Redneck for Wilderness

Since I wasn't able to make it to class for the discussion, I figured I'd light up the blogosphere with my thoughts. After having studied environmental degradation--and some of the baggage that comes with it--quite a bit, I found this article a new, interesting, and useful way to consider the environment. A lot of the pieces we've read thus far have had a fairly similar, likely liberal, view. It was interesting to view the environment through a mostly political lens. Even more interesting was viewing it through--dare I say the dirty R word-- a republican's lens. Foreman's take on conservation was quite enlightening. Not only did I find the juxtaposition of words--conservation and conservatism-- amusing, but also an interesting backdrop for considering just how bi-partisan the issue actually is. For the most part, we've considered the environment on the larger scale-- in terms of global population numbers, global consumption patterns, etc. Thus far, this has made it easy to assume that it is an issue that plagues everyone, universally. With that as the backdrop, it was disheartening to consider that it is actually a split issue at all. Of all the things to politicize, the environment is not one. Granted, we live in a world-- or rather a country-- where politics are inescapable. However, a stark contrast arises when we consider the environment, which knows no borders, in terms of boundaries-- especially political ones.

Foreman is careful to stress the separation between the issues of conservation and environmentalism. He notes that even some environmentalists dismiss it is irrelevant. More interesting is his smart commentary on the word environment. He asserts that it should have been called the human-health movement. While not necessarily his intent, it does pose the question of human selfishness. His assertion is most likely a sad truth: we respond more when something is posed as directly affecting us, rather than an abstract concept. It is an interesting suggestion. All the tenants of environmentalism do correspond to problems such as pollution, urbanization, and other issues that we don't directly equate with human health. He makes another important distinction in his discussion stereotypes. Environmentalists are often grouped into the extremist category: non-deodorant wearing, vegan hippies that merely constitute a special interest group in the democratic party. While his point that this turns many people off of joining the movement, this also should be considered on the larger scale. Extreme as they are often considered, it is plausible that politics as a whole would do their best to exclude environmentalists as a whole.

Foreman's insight is exponentially useful in that he is a Republican. He addresses the fact that in many senses, we don't even attempt to talk to the political right, though this is where the crucial votes lie. Beyond his Republican environmental stance, he makes generally frightening and thus useful points. His exploration of extinction and population problems leaves us with a bitter taste in our mouths, regardless of our political leaning. He explains how we singled ourselves out in a sense, removing and intensifying our role as a link in the food chain. Our developments may have liberated us from the confines of nature, only to put us back in those confines tenfold. He notes how hard it is to find an example of a sustainable human society in all of history. He discusses the increasing impossibility of diversity in the presence of too many human beings, and pairs it with our refusal to discuss the far too controversial issue. Even the Sierra Club no longer talks about it!

Tying back into the environment in terms of politics, the most striking point to me was how much of our natural land is controlled by industry. Federal wilderness acts are losing wind, and he fears that there is so much pressure on conservationists that they have no choice but to make secessions they should not have to be making. This, for me, is reminiscent of the Waxman-Markey bill. Waxman is a fairly staunch environmentalist who just this past summer fought to pass a bill through Congress that would enforce quite a few necessary environmental changes. The bill was continually weakened, clearly due to pressure from the right. It was scary to watch Waxman-- a man who has enough knowledge to hold more fear for the environment than most of the public combined-- allow the bill to be weakened to such an extent. Clearly, Foreman's commentary on politics is not a thing of the past, despite increasing awareness that should have put us all on the same page by now.

Finding a Balance

The title for this post sums up my reaction to the article; yes, I agree with the author that we all need to be accountable for sacrificing more than our favorite brand of cookies to attempt to save what is left of our Earth, but I'm also cautious about dismissing these small, daily acts altogether. I do respect that Professor Maniates acknowledged this balance in the article near the end, stating that those little acts are necessary too, and I also agree with his main argument that more should be expected of us. What concerned me was the thought of losing sight of the balance between the two; those simple daily acts and the larger, necessary sacrifices.

Let me expand upon this by telling two stories, which present boths sides of this argument and show us just how important it is to have a balance of the big picture AND the small picture. The first example is my mother, who is kind-hearted and well-intentioned. She buys organic and local as much as possible and she recently bought a Prius. So what's the problem you say? The problem is that one day, when we were doing some grocery shopping, we decided to stop at the coffee shop a block or so away for a break; definitely a walkable venture. However, my mother suggested we drive there instead because well, she had a Prius! So why not? In this example, my mother has the small picture down. Eat locally, eat organically, lower your eco-footprint by lowering your CO2 emmissions, etc. But she is completely missing the bigger picture. These little daily acts calm her mind, allowing her to pretty much ignore the issue she seems so involved in. Just as the author fears, she's involved on the level that's easy for her and that's as far as it goes. It just so happened she needed a new car and the Prius was an easy purchase for her. It's easy for her to change from going to Safeway to Vitamin Cottage (our local organic market), which are equidistant to our house and offer similar prices. All of that is easy. But when it comes down to really understanding what's going on, the science of it, the impact she makes by using the Prius (even the Prius!) when she doesn't need it, she's totally in the dark. This is partly why Maniates' article spoke to me. I get it, I've seen it.

But then there's another side of the story that involves my roommate. Let's start by saying she's a SIS student, totally. She's informed on every international conflict you could imagine and she's passionate about them, however, she never gets involved in fighting for a cause. She never spends her time reacting to what she learns about; she just reads about it, yells about it, and leaves it alone. So when I started telling her things I was learning in this class, it was the same kind of thing. She was interested, passionate, angry, and then went back to eating her Kraft macaroni and cheese. But what has happened in the past few weeks is interesting to me. She began asking me why I buy the organic brand, why I try to stock up for the week at the local farmer's market, why I insist on toughing out the 3 mile ride to campus everyday. She litteraly, for the first time, asked me "So what is the deal with this local thing?" Once I explained to her how it worked, how I felt that at this point in my life this was the best way I could make an impact, she suddenly got motivated. She has decided to become a vegetarian and she's trying to eat through what she has now so she can start stocking up on more environmentally friendly foods and she's always asking me questions about the next step. So it may be true that our little attempt at living eco-friendly will not dramatically change the world. But I do believe that she's one extra person who's paying attention, whose kids will one day also pay attention, and this building up of an eco-friendly mindset, an eco-friendly culture is a huge part to changing our future. It doesn't take away from the fact that our governments and businesses and international organizations need our support and agreement in making bigger changes and more significant sacrifices, it just helps us get there. In my roommate's eyes, it's one cause she can do something about and I think that if that's how people see the environmental movement, that is definitely a step in the right direction.

Maniate's Should-be Mandates

Professor Maniates' argument--surprisingly enough-- is one of the first of it's kind as far as my environmental studies have taken me. Reminiscent of ancient Greece, where Plato's society dichotomized philosophers--great minds-- from the rest of the general population, environmentalist often treat the public as children. Just as Plato's society stressed great intellect stemming from debates between these great minds, environmentalists hold no punches with each other, yet often do little more than placate the public by allowing them to pat themselves on the back for, frankly, minuscule tasks. Some environmentalists are so extreme that they limit those who can be dubbed true environmentalists to those who have foregone the act of having children. Why, then, is the public babied? Can a society trusted to determine the fate of criminals on death row; to classify what stage a fetus must achieve before it can be considered a baby, really not be trusted to seriously contribute to saving our planet? Have we really lost so much faith in ourselves as a society that the fear of deterring the public from environmental action leads us to all but lie to them? Indeed, Maniates efficiently highlights our inexplicable glorification of easy; a glorification that we simply can longer afford.

As dire a concern as the environment is, little more than the bare minimum is being asked of us. Socially, "going green" has even become trendy, cute, a bragging right. We are rewarding what should be habit, and ignoring the fundamental change that Maniates so necessarily calls for. The mainstream environmental movement encourages unanimously doing our small part to achieve a greater affect. If the goal was unity, or something less pressing, this idea would be more understandable. However, the immediate and colossal change our planet's condition calls for leaves no room to sugar-coat; to pat our nation on the back for their minute but heartfelt efforts. In fact, I would argue that we are doing more harm than good. As Maniate's highlights in his examples of Martin Luther King, Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, our nation often acts most efficiently and unitedly in the face of extreme conditions. Herein lies the disheartening conundrum. The environment is as extreme a condition as any, yet by calling for minor actions we paint it as a low priority, something we can do at the end of our day-- if we have time.

Fortunately, Maniates urges more than marginal tweaking. He highlights what should be public knowledge: the dire threat we face calls for dire and fundamental changes: in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems. Real change means casting aside this unwarranted fear of discussing the issues at hand. It means taking the public out of their comfort zones; scaring them into action if need be. If our treatment thus far can parallel that of children, the time has finally come for our unavoidable time-out. The most striking part of Maniates argument was how pertinent it was to my own life. Hardly the environmentalist, the characteristics of our public are characteristics of people that even I have had the misfortune of coming into contact with. It immediately triggered two distinctly relevant moments. First, it reminded me of the fiery debate triggered by Annie Leonard's story of stuff. Her views were automatically dubbed extreme, mainly--in my opinion-- due to her attempt at taking people (yes, even children!) out of their comfort zone. Second, it reminds me how pertinent this manifestation of glorifying easy has been to me. In a recent post, I discussed my summer job at a non-profit organization called Environment New York. My job was to canvass (often unpleasant) New Yorkers in an attempt to inform them about the environment and weasel some sort of contribution out of them. More often than not, it was the man riding by on his bicycle, the woman holding a reusable grocery bag that would snipe at me when asked if he or she had a minute for the environment. Often, the response I got was "I'm pretty sure I already do my part, thanks!" My grievances-of-a-canvasser story goes to serve two functions. This "already doing my part" sentiment is far too common. I offer my second point with a ray of hope. Often, the least educated (in terms of environmental issues) people were the ones most eager to contribute. This, to me, instills hope in our population. Our public can be offered the fact without being scared away or deterred from doing anything at all.

Story of Stuff

After viewing Annie Leonard's "Story of Stuff," it is hardly surprising that the film generated quite a bit of debate. In a short twenty minutes, Leonard manages to make some huge accusations as well as some stringent points-- all in a cute, child-friendly package. In a sense, Leonard's points can be considered outlandish. However, it seems that she has found her world in such a dire state that people can no longer be placated into believing the environment will fix itself, or will be fixed by minor measures. She seems to deem it necessary to highlight how systemic, global, and huge these problems are, in order to call for a huge, noteworthy change in lifestyle. While a large part of the debate rests on the merits of the film (with such huge claims, how could it not?), more significant debate seems to consider Leonard's implications. More importantly, the debate seems to revolve around the impact Leonard may or may not have on our youth. Indeed, Leonard's claims can be considered faulty. Even Steve Cohen of Columbia's Earth Institute is quick to rebuttal her misleading claims about government spending. While I would argue that she strays from being 100% factual in order to conceptualize a complex problem that needs a great deal of just this conceptualizing, this is probably a moot point. The issue lies not in statistics, but in what exactly she is trying to infer. Indeed, it seems that much of the debate that has arisen was a result of a perceived attack on capitalism itself.

An attack on capitalism, of course, immediately translates into an attack on Americanism itself. Certainly, neither side should be taken as 100% truth. As a society, we rely on capitalism almost as heavily as we do on the earth's resources. While no equivocation between the two can or should be remotely argued, foregoing either would leave us in utter disarray. However, a tenant of capitalism is almost universal acknowledgement of how heavily we rely on it. So much money goes into protecting the status quo, often to the detriment of newer and less profitable green organizations. Perhaps Leonard's perceived anticapitalist sentiment is simply a necessary measure to try and level the playing field. One of the few arguments of its kind, the storyofstuff can be considered a desperate cry for help; a cry to raise awareness from an all-too-aware environmentalist.

The most blatant concern in the debate, ultimately, is the effect on our children. The film was a bit unnerving as a 20 year old college student. It certainly can be considered extreme in light of an elementary-level audience. The articles even reference the students' reactions. A young boy is depicted considering foregoing his legos, worried that they will negatively impact the environment. While it is undeniably a sad picture-- a young boy worried about a simple toy-- it seems to reflect Leonard's point perfectly. We live in a unique time, amongst unfortunate conditions that we must bear the burden of. Leonard's extreme depiction was likely in hopes of creating a resonating point; and resonate she did. Our youth can be seen as a microcosm of ourselves. Perhaps it is necessary that we are made uncomfortable--in ways that seem almost foreign to our society-- if there is hope for any significant change. Perhaps we need our children to be asking themselves these questions. Perhaps they must be forced into a level of discomfort now, if they are to have any hope for a comfortable future.

Maniates says that the time for easy is over, and I couldn't agree more

Professor Maniates illustrates the mainstream environmental movement as glorifying the easiest and most cost-effective individual actions in his article in the Washington Post. He challenges this movement by asserting that “never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment,” and that “the time for easy is over”. Maniates’ argument is one that I often reflect on myself. Why is it that environmental groups such as the EPA, and environmental spokesmen like Al Gore seem to have so little faith in the US community that they speak to lessen our collective responsibility? On one level I understand their frustration. It is no simple task to motivate an entire society to alter their lives in a drastic way, but as Maniates points out, “Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism”.

Of course changing the fundamentals of our society’s systems is going to be challenging, if it weren’t, then we would probably already be greener than green, and isn’t our planet worth it? I think that one of the primary keys to jump-starting a collective sense of responsibility is education. Our leaders and icons have a responsibility to the community to motivate, inspire, and unite. It is time that they use their influence to encourage change on a grander scale. For example, instead of Jay Z coming on stage at an environmentalist benefit concert and solely singing the praises of recycling and using scrap paper, he should encourage his fans to write letters to their congressmen, provide information on resources available to get more involved, and influence people to take “this whole environment thing” a bit more seriously. I appreciate the way Maniates concludes his article. We are grown-ups, and it is about time to dig our heads out of the sand and prove that we deserve to live on this planet.

The article by Michael Maniates that we read for this week's blog assignment briefly comments on the idea that society as a whole views environmental degradation as a challenge that we can overcome with simple, individualist actions. Maniates challenges this view and instead asserts that we need to fundamentally alter our patterns of energy consumption in order to preserve the planet.

I enjoyed this article and thought that it brought up some important issues, noting that while simple "green" changes in daily life are a good thing, as a whole, people are too reliant on "easy" solutions and quick fixes for very large problems. There is definitely an individualistic attitude in society today which leads people to believe that they should only be responsible for themselves and their immediate family. It seems to me that if we will ever change the way that we use energy and consume products, we will first have to make a shift to think about environmental issues as collective problems which require collective solutions.

My main concern is that arguments like Maniates' are only heard by people who already agree with him. It is very easy to reject any sort of discussion that seeks to alter the lifestyle of a society and instead just continue on with the status quo. How can you get people to take action to preserve the environment if it is not easy or cost effective? Is it possible to convince an entire society to change the way that it lives in order to address environmental issues without the presence of tangible benefits? I'd like to think optimistically that it is possible...

"The Story of Stuff" Debate

I first read Cohen’s piece and honestly appreciated the way he laid out his comments. I got a good feel for what types of things there were to debate about over Leonard’s short film. Cohen seemed to approach the film from a market liberal perspective, recognizing that there is a problem with the waste we produce, but suggesting the use of technology and our ingenuity to help us better manage the lifestyle that we have developed. He stresses the interconnectedness of globalization, and how a decrease in American consumption would simultaneously harm those around the world, and lessen the burden on the planet. He suggests, as would be expected from a market liberal perspective, that our best option is to transition to a sustainable economy. Cohen highlights the merits of the market economy we have developed, and suggests that we change the way it functions in order to manage sustainability instead of shunning it altogether. This argument clearly defined the merits and faults of Leonard’s film, while going beyond what was laid out in “The Story of Stuff” and suggesting an alternative ending to the story.

As for The Heritage Foundation’s blog entry, I found its dangerously low level of professionalism to be highly detrimental to its central argument. This angle of the debate one-sidedly highlights the faults of Leonard’s film while throwing in propaganda of its own. However, I found the defensiveness to be quite interesting. Like Cohen, The Heritage Foundation wishes to defend capitalism, however it takes the debate a step further. Denouncing every aspect of truth to “The Story of Stuff,” The Heritage Foundation simplifies the argument. After reading this piece, I wasn’t even sure if it was about the film anymore. It seemed to me to be more of a jab at liberalism as a whole, in an “us versus them” spirit, alienating any room for an intellectual debate on the facts of the film and their consequences.