"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.
Cradle to Cradle
The most sensible and reoccurring theme at this point in the course seems rather simple: we need change on a larger scale. While this scale may be currently unfathomable in light of our current system, it is clear that reaching for fixes within our system will inevitably have a cap. Instead, then, we must fix environmentally threatening problems systemically. We must part ways with many of our habits that we may not have even found harmful thus far. The answer is as clear as the answer to this sort of problem can be. The varied and multifaceted problems plaguing the environment have one thing in common-- their existence and persistence are most noticeably a function of our severely flawed system. Admittedly, this realization soon grew frustrating. Albeit broad, we now had the closest thing to an answer handy. It then became troublesome, however, to think of how we could actually change this system. Authors repeatedly pointed to systemic problems that need fixing. Not once, however, did an author state any clear way to fix or even approach this largely flawed system.
In an environmental hallelujah moment, Cradle to Cradle came into play. At the risk of singing its praises too adamantly, McDonough and Braungart's book seems to provide the answer I didn't even know I was looking for. They offer a way of addressing this flawed system face on, discussing design and even answers. Just when the environmental rhetoric I had been exposed to seemed to overwhelmingly hold no answers, Cradle to Cradle seemed to offer solutions, and offer them optimistically. He provides design in a way that makes us question why we continue to live the way we do with readily available alternatives. While it would be naive to accept these without the social implications they'd inevitably be attached to, it is at least assuring to know we aren't working at dismissing a system without any idea of what alternative we are seeking. Further, the solutions he offers are generally simple. Things suddenly stopped seeming as stark or hopeless as they had started to.
One of the most effective parts of the book for me--surprisingly enough-- is the symbolism behind the design of the book itself. The completely reusable book seems to qualm any concerns of complexity in both the technologies they discuss and the social and political problems we might assume. In essence, they are practicing what they're preaching. Their widely read book was solely manufactured with these materials, showing that the things he discusses are really that achievable. This was the most subtle but striking showing of optimism for me. I am thoroughly enjoying the book, and while I hardly ever find myself relating to entirely optimistic sentiments, I truly think it is necessary. Iterating and reiterating the problem can only go so far. We need to know that an answer is not so far away in terms of both time and technology. While problems certainly arise in their argument, such as failure to address crucial aspects such as consumerism, environmental debate is already full enough with talk of that sort. Ultimately, I find that what the book foregoes in attention to detail or covering all their bases, it makes up for in the rarity that is its optimistic approach to environmental problems.
In an environmental hallelujah moment, Cradle to Cradle came into play. At the risk of singing its praises too adamantly, McDonough and Braungart's book seems to provide the answer I didn't even know I was looking for. They offer a way of addressing this flawed system face on, discussing design and even answers. Just when the environmental rhetoric I had been exposed to seemed to overwhelmingly hold no answers, Cradle to Cradle seemed to offer solutions, and offer them optimistically. He provides design in a way that makes us question why we continue to live the way we do with readily available alternatives. While it would be naive to accept these without the social implications they'd inevitably be attached to, it is at least assuring to know we aren't working at dismissing a system without any idea of what alternative we are seeking. Further, the solutions he offers are generally simple. Things suddenly stopped seeming as stark or hopeless as they had started to.
One of the most effective parts of the book for me--surprisingly enough-- is the symbolism behind the design of the book itself. The completely reusable book seems to qualm any concerns of complexity in both the technologies they discuss and the social and political problems we might assume. In essence, they are practicing what they're preaching. Their widely read book was solely manufactured with these materials, showing that the things he discusses are really that achievable. This was the most subtle but striking showing of optimism for me. I am thoroughly enjoying the book, and while I hardly ever find myself relating to entirely optimistic sentiments, I truly think it is necessary. Iterating and reiterating the problem can only go so far. We need to know that an answer is not so far away in terms of both time and technology. While problems certainly arise in their argument, such as failure to address crucial aspects such as consumerism, environmental debate is already full enough with talk of that sort. Ultimately, I find that what the book foregoes in attention to detail or covering all their bases, it makes up for in the rarity that is its optimistic approach to environmental problems.
cradle to cradle
My first impression of this book was, "How cool is this? This book is waterproof, can be turned into another book when I'm done with it and, bonus, the pages don't tear even when I try to rip them." As I read farther into the book, I was really caught up in the optimism and innovation of the authors. It is so great that there are people out there who can come up with these technologies and can totally rethink the way we live - people who can create a book without paper and come up with a totally new concept of consumerism. It is a really neat thing to think about a world without waste.
I also really appreciated the section which talked about how being "less bad" is still not good. It seems like a lot of times, we get really caught up in thinking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit pollution. I can see how this sort of thinking, though important for the short term, will not suffice in the long run.
I do have some concerns about the book. The first is that it does seem to oversimplify problems by relying on technological changes. I am just not ready to think that these changes are that easy not only in terms of technological developments but also in terms of social feasibility. I can't help but wonder what sort of environmental impact mass production of water-proof books may have before the transition from paper is complete. Basically, I'm not convinced yet that there will not be any side effects of this general transition. The solutions are also private-sector heavy and I do think that any substantial improvements to our system will need to at least in part come from public sector regulations.
Despite these doubts, I love the optimistic attitude of this book and know that people who think big are key to environmental improvements. Even if an idea is flawed, we will never get anywhere if people only put their ideas out to the world if they know they are perfect. In this sense, the ideas in this book are exactly what we need to push forward in environmental innovation.
I also really appreciated the section which talked about how being "less bad" is still not good. It seems like a lot of times, we get really caught up in thinking about how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit pollution. I can see how this sort of thinking, though important for the short term, will not suffice in the long run.
I do have some concerns about the book. The first is that it does seem to oversimplify problems by relying on technological changes. I am just not ready to think that these changes are that easy not only in terms of technological developments but also in terms of social feasibility. I can't help but wonder what sort of environmental impact mass production of water-proof books may have before the transition from paper is complete. Basically, I'm not convinced yet that there will not be any side effects of this general transition. The solutions are also private-sector heavy and I do think that any substantial improvements to our system will need to at least in part come from public sector regulations.
Despite these doubts, I love the optimistic attitude of this book and know that people who think big are key to environmental improvements. Even if an idea is flawed, we will never get anywhere if people only put their ideas out to the world if they know they are perfect. In this sense, the ideas in this book are exactly what we need to push forward in environmental innovation.
Response to Cradle to Cradle
I am very much enjoying this book. I think what I like best about it is that it's not just an argument, it's also a method. It's not just about a new approach (one that is similar to others we've read), but it's about exactly what the approach looks like. The approach looks like a building full of windows where solar income is maximized, it looks like textiles made of materials that can decompose without leaving behind harmful substances. It looks like ink without the toxins and paper without the tree. That's what's so optimistic to me about this book. It gives me concrete examples of the technology that is already out there to make everything we produce and consume not "less harmful" to the environment, but part of nature and therefore, NOT harmful to the environment. It's not just talk, it's action. Before reading this book, I felt like I could argue all I wanted for changing the system, making things differently from their conception, but if anyone asked me what that meant or how that looked, I would be at a loss. So although this book doesn't address what I consider to be serious problems of consumerism, affluence, and population growth, it does give me solid evidence for what the world should look like if everything we made was made to fit into the natural world; a world where environmental doomsday no longer lingers. To know that there is that technology out there is a huge step in the right direction in my mind and I was happy to hear about it.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Reflections on an argument
Well, let's just say Professor Maniates got into my head. I have been mulling this all around quite a bit, even arguing with friends about it regularly. First off, I was totally convinced. I mean, the Trinity makes a whole lot of sense and I can see its truths in my own life; the way I have come to have a negative view of human nature and the way I've been convinced that my daily actions can somehow lead to big change. I recognize and agree that this is historically, and presently untrue. I accept that, and I accept that the environmental movement needs some rewiring, some of which is happening as we speak. But here's what I think is missing from Maniates' analysis (although it is not missing from his actions and the systems he has put in place at his university- i just think it belongs in the trinity); though most current actions on the small scale leaves the system of degredation in place, intelligent, well thought-0ut, system-oriented small scale individual action CAN make a significant impact.
So agreed, social change does not come about by getting everyone on board, and easy stuff based on small individual acts won't make the big change, and yes we need to change our perception of human nature, but we also need to change the perception of small individual acts. Not all small scale acts are a waste of our time- even Maniates gave an example to defend this. His students' actions to implement a composting system at school is, compared to the larger problem, a small scale act based on individuals; it was one university system changed by one student. Is that not small scale individualized action? It is. But it's also well thought out, creative, and focused on changing systems. So I suppose the argument comes down to this: small scale ndividualized action is only negative when it follows the routine of the current "green" fad (eating organic, changing lightbulbs, etc). However, it can be incredibly positive if it follows a different path, a system-oriented path, focusing on small impacts that change larger (though still somewhat small compared to the scale of the problem) systems.
In conclusion, the trinity should be a trinity-plus-one (not sure what the technical term is for that). The plus-one should be "GF: or 'Green' fad actions;" the idea of what an individual action entails must be changed. An individual action for the environment is not changing a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean individuals can't make a difference. Individual action framed around system-oriented change can remind people that yes, individual actions can make a difference (as Maniates says, it takes a small group of people to create social change), but only if their focus is like that of Maniates' student who, through an individual act, changed a small, but significant system. This helps empower individuals, while changing the perception of individual action.
So agreed, social change does not come about by getting everyone on board, and easy stuff based on small individual acts won't make the big change, and yes we need to change our perception of human nature, but we also need to change the perception of small individual acts. Not all small scale acts are a waste of our time- even Maniates gave an example to defend this. His students' actions to implement a composting system at school is, compared to the larger problem, a small scale act based on individuals; it was one university system changed by one student. Is that not small scale individualized action? It is. But it's also well thought out, creative, and focused on changing systems. So I suppose the argument comes down to this: small scale ndividualized action is only negative when it follows the routine of the current "green" fad (eating organic, changing lightbulbs, etc). However, it can be incredibly positive if it follows a different path, a system-oriented path, focusing on small impacts that change larger (though still somewhat small compared to the scale of the problem) systems.
In conclusion, the trinity should be a trinity-plus-one (not sure what the technical term is for that). The plus-one should be "GF: or 'Green' fad actions;" the idea of what an individual action entails must be changed. An individual action for the environment is not changing a lightbulb. But that doesn't mean individuals can't make a difference. Individual action framed around system-oriented change can remind people that yes, individual actions can make a difference (as Maniates says, it takes a small group of people to create social change), but only if their focus is like that of Maniates' student who, through an individual act, changed a small, but significant system. This helps empower individuals, while changing the perception of individual action.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Individualization of Caring?
Having read a number of his articles, I found Professor Maniates' "trinity of despair" both exponentially useful and an apt summation of his works. An inherent social construct of the environmental movement is the defeatist attitude that many--including myself-- are guilty of adopting. Indeed, if we continue to filter the likelihood for environmental change through our "all or nothing" attitudes, we cannot expect or even hope for change. Professor Maniates clearly urges a shift from the individualization of environmental action. Conversely, he begs us to part ways with the idea of the individualization of caring. The trinity of despair, then, is a simple and effective cue in how to approach environmental change.
The assumption that human nature translates to automatic selfishness is a notion we MUST rid ourselves of. The distinction between self-interest and selfishness that Professor Maniates highlights is important. The idea that people are selfish will only serve as a deterrent against change. As in all other arenas of human nature, some people are selfish and others are not. An overarching theme of Maniates beliefs is that we mustn't concern ourselves with those who are selfish or don't care. The parallel he drew to MLK or Susan B. Anthony was helpful. Harping on the people we don't have on board, rather than the ones we do, will only make our efforts less effective. It is important to realize this first leg of the triangle, as assumptions about human nature can easily begin to dictate our defeatist attitudes.
The second leg of the trinity of despair--environmental strategy-- is even more spot on. The environmental strategy the public (especially the children) are offered is the approach of doing the "easy stuff." Glorifying that which we already are doing-- using energy-efficient light bulbs, turning the water off while we shave, etc-- will get us absolutely nowhere. This is a multi-faceted and hugely hindering problem. If the public are only offered unchallenging and simple options, then they will only practice simple and ineffective options. Likewise, if we continue to pat people on the back for doing things that in reality are not going to provoke change in the significant way huge environmental problems beg, then the idea will be created that we needn't do more. Essentially, it will hinder the likelihood of people ever stepping out of their comfort zones.
The third leg, then, is the one that addresses social change. This rests on the assumption that we can solely achieve change if we get everyone on board. This is unrealistic and leaves us in the proverbial uphill battle. Again, we are brought back to the idea that we cannot focus on those who are not in sync with the environmental movement. Much can be achieved without concentrated or even majority support of an issue. If we sentence ourselves to working within this ideology, we are sentencing ourselves to a limited possibility of change and more importantly, working forever in and against a flawed system.
The fact that well-educated students had adopted these beliefs was striking and disheartening. If the few people that do care are defeatist, there is little hope for those who may need some convincing. In the same way environmental issues beg systemic changes, our own environmental beliefs need some serious readjusting at a fundamental level. I have personally seen the development of such defeatist attitudes. After just one summer at the environmental non-profit that I worked at, the aspects of Maniates' triangle were all too realizable. Passersby scoffed at people trying to make changes at the federal level, either limiting themselves to the individual change they already make (best case scenario, unfortunately) or claiming that expectation of any such change was simply naive. I have further seen examples here on campus. The case we referenced of TDR's tray removal was highly revelatory. Indeed, the "few" made a decision and implemented it for "everyone." As a student, I was not even addressed prior to the change-- an undeniably good thing. This was social change at its best, forcing people into getting on board rather than asking them to and hoping they would. Another sort of hybrid example is the reusable mugs system. While they are not yet mandated on campus, drinks are significantly cheaper if you bring one. This economic incentive represents a change in policy, as pricing is readjusted for everyone who partakes. It leaves room for individual decision, however, by still offering alternatives. This meet-you-halfway idea is useful, I found. However, I cannot speak for the entire student body. Either way, enough people are clearly on board to be making changes. It is clear that the triangle of despair is an unfortunate reality, and with this realization, we must rid ourselves of these beliefs.
The assumption that human nature translates to automatic selfishness is a notion we MUST rid ourselves of. The distinction between self-interest and selfishness that Professor Maniates highlights is important. The idea that people are selfish will only serve as a deterrent against change. As in all other arenas of human nature, some people are selfish and others are not. An overarching theme of Maniates beliefs is that we mustn't concern ourselves with those who are selfish or don't care. The parallel he drew to MLK or Susan B. Anthony was helpful. Harping on the people we don't have on board, rather than the ones we do, will only make our efforts less effective. It is important to realize this first leg of the triangle, as assumptions about human nature can easily begin to dictate our defeatist attitudes.
The second leg of the trinity of despair--environmental strategy-- is even more spot on. The environmental strategy the public (especially the children) are offered is the approach of doing the "easy stuff." Glorifying that which we already are doing-- using energy-efficient light bulbs, turning the water off while we shave, etc-- will get us absolutely nowhere. This is a multi-faceted and hugely hindering problem. If the public are only offered unchallenging and simple options, then they will only practice simple and ineffective options. Likewise, if we continue to pat people on the back for doing things that in reality are not going to provoke change in the significant way huge environmental problems beg, then the idea will be created that we needn't do more. Essentially, it will hinder the likelihood of people ever stepping out of their comfort zones.
The third leg, then, is the one that addresses social change. This rests on the assumption that we can solely achieve change if we get everyone on board. This is unrealistic and leaves us in the proverbial uphill battle. Again, we are brought back to the idea that we cannot focus on those who are not in sync with the environmental movement. Much can be achieved without concentrated or even majority support of an issue. If we sentence ourselves to working within this ideology, we are sentencing ourselves to a limited possibility of change and more importantly, working forever in and against a flawed system.
The fact that well-educated students had adopted these beliefs was striking and disheartening. If the few people that do care are defeatist, there is little hope for those who may need some convincing. In the same way environmental issues beg systemic changes, our own environmental beliefs need some serious readjusting at a fundamental level. I have personally seen the development of such defeatist attitudes. After just one summer at the environmental non-profit that I worked at, the aspects of Maniates' triangle were all too realizable. Passersby scoffed at people trying to make changes at the federal level, either limiting themselves to the individual change they already make (best case scenario, unfortunately) or claiming that expectation of any such change was simply naive. I have further seen examples here on campus. The case we referenced of TDR's tray removal was highly revelatory. Indeed, the "few" made a decision and implemented it for "everyone." As a student, I was not even addressed prior to the change-- an undeniably good thing. This was social change at its best, forcing people into getting on board rather than asking them to and hoping they would. Another sort of hybrid example is the reusable mugs system. While they are not yet mandated on campus, drinks are significantly cheaper if you bring one. This economic incentive represents a change in policy, as pricing is readjusted for everyone who partakes. It leaves room for individual decision, however, by still offering alternatives. This meet-you-halfway idea is useful, I found. However, I cannot speak for the entire student body. Either way, enough people are clearly on board to be making changes. It is clear that the triangle of despair is an unfortunate reality, and with this realization, we must rid ourselves of these beliefs.
Trinity of Despair
Professor Maniate's Trinity of Despair seems to be a very helpful tool to use in understanding the problems in thinking within the environmental movement which prevent it from being fully effective. I particularly appreciate the first element which he discussed - the idea that people are self interested as opposed to inherently selfish. The difference between self interest and selfishness is an important distinction to make because selfishness implies that people only look out for themselves where as self interest opens up the possibility that people may consider that the well being of others may also be good for their own interests. It is tempting to just toss aside the entire environmental movement under the pretense that nothing will ever be done because people are selfish and will never make sacrifices or think outside their own personal space.
The second part of the Trinity of Despair, the idea of environmental action as easy and individualized is an interesting element because this concept is so widespread. Elementary students learn about using less water or recycling, adults carry their groceries in reusable bags and on AU's campus, we get to feel better about ourselves by reading our paper coffee cups which tell us that by using this product, we are able to save enough energy to power a household for 810 years. These actions have become the base of the environmental movement and even the people who embrace these ideas may not recognize the small impact that they have. At the same time, how do you ask people to address this large issue when it seems like only a few people have the power to really make changes to the system?
I am most guilty of getting caught up in the third element of the trinity, the idea that everyone must be on board for the environmental movement. This is because I can not imagine policy changes that can occur without strong Congressional support and if people vote out legislators who support environmental protection, nothing will ever happen. After thinking about this part of the trinity, though, I recognize that living in DC has made me think only about government action and completely forget about the private sector. Professor Maniates talked about changes that companies could make - like Starbucks halting the use of paper cups - or changes in schools and other institutions. This seems like the place where the most progress could be made in the environmental movement because it is the place where a few individuals can take charge and alter the system without requiring the permission of hundreds of thousands of people. I am interested to know about more projects and ideas that look to make large scale change outside of government policy.
The second part of the Trinity of Despair, the idea of environmental action as easy and individualized is an interesting element because this concept is so widespread. Elementary students learn about using less water or recycling, adults carry their groceries in reusable bags and on AU's campus, we get to feel better about ourselves by reading our paper coffee cups which tell us that by using this product, we are able to save enough energy to power a household for 810 years. These actions have become the base of the environmental movement and even the people who embrace these ideas may not recognize the small impact that they have. At the same time, how do you ask people to address this large issue when it seems like only a few people have the power to really make changes to the system?
I am most guilty of getting caught up in the third element of the trinity, the idea that everyone must be on board for the environmental movement. This is because I can not imagine policy changes that can occur without strong Congressional support and if people vote out legislators who support environmental protection, nothing will ever happen. After thinking about this part of the trinity, though, I recognize that living in DC has made me think only about government action and completely forget about the private sector. Professor Maniates talked about changes that companies could make - like Starbucks halting the use of paper cups - or changes in schools and other institutions. This seems like the place where the most progress could be made in the environmental movement because it is the place where a few individuals can take charge and alter the system without requiring the permission of hundreds of thousands of people. I am interested to know about more projects and ideas that look to make large scale change outside of government policy.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
the trinity of despair
Professor Maniates’ “trinity of despair” is a very accurate assessment of the barriers to effectiveness of the environmental movement. The three assumptions he suggests are ones I have seen dishearten many, including myself. Because Maniates confronted these assumptions head-on and explained how they do not necessarily have to be barriers to momentum in environmental change, I am able to think in a different way about how to be an effective environmental change agent. For example, he stressed that in order to build social movements and create change, it is not necessary to have a majority of the population on board. I think this assumption is especially difficult to breakdown because without overwhelming support, efforts feel futile and resignation sets in. I think what helped me to accept Maniates’ proposal that we don’t need large-scale support in order to be successful is that the most effective changes we can make need to be at the policy level, where we make eco-friendly activities a natural part of every day functioning (like his example about instituting a mug-rental in all Starbucks shops). It doesn’t take an army of supporters to make fundamental changes in how we function in every day life.
For example, when computers were first introduced, there was no mass social movement behind implementing widespread use of the new technology. However, the technology became institutionalized by the few, and now we use computers for everything in our every day lives without even thinking twice about it. Not having an email address has become taboo. The same needs to be done in the environmental protection arena. A small group has the ability to implement institutional changes, and as a result create a shift in the American way of life. Driving an SUV while eating McDonald's out of a styrofoam container needs to become taboo.
For example, when computers were first introduced, there was no mass social movement behind implementing widespread use of the new technology. However, the technology became institutionalized by the few, and now we use computers for everything in our every day lives without even thinking twice about it. Not having an email address has become taboo. The same needs to be done in the environmental protection arena. A small group has the ability to implement institutional changes, and as a result create a shift in the American way of life. Driving an SUV while eating McDonald's out of a styrofoam container needs to become taboo.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Continuing "The Lorax"
By communicating through email, Ashley, Melissa, Maggie, and I compiled the last of our addition to "The Lorax." Our addition is meant to be tacked onto the end of the book, as a continuation.
But the boy knew he could not act alone
so he picked up his seed and marched on home
"Mom! Have you heard of the Truffula trees?"
"No," she said, "explain it to me please."
So he told her the tale
of the Once-ler and his greed
and they picked up his pale
and knew just what to do with the seed.
So they went on their way, two generations united
rallied neighbors and friends, everyone was excited.
They planted the seed, but it didn't stop there,
they marched to the office of Mr. Dontcare.
They told him the tale of the Truffula trees
and he laughed and he scoffed at his citizen's needs.
He shooed them out the door, told them they couldn't stay.
The little boy was disheartened, then his mom yelled "No way!"
"If you wait just a moment and listen, you'll see
the Earth's as important for you as for me.
It's not really thneeds that everyone needs
and we must stop now before all that's left are the weeds.
But it's not just the Brown Barbaloots who will suffer,
oh no, even for you, things will get tougher.
One day you too will live as the Once-ler does
alone in the smog, wishing for what once was.
Because someday soon we'll run out of trees,
there'll be no more fish, nor flowers, nor bees.
We'll even run out of that goop in the ground
that you put in your car to make it go round."
"What? This can't happen!" cried Mr. Dontcare,
"How can I fix this?" he asked, pulling his hair.
"We must change the whole system," an old man chimed in
"leave consumption behind and everyone will win.
We must measure our economy with yuzzamatuzz, not GDP
To raise the standard of living for you and for me."
"You're right!" exclaimed Mr. Dontcare,
as he raised his fists and jumped off his chair.
"We'll set the example for living with less
and the whole world will follow; we'll all fix this mess.
We'll show one and all that our land matters more
than factories, machines, and thneeds galore.
Gather all scientists, leaders, and friends
Once-lers and citizens, the list has no end!
We'll need everyone together, the rich and the poor
to come up with ways to change lives at the core.
So come along! We're off! It's a new day!
Soon, under Truffula trees we will lay!"
But the boy knew he could not act alone
so he picked up his seed and marched on home
"Mom! Have you heard of the Truffula trees?"
"No," she said, "explain it to me please."
So he told her the tale
of the Once-ler and his greed
and they picked up his pale
and knew just what to do with the seed.
So they went on their way, two generations united
rallied neighbors and friends, everyone was excited.
They planted the seed, but it didn't stop there,
they marched to the office of Mr. Dontcare.
They told him the tale of the Truffula trees
and he laughed and he scoffed at his citizen's needs.
He shooed them out the door, told them they couldn't stay.
The little boy was disheartened, then his mom yelled "No way!"
"If you wait just a moment and listen, you'll see
the Earth's as important for you as for me.
It's not really thneeds that everyone needs
and we must stop now before all that's left are the weeds.
But it's not just the Brown Barbaloots who will suffer,
oh no, even for you, things will get tougher.
One day you too will live as the Once-ler does
alone in the smog, wishing for what once was.
Because someday soon we'll run out of trees,
there'll be no more fish, nor flowers, nor bees.
We'll even run out of that goop in the ground
that you put in your car to make it go round."
"What? This can't happen!" cried Mr. Dontcare,
"How can I fix this?" he asked, pulling his hair.
"We must change the whole system," an old man chimed in
"leave consumption behind and everyone will win.
We must measure our economy with yuzzamatuzz, not GDP
To raise the standard of living for you and for me."
"You're right!" exclaimed Mr. Dontcare,
as he raised his fists and jumped off his chair.
"We'll set the example for living with less
and the whole world will follow; we'll all fix this mess.
We'll show one and all that our land matters more
than factories, machines, and thneeds galore.
Gather all scientists, leaders, and friends
Once-lers and citizens, the list has no end!
We'll need everyone together, the rich and the poor
to come up with ways to change lives at the core.
So come along! We're off! It's a new day!
Soon, under Truffula trees we will lay!"
Thursday, October 29, 2009
How to Talk to a "Friend of Science"?
While the "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" websites are both arguably lacking, their discrepancies are quite useful. Actually, I found that the two websites were largely representative of the real climate change debate that we come across in our everyday lives. Generally, there are a great deal of global warming believers; people who may or may not know all the details, but have heard enough to know that the backing science exists. Conversely, there are the people--though I am repeatedly shocked to find that these people truly exist-- that cling to opposing claims, however few and far between, to "secure" the notion that climate change is largely exaggerated. In an increasingly environmentally aware and conscious society, however, this claim grows more difficult and more ludicrous. Thus, to operate within the context of society, the non-climate-change believers often have to mask their view under a variety of pretenses. While the context of society works in both directions-- fostering strong environmental convictions on either side of the spectrum in people that don't necessarily know their facts-- it is apparent in both real life and in the world wide web. Certainly, the respective websites followed suit with the overarching debate at hand.
The purpose of each website, then, is mostly clear but muddled to a certain degree. The purpose of the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website is to offer rebuttals to common claims of skeptics. The general idea, then, is to provide the facts of climate change in a way that could fuel a debate supporting its existence. Another purpose is to seemingly add to the wealth of knowledge of already existent climate change believers. It multitasks, offering ideas from both sides in a sense, as it must address the concerns in order to provide rebuttals. The purpose of the "Friends of Science" website, conveniently less discernible, is an apt example of the masking of opinions that most who oppose the existence of climate change resort to. The website purports to be on the "side of science," rather than the harsher claim of not being on the side of global warming. Though this is exactly the purpose of the website, it offers its overtly biased "facts" under the pretense of adhering to science; furthering scientific research on the issue. In reality, it sites rather old data and finds basis only on counterarguments, failing to address any arguments in favor.
This is where the "Climate Skeptic" website far exceeds the capabilities and legitimacy of the "Friends of Science" website. Indeed, the Climate Skeptic explores and breaks down opposing opinions-- many of which are the very claims made by Friends of Science. Contrarily, "Friends of Science" offers its facts, claims to support further scientific research (as if the plethora of already existing research is not adequate) and stops at that. This, of course, lends credence to the Climate Skeptic website and forces us to seriously question the Friends of Science website.
It is important to note that "Friends of Science" is a non-profit organization, and are actively seeking donations on their site. This, of course, could be a huge factor in the lacking validity of Friends of Science sources. Further, the fact that their overall concern is seeking donations could ultimately limit them to certain convictions. For example, while they might have a more moderate stance in reality, they may feel forced to take on a particularly strong stance in order to maximize their supporters. Further, it is difficult to fairly read these websites without a bias. After reading my peers' responses, I realized I had given the "Climate Skeptic" website a lot more credit than it deserved. While, as they pointed out, it was seriously lacking in many regards, I overlooked much of this. Because the site affirmed many of my opinions and disproved many of the Friends of Science claims I had just read in quite a bit of disgust, its legitimacy was almost immediate in my eyes. These reactions, I am sure, are largely present in the public. This fact is very important to note when considering that impacting abilities of websites.
The purpose of each website, then, is mostly clear but muddled to a certain degree. The purpose of the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" website is to offer rebuttals to common claims of skeptics. The general idea, then, is to provide the facts of climate change in a way that could fuel a debate supporting its existence. Another purpose is to seemingly add to the wealth of knowledge of already existent climate change believers. It multitasks, offering ideas from both sides in a sense, as it must address the concerns in order to provide rebuttals. The purpose of the "Friends of Science" website, conveniently less discernible, is an apt example of the masking of opinions that most who oppose the existence of climate change resort to. The website purports to be on the "side of science," rather than the harsher claim of not being on the side of global warming. Though this is exactly the purpose of the website, it offers its overtly biased "facts" under the pretense of adhering to science; furthering scientific research on the issue. In reality, it sites rather old data and finds basis only on counterarguments, failing to address any arguments in favor.
This is where the "Climate Skeptic" website far exceeds the capabilities and legitimacy of the "Friends of Science" website. Indeed, the Climate Skeptic explores and breaks down opposing opinions-- many of which are the very claims made by Friends of Science. Contrarily, "Friends of Science" offers its facts, claims to support further scientific research (as if the plethora of already existing research is not adequate) and stops at that. This, of course, lends credence to the Climate Skeptic website and forces us to seriously question the Friends of Science website.
It is important to note that "Friends of Science" is a non-profit organization, and are actively seeking donations on their site. This, of course, could be a huge factor in the lacking validity of Friends of Science sources. Further, the fact that their overall concern is seeking donations could ultimately limit them to certain convictions. For example, while they might have a more moderate stance in reality, they may feel forced to take on a particularly strong stance in order to maximize their supporters. Further, it is difficult to fairly read these websites without a bias. After reading my peers' responses, I realized I had given the "Climate Skeptic" website a lot more credit than it deserved. While, as they pointed out, it was seriously lacking in many regards, I overlooked much of this. Because the site affirmed many of my opinions and disproved many of the Friends of Science claims I had just read in quite a bit of disgust, its legitimacy was almost immediate in my eyes. These reactions, I am sure, are largely present in the public. This fact is very important to note when considering that impacting abilities of websites.
how do I know what's real?
These types of websites influenced me to register for this course in the very first place. Although neither “Friends of Science” nor “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” contain legitimate source lists, for the average viewer who is simply out there to browse for “the truth,” these sites provide enough information to take back to the cafeteria. It is exceedingly difficult to weed out fact from fiction on a topic that you know nearly nothing concrete about. This class has helped me to understand that it is not merely the “truth” that is important, but also an understanding of the different arguments that exist in order to create a framework for understanding the debate that is taking place, and to ultimately take an informed position.
The fact that “Friends of Science” posts a link to various treaties and UN memos should not cover up the glaring detail that the facts posted in contrast to their proclaimed myths have no references to speak of. While it would be convenient to regurgitate such neatly laid out arguments in the workplace, it is unwise to assume that simply because they are convincing that they are accurate. The same goes for “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”. When I looked over this site, I immediately drew a parallel to the way I feel when FOX news is on and I turn the channel to John Stewart. I am more willing to blindly accept and pass on the arguments I have grown accustomed to agreeing with. Although “Friends of Science” aesthetically looked more like a legitimate source than the other site’s blog-like appearance, I found myself more convinced by the latter because it felt more comprehensive with its exhausting list of arguments.
With all this being said, I think that it is excruciatingly important for anyone looking for the facts to find reliable sources on the subject (this goes for everything), and to acknowledge his or her reasons for accepting an argument. When it comes to scientific details, the average Joe is not going to be able to critically evaluate a claim, therefore I would argue that finding a list of references even before reading the claim would be beneficial.
The fact that “Friends of Science” posts a link to various treaties and UN memos should not cover up the glaring detail that the facts posted in contrast to their proclaimed myths have no references to speak of. While it would be convenient to regurgitate such neatly laid out arguments in the workplace, it is unwise to assume that simply because they are convincing that they are accurate. The same goes for “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”. When I looked over this site, I immediately drew a parallel to the way I feel when FOX news is on and I turn the channel to John Stewart. I am more willing to blindly accept and pass on the arguments I have grown accustomed to agreeing with. Although “Friends of Science” aesthetically looked more like a legitimate source than the other site’s blog-like appearance, I found myself more convinced by the latter because it felt more comprehensive with its exhausting list of arguments.
With all this being said, I think that it is excruciatingly important for anyone looking for the facts to find reliable sources on the subject (this goes for everything), and to acknowledge his or her reasons for accepting an argument. When it comes to scientific details, the average Joe is not going to be able to critically evaluate a claim, therefore I would argue that finding a list of references even before reading the claim would be beneficial.
Confusing Positions
After looking at the websites for Friends of Science and How to talk to a Climate Change Skeptic, I can understand why people are either confused or convinced that the opposite side of the climate change debate is lying. Both of these websites address different sides of the same issue with equally overwhelming statements and less than satisfying references to strong academic resources.
First, I went to the Friends of Science Website and was more than a little appalled. After reading the assigned section of Friedman's book this week, it was really unsettling to see this website make unsubstantiated claims that "Hot, Flat and Crowded," intelligently shows are false. I was really frustrated that the website said that there is no evidence to show that global warming is man made when there obviously is a piling amount of proof. I went to the website's source page and saw something interesting: there is not a single source that they cited that was published later than 2007 and most of the sources came from before 2004. Even though people have been looking at climate change for a while, the newest developments in research seem to be the ones that are clearing up the questions and doubts that previously existed. Even if I was an unbiased viewer of this website, the lack of more recent evidence to support its claims would cause me to question the validity of this information.
I went to the second website hoping to see a well documented, organized account of global warming and the studies which prove that it is man made. I was pretty disappointed. I was overwhelmed by the number of links in front of me and had no idea even where to get a start. One part of this website's home page had a list of statements that a climate change skeptic might make - statements that were exactly like those that I had seen on the Friends of Science page. The problem was that when I clicked on the links, the "refutes" to skeptical claims were presented in the same way that the statements on the first website were listed. There were charts, graphs and links, but they were all vaguely cited and a person who was more inclined to believe the first webpage could easily assume that this second one was lying or exaggerating facts.
In the end, even though my prior reading has convinced me that global warming is very real, very serious and very man made, I did not find either website terribly convincing. In the end, if their purposes are to persuade opposing groups to change their minds about their position on climate change, they did not succeed. Mostly, the websites cater to people who already agree with them and serve to inflame the rhetoric between the two groups.
First, I went to the Friends of Science Website and was more than a little appalled. After reading the assigned section of Friedman's book this week, it was really unsettling to see this website make unsubstantiated claims that "Hot, Flat and Crowded," intelligently shows are false. I was really frustrated that the website said that there is no evidence to show that global warming is man made when there obviously is a piling amount of proof. I went to the website's source page and saw something interesting: there is not a single source that they cited that was published later than 2007 and most of the sources came from before 2004. Even though people have been looking at climate change for a while, the newest developments in research seem to be the ones that are clearing up the questions and doubts that previously existed. Even if I was an unbiased viewer of this website, the lack of more recent evidence to support its claims would cause me to question the validity of this information.
I went to the second website hoping to see a well documented, organized account of global warming and the studies which prove that it is man made. I was pretty disappointed. I was overwhelmed by the number of links in front of me and had no idea even where to get a start. One part of this website's home page had a list of statements that a climate change skeptic might make - statements that were exactly like those that I had seen on the Friends of Science page. The problem was that when I clicked on the links, the "refutes" to skeptical claims were presented in the same way that the statements on the first website were listed. There were charts, graphs and links, but they were all vaguely cited and a person who was more inclined to believe the first webpage could easily assume that this second one was lying or exaggerating facts.
In the end, even though my prior reading has convinced me that global warming is very real, very serious and very man made, I did not find either website terribly convincing. In the end, if their purposes are to persuade opposing groups to change their minds about their position on climate change, they did not succeed. Mostly, the websites cater to people who already agree with them and serve to inflame the rhetoric between the two groups.
The Validity of Climate Change
I am really impressed with these websites. I've participated in a few conversations myself where referencing this information would've come in handy quite a bit. I think they're very useful in that they each pose similar myths/facts (just from the opposing perspective) so you can get straight to the problem or misconception and find out what information is out there to support either side. They're extremely straightforward and definitely give some insight into how polarizing (pun not intended) the climate change debate is.
The question of how to make sense of it all gets at a large societal issue, in my view. Being convinced of beliefs without questioning the facts is a pretty widespread phenomenon in this country and causes many problems. Unfortunately, climate change has been politicized to become an issue that is victim to this type of ignorance. To make sense of these things, I think the most important thing we have to learn is to check sources. For example, the Friends of Science website made many claims, but didn't provide links or sources to find out more, read reports, or analyze graphs, while the other website provided many links and included sources for facts that were given. Providing valid sources (such as NASA) should be a sign of good information. A lack of sources should signal to us that we should be skeptical of the information. We have to take the time to find out who is giving us this information and where they are getting their information and sources are the best way to do so. Also, I think there is something to be said for the expansiveness of the website that reports climate change is a problem. It tackles every myth that's out there with expansive information, while the Friends of Science tackles only certain myths with limited information. I think this can also signal who is informed and who has the knowledge to back them up.
Based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious at this point which "side" I support. I do believe there is much more valid evidence supporting the idea that climate change is caused by human activity and is a serious problem that needs addressing. I believe this because the information arguing this comes from reputable sources and many different elements of science and research, all culminating in the conclusion that climate change is a problem and is caused by humans. I am much less convinced by the Friends of Science article because there are few sources (and the ones that are included I've never heard of) and I don't believe them to be reputable, and their information is limited and seems mostly based on generalities as opposed to specific scientific evidence.
The question of how to make sense of it all gets at a large societal issue, in my view. Being convinced of beliefs without questioning the facts is a pretty widespread phenomenon in this country and causes many problems. Unfortunately, climate change has been politicized to become an issue that is victim to this type of ignorance. To make sense of these things, I think the most important thing we have to learn is to check sources. For example, the Friends of Science website made many claims, but didn't provide links or sources to find out more, read reports, or analyze graphs, while the other website provided many links and included sources for facts that were given. Providing valid sources (such as NASA) should be a sign of good information. A lack of sources should signal to us that we should be skeptical of the information. We have to take the time to find out who is giving us this information and where they are getting their information and sources are the best way to do so. Also, I think there is something to be said for the expansiveness of the website that reports climate change is a problem. It tackles every myth that's out there with expansive information, while the Friends of Science tackles only certain myths with limited information. I think this can also signal who is informed and who has the knowledge to back them up.
Based on this analysis, it is pretty obvious at this point which "side" I support. I do believe there is much more valid evidence supporting the idea that climate change is caused by human activity and is a serious problem that needs addressing. I believe this because the information arguing this comes from reputable sources and many different elements of science and research, all culminating in the conclusion that climate change is a problem and is caused by humans. I am much less convinced by the Friends of Science article because there are few sources (and the ones that are included I've never heard of) and I don't believe them to be reputable, and their information is limited and seems mostly based on generalities as opposed to specific scientific evidence.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Saving Nature, NATURally.
The words thrilling, magical, and enchanting immediately connote positive thoughts. Some may find it ironic, then, that the first memory that came to mind when reading this prompt was a potentially near-death experience I experienced in my childhood. Despite the rather long-term relationship with nature that a plethora of family excursions and a father that had a mild obsession with insects provided me with, my mind kept wandering back to this one memory. Upon deeper contemplation, though, this seemingly unsuitable memory began to make sense. Sure, given freedom of word choice, the words I would have selected to accompany a retelling of this experience would have been more along the lines of terrifying, risky, and utterly disenchanting. In context of the thrilling/magical/enchanting word framework, though, it became apparent why my subconscious was so adamant on reliving this memory. It was, indeed, thrilling magical AND enchanting. Before anyone reading this starts casting me as a self-loather, I guess I should share the actual experience.
I was about 8 years old, on a family trip to New Hampshire. I can’t exactly recall what time of year it was, but it was a beautiful day in the hybrid fall-spring sense, where the weather is only made better by the knowledge that it should not be nearly as nice as it is given the time of year. I went with my father and sister to a river in the area. The overall area was a magnificent showing of nature. There were woods and lots of open space, all set to the unique tune of a gargling body of water. In fact, the river was characterized by certain sections of rapidly flowing water, and was shallow enough to have rocks protruding out of the water as far as the eye could see. Taking advantage of the beautiful weather, we climbed on the rocks, hopping from one to another so as to avoid the vibrant but too-cold water below us. I distinctly remember my older sister repeatedly warning me to stay away from the edge of the rocks, where the water had turned the semi-submersed portions of the rocks into slippery rims. Of course this only heightened the temptation to go closer and closer to the edges. Intending to only marginally defy my sister’s authority, I put my foot close enough to the edge of the rock to seem daring, but what I thought was far enough away to avoid actually slipping in. I was wrong.
While my memory of almost every other aspect of the day is fuzzy, I remember this part is if it had happened a mere hour ago. I can still vividly recall slipping into the river and immediately being sucked through the rapids. I remember the discomfort of the rush of water up my nostrils, managing to lift my head out from under the water only just in time to see the rock my head was about to crash into if I didn’t duck back down. Barely able to breathe, I gave up on the losing battle of trying to counter the force of a rapid river. My father immediately jumped in after me, and I can still recall cringing in the aftermath at his bloody back that had been scraped against a rock during his descent. I later found out that the river rapids I so graciously got to take a ride in led right to a waterfall. I now realize the event seems so magnificent, rather than traumatic as it perhaps should, due to just how human this "non-human" world was. I think the experience coincided with my realization of the power of nature. There I was, defying nature by testing how formidable an opponent I was against it. In a true engagement (perhaps too much of an engagement) with nature, I was made painfully aware of the answer. Not only was I not a opponent of any sorts, I was a tiny spec in its grand scheme, lucky enough to be enjoying its resources. The experience was thrilling in a way that is largely reliant on the fact that I made it out with no real consequences. It was magical and enchanting in the realizations it provided me with, and the profundity in how effortlessly it had overpowered me-- both physically and mentally.
My perhaps overly stream of consciousness recollection of my experience is actually relevant to the question of whether or not saving nature is something we should concern ourselves with. The only answer I can fathom is actually a question: how could it not be? To me, this question is as intrinsic as asking whether or not saving ourselves is something we should concern ourselves with. Essentially, that is what we accomplish in saving nature. We are unquestionably reliant--maybe even contingent--upon nature. As I noted earlier, nature is this huge force in which we are fortunate enough to be players in. This question is highly representative of exactly why we should concern ourselves with nature. It is so much a part of us, our past, our make up that we can unanimously recall a variety of instances in which our interaction with our natural environment has been profound. Clearly, nature is an integral part of our lives. Often, we lose sight of this because of cities and ever-increasing technology. However, we must not be fooled-- we rely on nature in a multitude of ways; ways we often cannot even detect. For ourselves, for future generations, even for animals that are even more reliant on nature but have no say in it, we must make saving nature not just a concern, but a priority.
I was about 8 years old, on a family trip to New Hampshire. I can’t exactly recall what time of year it was, but it was a beautiful day in the hybrid fall-spring sense, where the weather is only made better by the knowledge that it should not be nearly as nice as it is given the time of year. I went with my father and sister to a river in the area. The overall area was a magnificent showing of nature. There were woods and lots of open space, all set to the unique tune of a gargling body of water. In fact, the river was characterized by certain sections of rapidly flowing water, and was shallow enough to have rocks protruding out of the water as far as the eye could see. Taking advantage of the beautiful weather, we climbed on the rocks, hopping from one to another so as to avoid the vibrant but too-cold water below us. I distinctly remember my older sister repeatedly warning me to stay away from the edge of the rocks, where the water had turned the semi-submersed portions of the rocks into slippery rims. Of course this only heightened the temptation to go closer and closer to the edges. Intending to only marginally defy my sister’s authority, I put my foot close enough to the edge of the rock to seem daring, but what I thought was far enough away to avoid actually slipping in. I was wrong.
While my memory of almost every other aspect of the day is fuzzy, I remember this part is if it had happened a mere hour ago. I can still vividly recall slipping into the river and immediately being sucked through the rapids. I remember the discomfort of the rush of water up my nostrils, managing to lift my head out from under the water only just in time to see the rock my head was about to crash into if I didn’t duck back down. Barely able to breathe, I gave up on the losing battle of trying to counter the force of a rapid river. My father immediately jumped in after me, and I can still recall cringing in the aftermath at his bloody back that had been scraped against a rock during his descent. I later found out that the river rapids I so graciously got to take a ride in led right to a waterfall. I now realize the event seems so magnificent, rather than traumatic as it perhaps should, due to just how human this "non-human" world was. I think the experience coincided with my realization of the power of nature. There I was, defying nature by testing how formidable an opponent I was against it. In a true engagement (perhaps too much of an engagement) with nature, I was made painfully aware of the answer. Not only was I not a opponent of any sorts, I was a tiny spec in its grand scheme, lucky enough to be enjoying its resources. The experience was thrilling in a way that is largely reliant on the fact that I made it out with no real consequences. It was magical and enchanting in the realizations it provided me with, and the profundity in how effortlessly it had overpowered me-- both physically and mentally.
My perhaps overly stream of consciousness recollection of my experience is actually relevant to the question of whether or not saving nature is something we should concern ourselves with. The only answer I can fathom is actually a question: how could it not be? To me, this question is as intrinsic as asking whether or not saving ourselves is something we should concern ourselves with. Essentially, that is what we accomplish in saving nature. We are unquestionably reliant--maybe even contingent--upon nature. As I noted earlier, nature is this huge force in which we are fortunate enough to be players in. This question is highly representative of exactly why we should concern ourselves with nature. It is so much a part of us, our past, our make up that we can unanimously recall a variety of instances in which our interaction with our natural environment has been profound. Clearly, nature is an integral part of our lives. Often, we lose sight of this because of cities and ever-increasing technology. However, we must not be fooled-- we rely on nature in a multitude of ways; ways we often cannot even detect. For ourselves, for future generations, even for animals that are even more reliant on nature but have no say in it, we must make saving nature not just a concern, but a priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)