"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".
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
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
-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
Thursday, December 3, 2009
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!
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)