat in the outhouse I heard my mother gasp. I creaked the door open and not 4 feet away were 3 brown bear cubs. They stared at us, unmoving, and that’s when we saw mama bear amble out of some nearby foliage. It was a silent, locked eye contact, standoff between two mothers and their young. I remember being frightened because the night before we had a visit from papa bear, who growled menacingly at my dad and his flashlight as he devoured our marshmallows. After a few minutes of tension the bears wandered off and we breathed sighs of relief. I have many more enchanting and thrilling memories from Forked Lake, whose serene landscape taught me to appreciate the majesty of undisturbed nature.

Saving nature is absolutely something we should concern ourselves with. Not only for our own enjoyment and spiritual gain, but because as cohabitants of this planet we have a responsibility and ethical obligation to preserve the habitats of our fellow “Earth-dwellers”. For human beings I would argue that it is incredibly important to have undisturbed nature to escape to and surround ourselves with. Being alone in nature is a deeply spiritual and therapeutic experience that everyone should have the luxury of access to.
It is important to save nature in order to preserve ecosystems as we know them to be today. If we fail to take measures to conserve nature, biodiversity will essentially be wiped out and we will be left with man-manipulated species and environments, which defeats the concept of nature at its very core.

Protecting the Unpredictable Wild

To me, nature and the “non-human” world represents a part of the earth that is unpredictable and untamable. While I certainly appreciate this part of the wild and think that it is both important and worth protecting, I have never been the type of person who seeks it out. On camping trips, I am the person who checks and double checks to make sure that there is not anything that might even smell like food laying out that could attract bears. The most thrilling experience I’ve ever had in nature, easily, was the time that I climbed Longs Peak. I was 15 and had never climbed any mountain before when my slightly more adventurous cross country teammates announced a team trip to climb a “14er.” I had no idea what I was in for with Longs Peak (which is probably a good thing because I most likely would have backed out had I known). The all day hike/ climb was both exhausting and exciting. The view at the top of the mountain was stunning and certainly made the trip worthwhile (although I was not a fan of having to race back down in order to beat the thunderstorms and lightning).
In terms of the second part of the discussion question which asks why it is important to preserve nature, there are several reasons which vary from ideological purposes to general earth-preservation. One argument is that the aesthetic and spiritual value of wilderness should be reason enough to seek to protect nature. I certainly agree with this perspective and believe it even more now that I live in a city. Growing up in Colorado, nature was everywhere. I really did not think twice about the fact that if I wanted to climb a mountain (which by the way, I have not been brave enough to do since my last experience), go camping or even just spend an afternoon at the lake, I could easily pack up and do just that. Living here, however, the park area that surrounds the monuments is really the closest thing to nature that I can access which quite honestly, does not count as wilderness. Another reason to preserve natural land is for general human health. Construction and environmental destruction lead to excessive amounts of air and water pollution which the earth can not absorb. Also, some make the argument that we have a responsibility to the planet and the creatures which inhabit it to protect natural resources and wildlife. This is definitely not an exhaustive list of the reasons to protect the environment however they are the ones which strike me, personally, as the most persuasive.

Eco-Sacrifice?

Eco-tourism is a great idea, in theory. In practice, however, it is hard to argue that anything that endorses and/or demands flying can better the environment. While our interconnected world is unarguably benevolent on the larger scale, it also puts an undeniable strain on our environment. If there are ways to travel that do more good than harm, I am not privy to them. Anything close I can think to would be the exception, not the rule.

In light of both rich country visitors who give little thought to the environments of the places they travel and the British public per the article, a seeming feeling of negligence is inherent. I attribute this not to human apathy, but to a genuine lack of awareness. Even for the environmentally conscious, it is difficult to hold on to good eco-friendly habits when trying to explore a new place; to soak up as much of one's surroundings in as little time as possible. Vacation generally triggers a breaking free from mundane tasks of daily life. Unfortunately, environmental considerations are not exempt.

Depending on the plausibility of fairly immediate technological advancements, the environmental harms associated with flying should tweak the price of a trip to some extent. Albeit on a much smaller scale, the issue is reminiscent of the one raised in Bill McKibben's "Maybe One". Despite undeniable proof of the environmental degradation that a large population causes, it is absurd to expect the human race to change one of their most base and innate functions. Similarly, despite knowledge of the environmental cost of flying, people cannot be expected to forego flying, seeing loved ones, enriching their own lives, for the sake of the environment. This is aptly exemplified in the article. Understandably, people would rather part ways with their daily habits than their ability to fly as means of impacting the environment less. It is one thing to place the environment before minor daily conveniences and personal sacrifices, but another to deny existing relationships that are contingent on being able to fly.

I think the best approach, then, is finding a way to discourage--but not keep people from--flying. In my opinion, people are most likely to respond to economic incentives. At present, there are simply limited alternatives to flying. Affordable, low carbon alternatives do not exist. The article mentioned a government plan for a new high-speed rail network for short-haul flights. I think this would be largely effective. While it is unfair to ask people to revert back to not flying whatsoever, it is fair to ask them to avoid it when they can. Some places in the world are simply inaccessible without flying, however, many short-haul trips--Florida, for example-- are habitually flown due to lack of convenient options. I believe economic incentives to utilize technologies that are still fast and convenient over flying could counter this. Ed Miliband makes a stringent point in the article, commenting: "I don't want to have a situation where only rich people can afford to fly." Indeed, economic incentives should not take it to levels that would make it impossible to fly. A minor hike in prices, though, would a) make people at least give more consideration to each flight and b) allow more money for technological advancements to find efficient alternatives.

Eco-Tourism

As Lauren pointed out, travel in general is a contentious subject in our globalized world. We have developed such a complex way of life, a web that encompasses the entire globe, that a discussion about restricting access to distant locations seems a ludicrous step backward. International trade relies on air transportation to distribute food and goods in a web of cooperation and mutual dependence, which we have become increasingly accustomed and reliant upon. Eco-tourism relies on flying for people to not only enjoy the many wonders of the planet we live on, but to experience different cultures which in turn improves our understandings of other societies and improves global communication and peace initiatives.
While aviation has expanded such that we are able to establish such vast channels of communication and collaboration, the environmental harms associated with flying must be taken into account. For example the article in The Guardian passed along a warning that if the environmental harm caused by air transportation is not regulated, that emissions from global aviation could account for 15-20% of all CO2 produced in 2050. I personally cannot entirely wrap my head around this dilemma because I go back and forth arguing with myself. On the one hand, I think that certain aspects of globalization are incredibly important to the well being of the global population. I can’t imagine what the world would be like if we were to “downgrade” our traveling capacity by increasing the price of air travel. I think that a major danger would lie in the simultaneous existence of nuclear weaponry and a decrease in person-to-person contact across cultures. The dilemma lies here; is the significant decrease in negative environmental impact worth the collapse of the incredible global network we have established? I would have to agree again with Lauren and first suggest a focus on improved aviation technology. I think that international travel is much too important to extinguish due to inflated costs, and that emissions from other sources that have a better shot at substitutes should be tackled first.

Eco-Tourism

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the blog question for this week, "are there ways to travel that do more good than harm?" To be honest, after watching the video in class and thinking about the way that tourism functions in the world, I am having a very difficult time imagining how to travel in an eco-friendly way and still have vacationing benefits.

First of all, there is the issue of transportation. People vacation to take a break away from every day life and spend a week relaxing. This ussually means flying to a far-off location and in turn, using a lot of fuel. I read "The Image" by Daniel Boorstein earlier this semester and one of the things that he discussed is that modern traveling does not serve the same purpose as it did in earlier centuries because the journey to the destination is so simple and mindless. While I had some problems with Boorstein's analysis of the value of modern traveling, it is something to think about. What if we didn't fly to a destination but instead had to take a long slow journey by some other form of transportation. Would the end result even be worth the journey? Maybe that would benefit the environment but it really is disheartening to think that the best way to travel in a "green" way is to not travel at all.

Could other elements of the vacation offset the damage of flying? As far as adding the cost of environmental impact to the price of a trip goes, I can certainly understand how the extra money would deter travel and pay for environmental improvements. At the same time, I have a lot of questions. How would we go about assigning a price to environmental degradation? What if only the U.S. imposed this fine - would it be effective? Could this sort of policy really change people's feelings about travel or maybe just encourage them to spend more on the plane ticket and less on other parts of the vacation?

I tried to think of other ways to offset the environmental costs of flying to a tourist location. Eating local food, maybe? Then again, the video in class showed that local produce does not find its way into hotels. Perhaps the hotels could commit themselves to being eco-friendly in their practices. These sorts of scenarios, however, really do require an entirely new paradigm for not only travel but global economics, trade, corporate competition and social structures.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this week's discussion question has stumped me. Even though I am hopeful that there is a way to travel in an environmentally sound manner, I can not even fathom the paradigm in which something like that could be accomplished.

Eco-Tourism

I'm going to separate this response into two different responses; one part in response to the film and another part in response to the article because they present pretty different issues in my mind.

First, the film. 'Nicely done!' is my first response. I'm pretty impressed with those film making abilities. As far as their argument goes, I have to be boring on this one and say I definitely agree with them. Just like we should consider our economic impact in our everyday lives, we should consider it when we travel. However, like the students in the film, I also would stress the importance of doing research. This is a necessity in any environmentally friendly actions we take in our lives. It is true that there is a movement towards greener lifestyles and as a result, businesses looking to profit from this movement without having to incurr the costs of reshaping their industry are always going to take advantage of labels. Doing our research is important in everything these days from food to travel to beauty products. Knowing what ingredients to look for in foods is more important than a label that says "organic" and understanding what eco-tourism really is and making sure your travels comply is all part of the same equation. Unfortunately, in this market, it is up to the consumer to be responsible. People will travel, this is a fact, so making travels less harmful to the environment is important. But the consumer has to know their stuff and pay attention to avoid being sucked into a label.

As far as the article goes, there are a few angles I'd like to address. First of all, I believe economic insentives are a great way (and maybe one of the few viable ways) of changing behavior and promoting eco-friendly lifestyles, so taxing or increasing the cost of flights is definitely a good incentive. I can also see, however, that flying is a touchy and difficult subject. As was noted in the article, there is no eco-friendly alternative to flying...and no alternative to flying as a mode of transport in general. There is no faster way to get from one place to the other and with this globalizing world, we have become dependent upon flying. The problem with flying specifically is one of history...we have structured our lives around the ability to fly for so many years, it will be much harder to limit flying than to limit other environmentally harmful activities. Knowing that we had the technologies to fly and it could be relatively cheap, families moved far from one another, jobs began moving people back and forth, and vacation became only a fraction of the reasons for travel. For example, I'm from Colorado, but in deciding where to go to school, the question of the environmental impact of flying home was never a big issue. It's quite common to go to school out of state and flying home during breaks is a yearly activitiy for many students. Though I would like to fly less, this would involve transfering schools or not going home to see family and those are both big sacrifice to make. Like those polled in the article, I would much rather eat locally, save on energy, and ride my bike then transfer or never go home for visits. My sister works in Botswana...how do we solve that one? Families, jobs, and education are globalized and breaking down this lifestyle is an incredible challenge. Therefore, I would argue that, although I am usually all for economic incentives to reduce environmental harm, when it comes to flying, I believe it would be better to focus our energies on lowering the environmental impact of flying through new technologies for fuel and whatnot. With this globalized world, people will have to continue flying, so it is important to focus efforts on making flying more eco-friendly. I think this has a better chance of reducing the environmental impact of flying than economic incentives, at least until we find a way to de-globalize our lives.

Another Sperm Whale

This question struck an interesting chord with me. As basic as it is, the correlation between food and the environment seems almost contradictory. Our eating habits--one would think-- are one of our most natural functions. Paired with our seemingly learned habits--i.e. excessive consumerism-- food becomes a huge factor in the strain on finite but necessary resources that we must grapple with as a society. As Americans (read: sperm whales, a la Bill McKibben) it is important for us to do some introspection when it comes to our "ingrained" eating habits.

The connection between food and the environment was so foreign to me that I regard my learning it in this course a revelation of sorts. Despite this knowledge, I realized how minute a consideration the environment is in my food choices. In all honesty, the main decision-makers when it comes to eating are what's the most economical, delicious, and easiest. Essentially, it mostly comes down to economics. As a college student with limited funds, my priority is to eat as cost-effectively as possible. Further, as a college student, time is precious and food often falls low on the list of priorities. This makes me want to eat as easily and quickly as possible. The delicious factor becomes more of a consideration when at a restaurant. That, however, is also related to my finances. My mind frame is that if I'm paying for a meal, it's going to be something delicious and worthwhile. Admittedly, these considerations are selfish. Ideally, I would consider at least nutrition and hopefully the environment as well. I don't think that college eating habits are indicative of "real world" eating habits. That said, I eat fairly well for the environment. I'd say that 90% of my meals are vegetarian. Purely due to taste preferences, I rarely crave animal products and when I do, it's poultry or fish (although I now realize the fish part may be much more hazardous than I may have thought.) As far as beverages though, I mostly drink water from the tap. When on campus, I do find myself buying bottled water for convenience. I am an avid coffee drinker, but have adapted to bringing my travel mug EVERYWHERE to compensate.

Of the food items I consume on a day to day basis, frozen meals are probably the most environmentally harmful. While they provide convenience for my on-the-go lifestyle, I realize how much excess product is used to individually package meals. For the one, relatively small meal you're consuming, you are disposing of its contents in their entirety. That means every time I eat one (which is more often than I'd like to admit) I am adding plastic, cardboard, and who knows what else to our filling sinks.

There seems to be some sort of "extremist" connotation that comes along with making environmentally-conscious food choices. Vegans tend to suggest a certain type of person, when in reality diet choices should have little to do with one's personality. As a wrongdoer myself, I believe we need serious introspection and appropriate changes in our eating habits. Because we are fulfilling what we consider a basic function (that we have taken to unbasic heights) we often blindly consume our food, casting aside any consideration of the environment. However, for this very reason-- the sheer frequency with which we feed ourselves-- it is imperative that we reflect on our eating and how it contributes to the environment. We must get rid of the stigma that comes with environmentally conscious eating.

My Papaya

Like Ashley, when I am initially deciding what to eat I think about what I am in the mood for. What a luxury it is to be able to decide what to eat and when we want to eat it. After I rule out certain tastes, I think about balancing the meal. I make sure that I have covered all of my bases- protein, carbs, veggies, and fruit if I haven’t yet had any that day. If I am making the meal at home, I know where some of my ingredients are coming from. I buy my vegetables at the farmer’s market on 18th street on the weekends, and I buy the discarded cheese (no it has not gone bad!) from restaurants that have leftover stock during a menu-change. I must sheepishly admit that my motives for buying my vegetables and cheese where I do are primarily for taste and price; the environmental upside to these decisions is more of a convenient coincidence. I recently switched over to the vegetarian side of the isle, and have cut meat out of my diet with the exception of occasional fish. I began to have a difficult time digesting heavy meats and felt slightly nauseous after every hamburger, and the fact that meat is processed to an extreme and over-packaged and shipped to my grocery store only reinforced my desire to go veggie.

Of everything I have eaten today, the papaya I splurged on has probably had the greatest environmental impact. Though at first this seemed counter-intuitive to me, seeing as it is a fruit fresh from the earth and not a processed slab of sirloin steak, I researched the origins of my delicious fruit. Papayas are grown and cultivated in tropic regions, however my specific papaya was born and raised in either Florida or Hawaii (according to the species). While the environment was spared the shipment from a Caribbean island, my papaya still had to be packaged, preserved, and shipped to my grocery store all the way from the far reaches of the States. After researching all of the foods I ate today I realized that not only is it difficult to eat foods that are environmentally friendly, but it is also no easy task to find out where each item on your plate came from and what it went through to get onto your fork.

The Food Issue

Good food has been a fairly recent development in my life. Not good food in the form of taste and health (my mom is an excellent cook and a health freak all in one), but in the form of environmentally friendly foods. Most of my food life has been dependent upon someone else- my mother bought the food in our house and I ate it without thinking twice and then, for a few years, American University decided what I ate. Because of my beliefs and my growing interest in environmental issues, since I have become responsible for my own food, I have made it my goal to eat good food, which to me means environmentally friendly food. I work at a farmer's market and I get a discount on food, which makes it so very easy to buy a majority of my food locally and organically. For the rest of my food needs, I shop at Yes Organic!, partially because of the convenience factor; Yes is my closest grocery store. I've learned to read ingredients rather than jumping at the first sign of "organic" or "all natural" lables, which these days could mean simply good advertizing. I don't eat much meat, partially because it's expensive and I still struggle with cooking it, and partially because I like to keep myself out of that system.

All of that being said...I love to eat out at restaurants. I don't do it all that often, what with being a college student and all, but when I get the chance, I jump on it. When I eat out, all the farmer's market and Yes lessons go out the window. This is partly because I have little choice to transfer those values into the restaurant market; there are few restaurants that serve "good food" and those that do are usually over-priced for my budget. But it gets even better; guess what is my favorite thing to eat at a restaurant? A burger. A big, juicy, methane producing, land ruining burger. So when I say all food values fly out the window when I'm at a restaurant, I mean it. I guess in some way I've just cynically accepted that restaurants don't cater to environmentally friendly lifestyles, so there's nothing I can do about it but eat a good old juicy burger. When eating out, options are limited because of price and because of a lack of available "good food" restaurants.

It is also upsetting to me that I probably spend more money on food than the average person. I have chosen to make food an important investment in my life; something on which I am willing to spend a larger portion of my income. However, I worry that there will come a time that this will not be possible. That my budget will limit my ability to eat "good food." I think about this a lot while living my current lifestyle. It's sometimes easier as a student because I have a limited number of things for which I have to pay on a regular basis. I have more freedom to make these choices, but I'm not sure it will always be this easy.

As far as my food impact in the last day or two, the biggest impact helps to validate what I've already said; restaurant food. This evening I had drinks and appetizers with a friend. I have no idea where that brie cheese with fruit and spinach and artichoke dip came from, but I'm guessing it wasn't anywhere near here. Who knows what kind of damage was incurred to put those plates before me. Pesticides ruining soil and human health, deforestation perhaps, and lots of greenhouse gasses to get here. I guess I'll never know for sure.

Thoughts about food

Considering everything that I know about the impact the food system has on the environment, I wish I could say that the first thing that I consider when I eat is the ecological effect of my choices. In general, though, hunger wins out as the more pressing problem that needs to be taken care of at meal time. Before I select a meal, either in a restaurant or at home, the first think that goes through my head is , "What do I like or feel like eating?" This is very reflective of the fact that in today's market, we have access to every sort of food product that we could possibly want at any time of the year. The second thing I think about is the nutritional value of my meal - although most likely not in the traditional sense of nutrition. I grew up as a very active kid running from school to track to ballet. As a result, my diet had to take a very unusual form in order to keep me moving. Even today, now that I only exercise moderately, I have not broken the habit of asking myself how I can get the most calories, most protein and highest levels of iron out of a meal. This means that most of my meals consist of meat, grains and fruits, and then I really make an effort to squeeze in those green leafy vegetables which I hate so much but apparently have a lot of iron in them. I really do think about where my food comes from and if I don't like the answer, try to make changes. I try to avoid fast food and I get my produce from farmers markets when I can, but it is difficult to eat locally even most of the time, let alone all of the time. Over all, I can say that environmental issues do cross my mind pretty frequently when I think about food. I think about how far the food may have traveled to get to me and how much oil was used in production. The problem is that I don't really change these thoughts into actions.

Thinking about what I ate this week, I recognize that there is definitely not a huge amount of variety in my meals. Breakfast is something that I can eat on the go: bagel, toast or maybe cereal if I got up early enough to spare ten minutes before I leave. I pack my lunches and always have a sandwich, some sort of fruit and then snacks throughout the day. Dinner has been the one meal that I have really had to adjust to in college because it involves real cooking---something I'm not super skilled at. I have started to make casseroles at the beginning of the week, freeze them in portions and then put them in the microwave so that I do not have to cook every night and worry about leftovers spoiling quickly. I suppose the one thing I can say about this is that it eliminates a lot of waste. Food used to go bad before I had a chance to eat it. At the same time, my dinner tonight probably had the largest impact on the environment. This particular casserole had pasta, melted cheese, canned peas and ground beef mixed together and baked. Honestly, I don't know where the pasta, cheese and canned peas were before they hit the grocery store shelf but I can imagine it took a lot of industrial effort to get there. I do know that the beef came from Omaha and I can at least be glad to know that it was shipped from inside the U.S. instead of overseas.

Forced Eco-friendliness

Amidst various ecological predictions and suggestions, one theme becomes apparent. The future looks unavoidably bleak. That said, 200 years is a massive amount of time, especially when we consider the exponential growth-- both good and bad-- we have and will experience. When looking to the future, DC is in apt microcosm of our nation. With a concentration of our nation's leaders, affluent citizens, and a striking amount of poverty; DC is representative of an array of socioeconomic conditions. While I admit the future of the region looks bleak to me too, I do hold a bit of hope-- if not for optional personal lifestyle changes, at least for forced ones.

The DC I imagine would be substantially overcrowded, as it is a metropolitan area in a time of a projected population boom. I do not, however, imagine a sardine-effect. If it comes down to it, the poor may end up crowded out, but I do not foresee such an advanced city living shoulder to shoulder. I do foresee food shortages, and a huge reduction in clean water in general. I expect a great deal of technological advancements in the next 2 centuries, that-- similar to China-- would likely end in a great deal of pollution and an overuse of resources such as food. I expect housing to look quite different, with a lot less emphasis on massive properties and more of a shift to attached houses and more conservative use of space. I also foresee a shift to energy efficient public transportation and to extremely energy efficient personal vehicles, if any. I make these predictions not out of an idealistic hope in the publics' attitudes, but from unavoidable economic incentive. In 200 years, space, energy, and resources will be so scarce that economic patterns will force everyday goods to become luxury ones.

Further, I believe that in 200 years the political system will have no choice but to mold itself around environmental degradation. I expect environmental bills that seriously punish polluters and force the public into living more efficiently. I expect that, by then, at least our nation's leaders will be wise enough to note the imminence of environmental threats and make the necessary changes. I expect huge shifts to renewable energy resources such as wind and solar powered--well-- everything. This portion of my prediction is intertwined with the DC I hope for, but I do think this DC is within our reach. While I don't hold much hope for optional changes in lifestyles, I think that in 200 years' time the environment will have gotten so bad that the idea will no longer be abstract. I think the effects of environmental degradation will be comparable to how our nation reacts to an economic recession. It will be in their faces, and thus will force people-- especially politicians-- into larger-scale changes.

While not necessarily applicable to DC, as it is relatively affluent, I see us forced into a greener world in a bigger way. I foresee epidemics-- such as swine flu and AIDS-- and natural dis

A Positive Outlook on 2209

To fully appreciate the time span of 200 years I thought back to what it must have been like living in 1809. No widespread use of electricity, slow transportation (horse and buggy), and expensive local foods. To think what we as a species have created in 200 years is absolutely mind blowing, I bet Laura Ingalls Wilder didn’t even have the capacity to imagine such inventions as a hybrid car or the emergence of globalized trade.

Due to the fact that “going green” has become a more popular trend, if you will, I don’t think that we will be continuing on our current path for the next 200 years. In terms of population I don’t think that Washington DC will be home to an exorbitant amount of people based on the evidence we have looked at that population has begun to reach somewhat of a plateau. I think that because of where we are now in terms of becoming more environmentally friendly, the only way forward for us is up and out of the path of our own destruction. While progress has been slow, 200 years is quite a bit of time to see significant changes in the way we choose to live our lives. I think that by 2209 we will have encountered such a shortage in oil supply that we will have already developed and implemented widespread use of alternate energy sources. As we have discussed, it is difficult to change mass society’s habitual lives, but I think that DC along with the rest of the world will have made small incremental changes by 2209 resulting in a very different reality than ours today.

Transportation will probably become a balance between personal electric or solar-powered vehicles and energy efficient public transit. DC and New York are already becoming less hospitable to personal cars in terms of parking, and I think that an eventual phase-out of personal vehicles is imminent. As Ashley brought up, this may lead to less travel and decreased global contact, however I think that it is equally possible to foresee global travel switch over to a yet uninvented form of efficiency (i.e. solar powered planes?)

I choose to look more positively on the next 200 years. I have faith that our society will change its ways on a mass scale for the better, if not because we want to then because we will have no other choice.

What the Future Holds

I'll start by saying that this question appears very difficult to me. I have a hard time imagining what my life will be like 10 years from now, let alone what the world will look like in 200 years. Also, the prediction looks very different depending on how we deal with the issues of today. Though I hope for dramatic changes in our world, I have a hard time picturing this happening. With that little disclaimer, I will begin my predictions.

My dream would be that things would change dramatically today so that the future wouldn't be a dooms day. I do believe that if we continue on this path, the Earth will no longer be able to support future generations. I don't know what would be the effects of this. Would mass disease take over as a way of ridding of the human population? Could we become extinct due to severe weather and disease? I feel the Earth has a way of fighting against the ruin we have created. We already see fears of rising diseases and epidemics like AIDS and huge, out of the ordinary storms like Katrina. Perhaps going down this path would simply lead to more and more of these catastrophes until we are wiped out. I know it's not possible for us to continue down this same road and it seems these are the only reasonable expectations if we do.

If we are to change paths, however, and try for a better chance at survival, there's a lot that needs to change. For one, I think it's unfortunate that the world looks to the U.S. as an example of how to live and the U.S. enjoys the fame and goes with it. I think our examples should be countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. They are making incredible gains in renewable energies and earth saving technologies and lifestyles. The U.S. is strides behind them. Part of the reason we're so behind is that our culture is much more consumer driven than that of the more socialist countries in Scandanavia. Our culture, which supports a certain view of the economy and materialism, should not be the example for the world. In fact, it should be the example of what not to do. The U.S. should represent to the world the fact that GDP is an ignorant representation of economic health, that consumerism makes for an unhappy, materialistic culture that can only cause harm to our Earth, and the health of the environment is not a political issue, it's a human issue. In my opinion, the U.S. has too far to go for the world to wait for our example. By the time we get around to being that example, changing our culture, our economic structure, our technology, it will be too late. So first, we have to change our angle. Let's look to countries with strong socialist programs and environmentally friendly lifestyles that are flourishing today. Then we can have a goal to work towards, an example to follow starting today.

Following these examples will force us to change our view of the economy; to stop holding our breaths during stock market announcements, arguing the health of the economy based on GDP and growth, and promoting consumerism to heal our economic and social woes. Instead, we will have to promote a green economy, consider growth to be the amount of resources preserved and recycled, look upon living with less as the utmost respectable social value, and promote an appreciation of nature. If we aim for this goal, perhaps 200 years from now we will live in small communities, sharing small amounts of resources, and interacting with nature in the way most animals do; a give and take, not a form of domination.

2209

It is hard to imagine what DC will look like in 200 years because it is difficult to fathom any other lifestyle besides the one that we all lead right now. Never the less, considering the change that has occurred in the last 200 years, I can guess that 2209 will look very different from 2009, especially if we continue on the same destructive path that we are on right now.

First and foremost, there will definitely be more people living in DC---and every other part of the world. People will have to find new ways to cope with crowded living situations, transportation mechanisms and resource distributions. One resource that I expect to be monitored very closely is oil. In fact, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that oil will be rationed amongst the population. As a result, people will be forced to find more efficient ways to live. They might expand public transportation and find ways to become more self sufficient within their own local living area. If there is not a lot of oil, people will travel less and food will have to come from more local sources (so selection would decrease). Ultimately, though, the failure to plan for environmental degradation and resource depletion will lead to a society that will be constrained by its lack of oil and subsequent inability to travel.

Ideally, society will not reach a point where it has depleted natural resources so severely that basic travel and food selection become intensely limited. It would be better if generations prior to that of 2209 (hint, hint), began to take measures to conserve resources, reduce waste and develop alternative forms of energy. If this happens, 2209 in DC might use a diverse range of energy sources to power itself including renewable fuels, solar and wind energy and moderate amounts of national oil. DC could be a city that consumes less, wastes less and ultimately creates less of an ecological mess on the planet. Travel would be possible and food systems could be regional--but probably shouldn't be global. People would not be constrained by oil rations because oil will have become only a single part of the city's sources of energy.

On a related note, this particular discussion question suggested that we consider water systems for the future of DC. When I thought about this, I realized that I have no idea where DC's water comes from. This struck me as unusual because in Colorado, water rights are such contentious issues that people are pretty aware of where their water comes from. It is something important that I wish I knew more about and this discussion question has prompted me to look into.