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.

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.

The movie , "The Story of Stuff," that we watched in class today certainly brings to light a serious problem in the way that we consume products and produce waste in this country. I think that Annie Leonard conveys an important message in a fun and entertaining way: every time we buy a product, the impact that the purchase has extends far beyond our own personal satisfaction with the item that we bought.

In my opinion, the primary complaints in relation to this video stem from two things: 1. Leonard's presentation style does give viewers the feeling that they are being attacked for their lifestyle and lets be honest, no one likes to feel that way, so the instant reaction of people is to defend their way of life, and 2. The antiquated opinion that encouraging a reduction in consumption is a socialist/ anticapitalist way of thinking. This is evident in the Heritage commentary (if you look at the bottom, one of the tags for the article actually is "socialism." This article, to me, was a complete misinterpretation of Leonard's point. I do not think that she was trying to induce shame amongst the American people for being who they are at a fundamental, value based level. She also was not using environmentalism as an attack on capitalism. This seemed more like her way of showing that consumption is definitely out of hand and it is causing unacceptable damage to the earth and its citizens. It is not un-American to want every person on the planet to be able to live a healthy and fulfilling life on an unpolluted planet, is it?

One thing that was brought up in Cohen's blog that has been in the back of my mind is the fact that a decrease in consumption has a pretty hard impact on the economy. My primary question is, how can we phase into a sustainable society and still have an economy where people can find work and support themselves? Will people just need to learn to live on less? Or is there a more innovative option to create sustainable jobs?

My name is Melissa Levy, and I am a junior in SIS. Likely, my concentration will be International Economic Development, but per my indecisiveness/fluctuating interests, that's definitely subject to change. Excellent segue to my next point: this summer has led me to consider re-shifting my concentration to Global Environmental Politics (no pressure, Professor Nicholson). I worked for Environment New York-- a branch of a bigger umbrella non-profit organization called Environment America. Mainly, I was canvassing the streets of New York-- having conversations about the environment, signing postcards for Congress, and ideally, getting people involved financially in order to combat the obscene amounts of money spent lobbying by Big Oil. Sorry if that was a bit of a rant. Needless to say, I developed a passion for the environment, especially on the political level.
It is my hope, then, that this course broadens my knowledge in a way that allows me to back up my passion. I hope it advances my already whet appetite for environmental change on the political scale. I hope to be fully literate in the language of a problem that undeniably haunts our entire planet.
Further, I hope to contribute a relatively naive take on the environment and all of its complexities. While I cannot feign a plethora of knowledge in this subject, I bring with me a genuine interest-- in both the environment and learning about possible solutions. In a fashion that I believe is representative of much of our public, I can fully recognize the severity of our planet's problems without yet knowing how we got here or what course of action we should--or even can-- take. I contribute a blank environmental slate of sorts, paired with a strong desire to learn all about it.
Another great segue. As much as I would like to scoff at Stanley Fish for his general environmental apathy, I think he offers insight into the public's opinion of environmental consciousness. While environmental issues are so looming that it is better to err on the side of caution, it is hard to tell what is genuinely good for the environment and what company is merely hopping on the chic green train. Living in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US connotes--to varying degrees-- attempted eco-friendliness. In an ideal world, it would connote our entire population changing ingrained but unnecessary habits that would provide huge net changes. In the modern-day US, however, it means making an effort-- often for no better reason than guilt-- to whatever extent is comfortable for the individual. I witnessed this fully while working on the Environment NY campaign this summer. Often, people couldn't be bothered with the environment, deeming me as some overly hopeful hippie. The overarching goal of the campaign was to raise awareness; to educate the public. However, it was often the people on their environmental high horses that refused to take a minute to listen. Many a time, after being asked if they had a minute for the environment "staunch environmentalists" would brush the question off, responding that they already rode their bike, recycled, etc. Unfortunately, this is what it means to be environmentally friendly to many. There are too many people who pat themselves on the back too hard for doing one environmentally friendly thing. It seems that there is this outlandish concept of an environmental quota, and many Americans do minimal amount and consider it filled. This is a sad but realistic truth. For most Americans, environmentally friendliness means making the bare minimum change that allows them to remain in their comfort zones.

Hello fellow bloggers

So, as you know my name is Maggie and I know how to activate a blog (Add that to my resume)! I am also a senior here at AU but I transferred in last fall. I am from New York, the very eastern end of Long Island to be specific, and am currently undergoing beach withdrawal symptoms, as I live by the ocean. Growing up, my family had a membership to an organic farm down the road, where local farmers would plant crops and families in my town could harvest what they liked. I was raised to appreciate the time, energy, and lack of unnatural additives that went into the food I ate. Today, I try my best to eat organic, seasonal, and sustainable foods, but like most college students I have limited time and a limited budget, and sometimes can't help but to grab the cheapest, and easiest, meal on the go. The same goes for other environmentally-friendly habits. I turn the water off when I am brushing my teeth, I take relatively quick showers, I recycle, turn the lights off, etc, but even after the actions I take to do my part, I know that I could be doing more and trying harder. Besides the fact that I have never taken a class on environmental politics and was intrigued, I chose to take this course because I want to better understand the reality of the impact of my individual actions, and what role I can play in the future.

Stanley Fish wrote,"it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require," and even though it sounds like a total cop-out on his part, I can relate. I believe that global warming is a serious and threatening issue and I believe that I must do my part in order to preserve the future for mankind. However, I drive my car more often than I use public transportation because it is faster and more reliable and I will toss an empty water bottle into a trash can on the street corner instead of waiting to recycle it. I am not defending my actions, merely recognizing the frustration Fish encounters. It is easier to abuse the planet's resources for our own individual comforts when we live in a part of the world where it is both possible and ubiquitous. I studied abroad my first semester of freshman year in the Dominican Republic and when I returned to the States I noticed the excessive nature of the people around me with new eyes. I resisted my home culture, the way reverse culture shock usually manifests, but after a few months I was back into the old routine and treated our resources no differently than the next person. It is frustrating, and as long as we are allowed to live in excess I don't think that we will be able to change enough to save our planet. I think that individual action is important, but I think that big change needs to come from policy prescriptions in order to force a shift in the way people live. It is effortless to choose the easy way and not change old habits, which is why the option to live in certain ways needs to be eliminated.

Hey Everyone,

Just to let you all know a little bit about me, I am a senior here at AU and am studying International Relations with a minor in Spanish. Like Lauren, I am from Colorado and I definitely agree with her that living there has influenced my feelings about the importance of environmental protection. I grew up on a farm and am very interested in the development of sustainable food/agriculture policy and am hoping that I can find a career that combines those interests with my academic pursuits in international studies, trade and law. I am in this class for several reasons but one element that I am most interested in is the link between th environment and economic activity. Last year, I took International Economic Policy and Global Political Economy and that issue was discussed but not in any sort of extensive terms.

When I read what Lauren wrote about the person from the EPA who does not believe in global warming, I thought it was a funny coincidence because I was planning on sharing a similar story. This summer, I was in the car with several friends and one of them started talking about how global warming is not man made in any way---and everyone else agreed and had their own annecdotal stories about things they had read in the past refuted claims that humans have had any impact on global warming. I was so lost for words - I didn't think anyone still really thought that---and I started to wonder how their college education experience had been so dramatically different than mine that this was what they thought. I would like to leave this class able to understand both sides of this argument and be able to clearly explain how humans are impacting the global climate and what we can do to change the effect.

In relation to the article, I was struck most by the extent to which this man's wife went in order to be environmentally friendly. The simple things such as recycling, using cloth instead of paper napkins and buying local, organic food all seem easy enough, even if most Americans still are not doing this on a regular basis. However, finding the most eco-friendly toilet paper and reordering wood, glue and paint in order to ensure that their kitchen would hurt the environment as little as possible? That is dedication. I can't help but wonder if all Americans took enough time as this woman to consider how every action, every piece of toilet paper or can of paint would impact the earth, how much better off would we be? If everyone was as thoughtful as she is, maybe we wouldn't be in the environmental mess that we are in now. Never the less, the likelyhood that every, or even most, Americans will adapt to think like her before it is too late seems pretty slim to me. Maybe a variety of policies at the corporate level would be better? Could policies that ensure that products are made in an eco-friendly way be more effective than simply hoping that every person like the man who wrote this article has an environmentally consciencious spouse to reel them in? I really liked the last line in the article in which he said, "I am on the losing side of history," in his battle to remain stagnant in his habits. To me, this is a way of saying that his mentality as a whole is fading out and he represents a diminishing minority.

Hey all,

So…I’m Lauren. And there’s not a whole lot to tell about myself really, but as far as the questions Nicholson asked us to answer, I’m definitely excited about this class. I’m a senior and throughout my years at college I’ve become more and more concerned about environmental issues. Being from Colorado, preserving the environment is something that hits very close to home for me. Though I haven’t been in an environmental studies course until this semester, I was always trying to self-educate. I work at a farmer’s market here in DC and I’m always reading lots of books on the topic (Animal, Vegetable, Miracle is my current one and so far so good if you’re interested). My friends (two of which were Environmental Studies majors), my mom (who is always bragging about her Prius), and my boyfriend (who works in outdoor education) are all pretty involved so I learn a lot from them. But I know I’ll get a lot out of this class and I’m really excited about having an in-depth understanding of all the issues that we’re facing, not only in order to be educated on the issues, but also to know how to best play my part. I always recycle and buy locally and organically as much as possible, turn off all the lights, ya know, the basic stuff but I know there’s more I could be doing or even improving on how I’m doing the things I’m already doing. So I guess that’s why I’m in this class. Also, I know this guy that works for the EPA and when he told me he and his boss don’t “believe” in global warming (whatever that means…) I was just totally shocked into silence. I guess I hope to come out of this class with a good amount of information to spit back at him and hopefully wake him up. Ridiculous. So that’s really all there is to say about all that.

As for the article, my first thought is, come on man, a seatbelt? Really? It’s almost funny how lazy you have to be not to put on your seatbelt. So it comforted me a little bit because I believe him to be a little bit of an extreme example. A lot of people won’t go through the hassle of dissecting all their recycle correctly, but they’ll still turn off their appliances right after use. But at the same time, it kind of hit home. I am often saying to myself things like, “hey, it’s so hot today and I’m tired of the heat. I’m leaving on the fans so it’ll be cool when I get back.” And there the fans go, sucking up energy all day just so I can be cooler when I get home. Honestly, so much of this is habit and what we’re used to. Frankly, as a white middle class American, I have grown up with luxuries that a large chunk of my fellow Americans can relate to. And this luxury is hard to give up in the name of something that does not return any obvious, direct positives to our daily lives. Unfortunately, I think we have to work on making “living green” stupidly easy. I do think that recycling needs to more straightforward to get more people on board and there needs to be a larger investment in local companies so that people don’t have to sacrifice months waiting for the wood because they decide to go green. That being said, the better argument is that people have to learn to be patient and change their lifestyles because they know how important it is. But since that seems unlikely, financial stimulus for local businesses and green lifestyles is definitely helpful. All in all, I can definitely understand where the author’s coming from; I think a lot of people can and that’s a big problem that much more educated people than I am are spending their lives trying to figure out.