Technology: TBD

As a person living in the United States, I consider technology to be my ipod or computer, but it can also be thought of as anything that cannot be found in the natural world. Now, some people might be up in arms about this statement, but it is completely valid. For instance, when agricultural plows were first developed this was considered technology. Technology is relative to the time and the development of the country. For this reason, it is foolish to assume technology can or will save us. First of all, technology allowed us to prosper and thus leads to the degradation of the environment. Before technology ruled our lifestyles, life was simple, but fulfilling. People worked harder and this meant we knew the amount of work something took to create. With technology, we see buildings being constructed everyday because the old ones will not fit the human capacity demanded. Yet, we do not see where these materials come from or the way in which they are transported to the construction site. This notion of technology saving the world seems like a ploy created by big business to keep “business as usual”.

Technology, in general, is terrific and has allowed the United States and other developed countries to prosper. In terms of the environment, technology is not beneficial. Technology makes our lives easier and therefore we glamorize it. Yet, it is the reason why environmental degradation has sped up in recent years. For many, technology seems like the answer because it would be the logical choice to the problem. Technology helps us solve many of our problems in other parts of our lives, so then the question becomes why this would be any different from anything else. It is different solely because it is what allows for the problem to begin in the first place. In another argument, no one would use the problem as a solution, yet this glamorization of technology has brought many people to this very conclusion.

Many people have come to the conclusion that technology will save us, but it is impossible to predict the unknown. Who knows if it will? It may or it may not, but personally, I am not waiting for that cure-all piece of technology. Also, it is interesting that humans are putting all of their faith into something that will fails us from time to time. Readily, we forget the negative aspects of technology because it takes the pressure off of humans to fix our way of life.

Technology Alone Cannot Save Us

Technology alone cannot be the answer to the Earth’s present struggles. I find the Cornucopian belief that technology will progress enough to fix our major problems to be shallow. I personally have a difficulty in just sitting back and waiting for these life-changing innovations to pop up. And, if they do happen to pop up out of nowhere, then I don’t believe that they will rapidly integrate themselves into world policy because there will be too many obstacles. My disbelief is two-fold: technology is an aid but not an answer and implementation of technology is too difficult.

My mom used to always tell me that with every action there comes a reaction. I believe that this holds true for everything…including technology. Each new technological innovation also brings with it a negative by-product. With the burning of fossil fuels, there comes the depletion of stratospheric ozone. This is something that is very obvious to us right now, but at the time of the Industrial Revolution was minute if existent at all. Nuclear power creates a toxic waste, wind and water turbines kill the local wildlife, and electric energy ultimately leads back to coal burning for the most part. With these new technologies that we are developing, how will we know the exact long-term effects? What if something that we considered helpful is later discovered to have created a whole other environmental problem? The ecosystems around the globe are very fragile. A slight change of the long-term can amount to serious damage.

Also, I don’t believe that once a beneficial technology is created it will be implemented to the extent it demands to have any sort of dramatic effect. There are so many innovations around the world, and most of them remain with untapped potential. I understand the process of weeding our the less efficient and poor technologies, but I don’t ever see the process being completed by promoting one special technology to be implemented worldwide. As we’ve talked about in class, worldwide changes are difficult because opposition will exist until the environmental option becomes economically viable but that won’t happen until countries alter the structure of their economy. It is a vicious cycle that prevents the progression of green innovations from truly impacting the world market. I admit that it is grim, but I don’t see that changing rapidly.

In environmental terms, my impression is that in order for technology to “save us” it means that technology will support any lifestyle that humans want to live. I do not believe this is a possibility. Technology can only aid us in helping to resolve the environmental issues that we have created. The world has a chance to take advantage of the benefits of technology, because it is certainly not all negative. Ultimately, I place the responsibility in the world population. This is a positive; there is possibility for resolution. Without action from us, technology is merely there and for the most part inactive. Technology cannot be the catalyst that begins environmental progress; the world population needs to be the catalyst.

One Small Step for Mankind, but a Potential to be a Moderate Step

I think it would be premature to say that technology will save us. It is already clear how enormously complex the world is, with ecosystems so interconnected that a minor change in one area will affect a quality in another area. It is becoming clear how enormously complex the solutions need to be. Theories ranging from sustainable development, slowing population growth, to management of resources all prove that whatever the solution is, it will be just as complex as the ecosystems that are saved. Technology is just one component. It will only be one part of the solution (or problem).
It is true that technologies of the past and present, and most definitely the future, have and will continue to damage the environment, but this damage is a reflection of our own lack of foresight. Our industrialization did not take into account of the social impacts that the new technologies would inflict. While some would argue that technology is not neutral (saying that a nuclear power plant is not the same as a solar panel), they are missing the point that those technologies were conceived of in the human mind, and are a reflection of what we think. The capabilities bestowed upon them are capabilities that we as humanity chose to bestow upon them. They are not inherently bad or good. Humanity could develop much more far-reaching environmentally friendly technology, or technology that can resuscitate devastated environments, but that is left to humanity. Taking into account the earlier mentioned complexity, it can be said now that technology may play a part in saving us. The keys here are may and part. It is up to humans to decide what technology can do, and considering the complexity, whatever we develop will have to fit into a much larger framework of better resource management, alteration of habits, and education.
As for stratospheric ozone depletion, one must be cautious about drawing conclusions. CFC’s and other materials that damaged the ozone were part of technologies that did not consider their far-reaching impacts. It could be easy to say that we must reduce technology because we reduced CFC’s and helped lessen the damage to the ozone. However, that would label an entire class of objects (which have done many beneficial things) as inherently bad. To coordinate the meetings for the summits, world leaders no doubt relied on technologies which allowed them to communicate faster and travel. Without those technologies, such global coordination would be impossible.

Technology's False Positives

Technology is such a seductive option for the salvation of humanity from the terrifying world of environmental disaster-apocalypse that surely awaits us all in the future. I think the real appeal really just comes from the idea that with a little bit of science that you or I do not necessarily understand, we could Revolutionize Something. There are technological fixes out there for small scale problems, and the most successful and least disruptive of these seem to attempt mimicry of nature's systems. People need technological literacy on a global scale in order to see the self-restriction of technological industry. If Subsaharan Africans who faced mass starvation as a result of the 1970s Green Revolution funded by the IMF and World Bank had increased access to affordable technology, we could perhaps see a better rounded approach to the greening of agriculture as it effects global carbon emissions and the empowerment of local people.

Bill McKibben talks about the role of the internet in bringing together the global community, with the expansion of the internet's connection to more diverse peoples from ethnic and economic class issues it could be supposed that first world and third world might collide more creatively in terms of technological development. In this way, yes, perhaps technology could "save" us. However, the trend is ever towards extremes. As much as our communities are expanded, our access to each other as human beings increased, some of this inevitably moves us away from our contact on the -face-to-face level. When everything is from a distance I wonder how connected people feel to their own backyards.

Technology in terms of robots and environmental tech like what we discussed last class I am always skeptical of; how far has any of that kind of thinking brought us? Metal trees to replace real trees for carbon output sound make me sad. On an elemental level that is how I feel. The rising global population concerns me more for the CO2 levels than maximized efficiency trees. We need, rather, a return to older ways I would say. Good old fashioned education and proactive work. Sex and environmental education, on a global level. Education education education holds the height of technological hope for me personally. Only education and action can save us.

Technology and Environment

I would like to take the first part question: will technology save us? Why, or why not? and meaning of technology in terms of environment.

I would say technology will be a helpful development tool or investment to improve our environment in the long run. The first thing I came up with when I heard technology in environment was Kiznet's curve that we talked about in the second week of class. When people just started developing technology, they destroyed environmental quality more rather than improve it, and this happened because people did not know how to use technology well. However, at the particular point, they eventually could improve quality of environment more because of technology development, regulations or rules taken by government, and changing values and norms toward environment issues. The changing of norms and regulations would come first to connect technology development , but technology development is a part of factor of improvment of environment situation.
I believe that technology development will improve more to help us because technology would never go back. There are many countries which are still underdeveloped, and those countries could learn the developmet path which developed countries already experienced, but this means in positive way, learning from past failures. From developed countries's experience, underdevelop countries can take more greener actions for environment movement by technology development which is already developed by developed countries. In order to take the right path, the policy or regulation would be a key factor to motivate people to go greener.
In recent years, many environmental policies/ regulations and norms/ concept published, and technology often uses in order to achive these goals. For example, Corporation Social Responsibility(CSR) is the concept which private firms or corporations should not aim only own interest, but also need to achieve social responsibirities such as protection of environmental issues. This concept imposes on firms to improve the cause of environmental destruction such as reduction of CO2 emissions , and many firms utilize technology to achieve this responsibilities. In addition to that, eco business appeared like renewable energy and productions, those are impossible to achieve without technology develoment. Therefore, I believe that technology will work in positive, and achieve great improvement to environmental situation.

Clever but impractical

The US gives itself so much credit sometimes that it is easy to forget that these days, not only are we Not First at some things, we are not even in the top 5. Environmental care is one of these things. Furthermore, China certainly has no room to brag, I breathed in Beijing for 5 months, I know. When Friedman quotes Liu saying climate change “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.” she is not joking. People everywhere are dying of climate change and pollution in China. In reality, the country is saving itself an enormous (as opposed to just a really really large) national healthcare bill in about 10 years by making a real effort now to green its methods of growth. If China really wanted to deter the acceleration of climate change, the government would enforce pollution penalties, it would cap factory emissions and many other things. I would be interested to hear where the scientific labs used in the developments of these green products are dumping their waste. The Chinese do not recycle- the plastic mines Friedman discusses are other people's garbage landed on the PRC. Finding even one recycling can in Beijing was not only a hassle, but near impossible. Even if there is one recycling can in a neighborhood, I highly doubt that the thing is ever used correctly or conscientiously. This article is right, the Chinese do use greening to create jobs, something that the US badly needs right now. But that doesn't make China environmentally pristine.

The US could do from taking some practical wisdom from China- be practical, accept that which makes you better able to supply for your people and your nation's future. Stability, harmony and ingenuity are quick ways to an easy buck, why would you mess yourself up by getting in your own way? OH THAT'S RIGHT- Democracy. Governance is there for a reason, but in this country somehow that has been interpreted to mean that petty politics are the order of the day. The willfully maintained ignorance of global change will come to find these individuals one day and the best action we can take at this point is the local action that every one of our classes seems to come down to; you cannot count on the powers that be to make decisions that best serve you or the rest of the world. You have to be conscious every step of the day, and once you make environmentally friendly habits- like recycling, writing your congressman, or informing yourself, friends and family about the destruction your way of life could be wreaking on this world- it becomes easier. Ehri said in class the other day that in Japan recycling is a thoughtless process with maybe up to 11 bins to put your trash in. If the people of Japan can chose between 11 bins for recycling, we should be able to, too! The practical implementation of recycling programs needs nothing beyond the initiative of a few anxious people. Authority figures have been anticipating the ruckus about to made over their recycling for ages. It's time to validate those anticipations by aggravating them a bit. In the US nothing gets done until people decide to do something about it- in China there are so many people that if the government did not head up industry and employ people they would still be having farmer's revolutions against their landlords. Such is the nature of these nations.

We're Only Outsmarting Ourselves

I don’t believe that there is a “best” way to address climate change. Action is action. There are so many approaches that are possible, each with its merits. With our global situation at present, it is just necessary to take action; we can’t afford to be picky right now. And, as with any complex problem, it will not be one solution but a combination of many that truly attacks the problem. I also believe that the U.S. cannot discount the fact that other nations are making impacts and we are not. It is easy to scapegoat our obstacles to the government, but one of my classmates made the point that our representatives are essentially supposed to be representations of our beliefs. So, are the representatives not properly portraying our wants, is the public not concerned enough, or a little bit of both?

The global economy is based upon competition. So, it is understandable that this article would bring out this obvious competition between China and the U.S. However, I viewed this comparison as a chance for progress instead of the end result of an ultimate winner and loser. First, there are not just two parties involved in this article. Friedman mentions the European Union, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea as also having legislature put in place to deal with electronics recycling. This is important when talking about Biddle’s business because those are the places that recycle enough to make his work viable. Behind my house right now, there are electronics sitting in the back alley, because it is just hard to get rid of them. Also, Friedman gives the U.S. a lot of credit for our spirit of innovation, something that China lacks. But the trick is that innovation is only a part of the process; the other part is implementation. China is good at implementing ideas and tweaking them to make them most cost effective. In essence, the U.S. and China could work together…life is not always a race.

I’ve seen this recurring theme lately in environmental politics: if it’s not directly visible, then it doesn’t exist. Friedman criticizes American politicians, as he should, for debating whether climate change exists. For the Chinese, there is no debate. “People see, eat, and breathe pollution every day”, according to Liu in the article. The United States cannot wait until the changes are this obvious, it will be too late. Right now it is easy for Americans to ignore these problems, because they can go through their days without being directly, immediately affected. Climate change is real; it cannot be ignored. If it is, we will end up in a horrible situation where each day the climate hurts us significantly.

Coorporation or Competition

In general, I agree on more green things related technological innovation, movements/attitude, and policies would give us plus effects. Since 1950s Industrial Revolution, people very much moved toward industrialization, modernization, and after 1980- 90s we could connect with others more closely due to development of the network such as an internat connection which resulted in accelerating the globalized world. I think those factors made our environment situation worse; meanwhile, because we had such huge innovations and technologies, now we can turn into those factors for making our environmental situation better. I believe this idea is much toward to Market Liberals, and realize that there are possibilities of negative externalities such as market failure. However, I would like to see from positive way, and believe people are clever.

Fist, I would like to mention that solving climate chage can make new markets and new investments such as green jobs. The second article "D.C. Invests in Green Collar Jobs" written by Bracken Hendricks says that solving climate changes can find jobs and opportunity in the emerging green economy, and this makes sense to me because now many universitis have Environmental studies, there is Environmental related movies like "An Inconvinient Truth", and I actually see people who are working as public cleanup man at my neighbors often compared to last year. Therefore, I understand why Hendricks says "Green means jobs", and results vitalization of economy.

However, in terms of race between the U.S. and other countries, I have a different way of perspectives/views. I think each country need to focus on it's environmental issues because each country have different types of environmental concerns and hurdles. For instance, many people knows China's air pollution is really bad compared to others, also desertification is serious issue in China, so China is better to challenge developing some technologies related their concerns to make better situation. Here, the U.S. would also contribute the issue of cosumernism (this issue is toward cultural aspects though..) or making policies on recycling and develop some technologies related to this. Of course, the global matters such as global warming and ozon depletion and many other issues we should work on togeather, but it could each country have specific technological innovations on own special area and later trade each other to make both profits. This would be a future green system for people ias a member of an international community. Creating Coorporation relationships rather than compete each other to live in society would be the best way to avoid fighting over the resources and make sustainable society in the near future I believe.

Go For a New Industry!

I think the article makes an absolutely fantastic point. Behind every challenge there is money to be made. Especially on the heels of such a severe recession, people are more concerned with growth than they usually are. To transform climate change into a business, growth, and jobs-building opportunity would allow environmental goals to be easily sold to a broad swath of the U.S. public. Concerning whether or not it is appropriate to phrase it as a race, at this point it seems that anything that gets this environmental-friendliness moving is appropriate. The stagnation involved on this issue is tremendous, and will only grow as the extraordinarily partisan climate shows no true signs of abating. If friendly business competition drives forward innovation, then why not make it into a race? Economists will point out that competition brings out better solutions because both sides are trying to make their products more efficient for consumers. After decades of too little being done, I think complaining would miss the point. Sometimes, to get where you need to be, you need to take some sidesteps.
Just a few years ago, U.S. automakers were in a horrible position as better cars, especially from Japan, rolled off the assembly lines. Who would purchase a gas-guzzling, overly expensive U.S. truck when at the same time they could purchase an inexpensive hybrid that can go fifty miles on a gallon? While the U.S. auto industry is far from recovered and far from a completely new state, no one can say that it remains the same. Far from it, one can now see more efficient, more inexpensive vehicles coming out. Although the Chevy Volt is pretty expensive, the concept of the Volt going to market a few years ago would seem laughable. Then you had oil hover around 150 dollars a barrel, a recession, and bankruptcy as competition squeezed U.S. automakers. After adapting, they are on much better footing.
In terms of whether or not the argument for green manufacturing and technology as the elixir to climate problems is accurate, I would only say that it is only one issue. I do not think the author came out and said that it is the perfect medicine; I simply believe he was making the point that it is ridiculous that the United States has not transformed this into an economic issue because the benefits reaped can be enormous. This point is true. But strictly looking at the idea of technology as the true solution, it misses the point. If a habit is causing harm, then the habit needs to be changed or kicked. It can be an integral part of halting the damage, potentially reversing some of it, and creating growth, but other ideas also need to be considered, such as how a nation disposes of its waste, and how consumers understand costs. Otherwise, one will only focus on one narrow sector of a broader problem. This is not saying that technology is a problem, because it is not. But if one only focuses on the technical aspect when there are so many other layers, then there is no hope of reducing a very severe problem.

The Next Frontier?

Friedman seems far too pessimistic when it comes to US growth. Granted it is unfortunate the legislative and executive branches of the government are entangled with the oil/coal companies and therefore are less willing to make changes regarding green jobs and clean energy. Yet, I think it is unfair of Friedman to give the United States such a negative role in this article because in the DC area alone there are hundreds of organizations that cater to the environment. Just because our government is bureaucratic and not a dictatorship this doesn’t mean that we are not making progress. It is slower progress that will be debated in Congress, but this is our system. Also, as Americans, we are able to adapt quickly to new legislature. Of course, it is a positive thing that Freidman is making noising and complaining about this because this is how we are able to effectively make change through legislature. Many Americans forget Congress is a group of representatives. Theoretically, these representatives are looking out for the best interest of their state. Currently, we are in a time of great discontent with Congress and this is clearly reflected in Friedman’s article.

The discussion of action on climate change as a race is a completely legitimate concept. At least it makes sense as an American concept because this is as old as our country. When we were first developing, we were conquering the new frontier, this being the West. Another example of this American desire to explore and conquer the unknown is in the 1960s with the Final Frontier. His argument is clearly being drawn from the Cold War and how we were not technically in a war or race with Russia. Yet, there was a clear winner and loser after the United States landed on the moon. The issue of climate change is inevitably political because of what transpired with the USSR and the US. Therefore, we must let it play out in the political system no matter how annoying and utterly time consuming it maybe. These days we are faced with another unknown: the effects of climate change. If we are a solely looking at technology in this discussion it is plausible to assume this can be considered a race to see what country can develop the best technology. Also, it can be seem as a metaphor as well because we are racing against the clock to try to reverse the damage we have inflicted on the natural world.

As an advocate for renewable energy, I completely agree with the fact that we need to increase our production of “green” manufacturing as a means to decrease our environmental impact. But, we should not discount all other ways to decrease our impact. It is important to not have one solution to the issue of climate change and instead have a 360 degree view of how to solve it. Yet, cutting down on the CO2 emissions will be a positive step for our planet.

Paul Revere will never ride for environmentalism

All my co-bloggers and I have reached a similar conclusion on Maniates’ argument: the change that is being asked of people now is not enough. I was surprised by how individualized Maniates’ focus on climatic instability was. On the holiday known for community and joint effort, why focus on the individual? Focusing on the individual also helped Maniates’ point, because it was so easy to see through his examples that individual efforts to be “environmental” will not lead to stability. Ultimately, there needs to be a joint, global solution. So, on Thanksgiving, the American public can hopefully realize that having a community is great…but the community needs to act.

In the land of the “quick fix” mentality, Maniates is asking the American public to do more and to expect more from others. He makes it painfully clear the “technological tweaking” will not save our world. In fact, Maniates suggests a complete overhaul of American lifestyle and infrastructure. To those who may feel like that was dramatic…you’re wrong. I was interested that Maniates ultimately suggested political action as the main way to alter climate instability. Politics is exactly what holds back much of the environmental change people are trying to push for. It is our greatest weakness right now, but if altered could become our greatest asset.

Paul Revere will never ride for environmentalism. Maniates makes the claim that past world crises have been solved by a leader in the forefront. Climate change is not like any crisis the world has experienced. The three examples that Maniates uses are all different from climate change because they had very easily seen conflicts. It was possible to see progress quickly, easier to act directly, and when improvements were made they were visible. Climate change involves slow change, unpredictable events, and no visible success for years or decades. Therefore, we cannot attack the problem of climate change like we have other crises in the past like Maniates suggests. We need a new approach; it can still be heroic and revolutionary. There is no waiting around for a leader to emerge and solve the issue…that leader is not coming.

Are you an Enviromentalist?

Wk 4 Blog Post:
This piece of reading reminds me "Are you an enviromentalist "discussion which we talked in our last class.

I bring my lunch box and water bottle, take public transportation, and recycle papers and cups, yet I still do not feel like an environmentalist because this is just part of my life style. These behavior thought to be in the natural order for me. All individual behavior would depend on its own nature sense as well as its cultural and social past environmental experiences.

Moreover, the problem is the scale of enviromental issues; it's enoumously huge and complicated so it's really hard to recognize by people. Our behaviors are always involved with our environmental issues, but we hardly see how much consequences are. It's really hard to tell just one behavior gives how much damage on our environment. And the problem is people have very different sets of value toward environment, so it is imporatnt to determine the certain level of environmental behavior to awake people. Individual choice always matters on our environmental issues, but it's still hard to see damages through individual behavior. The assumption setting that effort in large units such as country or local goverment is also important, but first of all, efforts to improve the level of consciousness will be the first step to to grow environmental awareness of individuals.

Where is our Paul Revere?

When I read Michael Maniates article I immediately fell in love with what he said. We need drastic steps to create any type of change. He backed up his argument with examples from the past, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Franklin Roosevelt and Paul Revere. We need a strong leader or individual who feels passionately about saving the environment that they are willing to sacrifice any kind of normal life. This takes a unique personality and one which we have yet to see on the environmental scene. This type of article always makes me feel ready to go out and save the world. Yet, I think it is important to acknowledge that these small steps that are suggested by environmental authors and the EPA are a healthy start. If nothing less we are slowing down the process of environmental degradation. So, for now these small steps are all the citizens can do until a true advocate for the environment begins to lead the masses.

A leader will not spring up over night, but slowly environmentally conscious people will begin to get fed up with these passive leaders. When there is the most discontent among these people with the way our leaders are handling the environment this is when we will look to someone completely separate of the government to tell us what to do. Maniates brings up a great point that Americans are the best at change and adapting to change. This is what makes our government the hegemony, yet the people in power are not allowing us to make the necessary changes to our daily lives.

One quote that was truly striking was, “Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment.” This was in reference to the Al Gore Live Earth concert. I remember watching this concert and thinking something similar. He had brought together so many celebrities and musical groups that it seemed a little trite just to ask the world to recycle. With so much power in Gore’s hands at that moment he didn’t use it properly. Of course, it was great in that it brought awareness to the issue. Yet, it would have been more effective to bring awareness and also change.

Maniates’s argument was bold and refreshing because many authors try to smooth over the environmental issues that this generation is confronted with. He did nothing of the sort and instead he explained that we are not doing enough and there the time for easy solutions is behind us. This article’s argument was valid. I believe we are in need of changes that will not occur without a leader willing to make those changes happen. He was not being an alarmist; rather he was being an environmental realist. Maniates’s argument for more change and quickly is what every environmentalist wants, but no one has stepped up to fulfill the role of leader. Therefore, this is where environmentalists, like Maniates, begin to feel angered and disillusioned by the government.

Going Green: a Matter of Money

"Thanksgiving nicely focuses our attention on things of lasting importance: family, friends, community, a rich harvest. None of these blessings come without cost or sacrifice."

This sentimental interpretation of Thanksgiving is what we as Americans would like to associate with our national holiday, but it denies the reality of the American Holiday Spirit: money spending. We buy a turkey, get a deep frier, we watch football, and the next day we rush the Malls of America- looking for the best deals for Christmas. There are many variations of how we spend Thanksgiving all over the country, indeed the diversity that every American family brings to their table is a point of pride for many. However, the big failure of Maniates' article is to address the role of corporations and business in changing the ethic of American's attitudes towards greening. Time and time again we have seen that Americans do not react to the top-down mandates of politicians as effectively as the impetus of spending money.

Look at Maniates' examples of inspiration: Paul Revere, a man who did not want to be taxed unfairly by the government for his silver work. Roosevelt opposed fascism and created jobs for a nation in unemployment crisis. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the Civil Rights Movement calling for the integration of buses, businesses, schools, public works, all financially consolidating operations for institutions. No, these were not easy changes, and No, the change to move towards environmentalism is not an easy change either. Americans need to be called upon for a greater role in the end of environmental degradation, its true. However, without the change towards environmentalism in business ethics we will see very little real change in American behaviors.

Alternately, I would like to also take a look at when this article came out, in November of 2007. It's true that since that point we have seen an acceleration of publications alerting the public as to the true sources and effects of environmental degradation. Since 2007, we have seen some of the largest environmental disasters in human history. This article in and of itself is not enough as an answer to this seemingly overwhelming conundrum. "The glorification of easy" is not such a bad first step if we see it in conjunction with a change in the purchasing decisions on the part of Americans. If it became easier to buy a turkey for Thanksgiving that had not been injected with hormones that are environmentally harmful, or cranberry sauce derived from all locally grown ingredients, these are all relatively easy resolutions of environmentalism on the part of Americans. If awareness is the next step to change purchasing decisions, the environmental movement would do well to provide more effective answers that may also be easy as well. By dedicating more of Americans' attention to their environmental impact, we would see a deepening interest in environmental health. If we force corporations to have environmental objectives, and environmental consciousness in their processes- these are where real changes with real efficacy can be seen.

Thanksgiving comes down to the American rhetoric of Consumerism- let's not kid ourselves. In order to go green you have to find the greenbacks to do it. Replacing Easy with Cheap would not be such a bad thing. By demonstrating the environmental price of your environmentally-damaging "cheap" option, changes could be better effective and just as easy as promised. We live in a Recession, where many families struggle to feel the benefits of a rich harvest, with rising unemployment, and a low country-wide morale. Making green profitable is going to be the easiest way to encourage Americans to have frank talk about ways for confront the planetary emergency before us.

A Need for Seriousness by Leaders

The article “Going Green: Easy Doesn’t Do It” makes a very solid argument that the challenges of environmental change require a much more substantial contribution on the part of the American public and world population. Indeed, if you take to heart what is happening, and potential scenarios which are not even the worst case scenario, we are facing substantial changes to our environment. Simply doing a few small things, relative to our overall consumption habits, will not do much. When we took the carbon footprint quiz, I was quite surprised to see some of the things in my life that contributed to my footprint, including my food intake, which oddly counted as my largest contribution. What we add to the environment is so much more than recycling, so the author is correct in his assertion that more needs to be done.
What I find is also necessary is actual displays of commitments on the part of world governments. Yes, the article says that if we together as the American people strive to fix this, then we have a moral ground for others to do so, but I can also see the public looking in the face of its leaders and not wanting to change much because they see the burden as unfairly falling on them. They may ask the government to drastically alter its own operating procedures. And while yes, if we want substantial change to come, the majority of the population must take part in it because it has the largest impact, people may simply say that they want to see the politicians become serious. There are no real displays of seriousness by leaders about the importance of the issue, and what they will do to put the country on a firm footing in the positive direction. No, this is not to say that politicians must figure everything out, but it’s difficult for the common person to take things seriously if the people telling them to change aren’t doing much seriously on their own. If the government came out and said “we are embarking upon projects to construct solar panels, wind turbines, we are setting high standards for infrastructure and commodity efficiency,” then people would be more willing to adapt their own habits. No one wants to be told to do something when the party telling them to do something isn’t helping. This also means commitments that are more serious than current plans on the table, which many see as having only a miniscule effect.
Compounding on this is the fact that other major countries do not appear to be too concerned with changing their habits either. I do not know that if we do something, they will be pressured to do something. That remains to be seen, but I feel that the pull of economics will dissuade other countries from following a rigorous path.

Recognizing the Problem(s)

Even in 1968 Garrett Hardin and other concerned scientists knew the potential danger of overusing resources. As a society, we tend to want more and more much like the herdsmen wanting to make more people. Hardin believes that having children is a form of perpetuating the tragedy of the commons. He says that having a conscience about the commons would be self-eliminating because we would limit our breeding and therefore not pass on our genes to a new person. As individuals it is part of our nature to want to have children, but as we have seen recently this causes destruction of the commons. As more people inhabit the planet, there is more overuse of resources and therefore it is important to remember that we have to act as a whole and not as individuals. Yet, it is easier said than done for most of the human race. California is an interesting example of the tragedy of the commons; there is mass consumption and mass preservation. It is what happens when there is recognition of the abuse that can occur and yet the need to maintain the quality of life that people in this state have always known.

This concept has lead many environmentalists to become alarmists. As we continue to overuse our resources and the population continues rising environmentalists jump to the worse possible outcome: The Tragedy of the Commons. Yet, these people overlook our modern day technology. We are able to mass produce many food products quickly and efficiently. These products may not be coming from your traditional mom and pop farm, but none the less we have plenty of food for everyone on our planet. It is understandable in some situations to be an alarmist to alert the rest of the population to pressing matters. Some environmentalists, not all, feel it is necessary to be alarmists in order to get the message out. Yet, for the few environmentalists that are alarmists this gives the rest of the environmentalists a negative image.

I am someone who is passionate about the environment, but I would not call myself an environmentalist mainly for the reason that I do not want to be perceived as an alarmist. It is appropriate to be an alarmist in some situations, e.g.-CO2 emissions, but in general we are not as destructive as most environmentalists believe the human race to be. We may be more destructive than other animals because we have a larger population than most animals, but on the whole we do not make it our mission to go out everyday and destroy the environment. Of course it has been argued that just by going through our daily routine we are harming the environment. So, what I say to that is the masses are put into this position and we do not elect to pollute the environment, but we have only a limited amount of viable choices to sustain our routine. Therefore, it falls on the shoulders of big business to make the right choices. Of course the masses can recycle or buy a hybrid car, but we cannot make these environmentally friendly choices without businesses producing them. Businesses are for-profit and therefore want to make what is most profitable to them. So, change can be difficult. This is why many environmentalists do not like capitalism.

In response to one of the other blogger’s comment about politicians addressing environmental issues. Unfortunately, environmental issues become political because they have to be passed through the congressional system. To create laws these issues must become political and therefore causing months and even years to go by before legistlature is passed on a particular issue. This is the problem with American government; we are not able to just put aside differences in political opinion to pass a law that will save the environment.

Complacency

This is a shameless digression from what the topic is meant to propose because I feel that I need to get this off my chest in order to proceed in a environmental politics course. Of course, this is not directed at this class, or my group members, or any one particular human being, but rather as a general call to arms to what I see as the greatest deterrent from the survival of the world as we know it.

In the world today, we feel the driving need to protect the Earth for our posterity; actions of environmental protection are everywhere nowadays, to the point of the commercialization of the Green Movement in the United States. Our trendy president even grows an organic vegetable garden, have you heard? These movements are wonderful, raising awareness and good intentions everywhere, but there is a desperate need for more.

We need action, above all else; we need reform of the passive systems of the status quo in order to better mechanize the environmental revolution on a local level in order for it to be globally effective. Who recycles from your local learning institution? Does the janitor dump all of the trashcans into the same dumpster at the end of the day? What if he or she does? How do you change these policies in the institutions in which you live? These are the questions that today’s lost generation need to ask themselves. Is college a dump of ennui, drunken debauchery and last minute cramming for you? Why are you all in school without a passion for your own future? Have you found that one professor in the sea of useless information who pulls your brain out of your tushy yet? What will you do with that inspiration- what if the other professors you have do not blow your mind the same way?

The fact is an overwhelming rush of American youths enrolls into university these days without having a clue what they want to do with themselves. It is absolutely fine not to know what you want to do with your future! At 18 years old, from all over America, youth are confronted with the same uncertainty- but why pay tens of thousands of dollars to explore a future that you might not be invested in mentally or spiritually? The market tells you that in order to live, you need to work as hard as you can forever and ever, and the pursuit of consistency can be enough to sustain you throughout your entire life. BUT ARE YOU LIVING? Because that sounds close to an empty existence to me. And these empty motivations put you into college before you have a clue. Parents might tell you that they never used their liberal arts degree; it is fine to be in college, as long as you come out fit to be employed in this education- saturated employment market. But look at how happy your parents are in their work, and see even how many are consistently employed in the midst of this terrible financial crisis.

Now more than ever we are confronted with the mistakes of their generation, and it is time to turn this ship around. In a time when many in this beautiful, economically developed, highly industrialized nation cannot afford to eat, we must turn our eyes to where food started. If you face the decision of college vs living life and exploring yourself, choose your self. Work for yourself, without a degree, make your own food, check out your options. Couch-hopping in return for housecleaning, farming labor, and giving hand here there and everywhere are underrated. Go visit your grandparents! What are the elderly doing these days with the last of America’s social security? Discover what their regrets are and take lessons from it. And never forget how wonderful the internet is for clarifying where you can go next and who might even want to pay for your learning experience.

How many of American youths have planted a tree before? How many have planted a field? Who among you, all readers, have picked the fruit that you eat? Or killed the cow that makes your hamburger? In order to reevaluate America’s own development, it is our generation’s responsibility to forge the answers ourselves, and guess what? Those answers don’t come prepackaged at the academy of your choice. They come from tilling soil, they come from walking all day, and they come from a week in a factory for minimum wage. They come from working RETAIL. Answers come from making music and art, from reading the books that mean something significant to you, and you alone, maybe. We need the wealth of life that America can provide in order to make this country. Biodiversity is not limited to the flora and fauna, biodiversity includes the diversity of living, of growing processes, of specialization as well as realizing that you are not alone nor unique in your identity crisis. Nurture your discontent, and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT because without action the opportunity is lost. Look at your young able bodies, your quick minds. You learn so fast! Your muscles can change everyday!

Think of the best adventure you always wanted to have, out in the open air, fighting for something that was important for you just because you are living it. The social work that can be done by a general will and a way because you can live the struggle is important. Don’t settle for complacency, live hard, play hard and be vigorous! This is not the time for blind happiness, because look, you graduate from High School. Your parents want you safe and steady in school again, where someone else just a little farther away can watch their baby. Life can be more than turning yourself over to the hands of the babysitters forever. You want the system to catch you if you develop a drinking problem and need help? What will you do when a friend dies young and you for the first time feel the aching hopelessness of mortality- there’s not really that much time for any of us on this earth. Seek out the extreme of a good and decent life! What do you have in you, what stops you?

The best anyone can hope for is to be happy when they finish their day. If everyone in the world could be happy at the end of the day what would happen to violent conflict? What would happen to arms races? Could we start to think about space travel again, instead of who we would kill off if we could? The best anyone can do is to expand the happiness of the world. With your own form, youth of America, you are capable of great change and efficacy! You, youth of America, you are actually secretly very useful people. Now get off your tushy, and feel something wonderful.k

Challenges in a Challenging Environment

There is no question that our world is changing, some believe that Earth is struggling to maintain itself and others believe that it can no longer return to the environment that it was historically. While my co-contributor chose to focus on the political aspect of environmental challenges, I am focusing on the social part. This is not to discount the political front in any way, but it is my hope to add a further dimension to the challenge we presently have at hand. With such a profound problem comes infinite approaches to the problem and arguments against or for it. This week, I choose to focus on two in the myriad of aspects: the short term issue of dealing with the increasing number of extreme weather disasters and the long term challenge of making environmental change into an economic incentive.

In my lifetime, the world has seen a rise in the incident of extreme weather disasters. Many will argue that these things are merely coincidental and discount the warning of environmental scientists. But, in reality, it is scary to think that things like the earthquake in Haiti, Hurricane Katrina, the fires of Australia in 2006 and of California in 2007, and the 2004 tsunami are occurring more frequently. World agencies and governments all around the world need to accept that problems like this are going to continue to occur as long as the environment continues to deteriorate. Short term, the world has to devote resources to make sure that they reduce the risk of these environmental disasters where possible and pledge support to the struggling masses when such things do occur.

This week, extreme weather disasters hit particularly close to home. I live in Boulder, CO where a forest fire of approximately 7,000 acres has been burning for two days and is still at 0% containment. Even though the cause of the fire is the result of human stupidity, the weather and climate have drastically affected how fast the fire has spread. The forests in Colorado are dried out due to rising global temperatures and drought in the area; this means that fires spread aggressively and quickly. Many will be quick to say that this fire has no connection to the climate change because it is not directly obvious. I personally believe that the world and its ecosystems are all connected and every small change can alter an entire ecosystem. This means that when there is a disturbance to the ecosystem, it has a much greater impact. An increasing number of disasters are becoming a more consistent reality throughout the world. The challenge lies in the world’s ability to stop or quell these disasters and also assist any population that was affected.

My long-term focus concerns something that Gianluca touched on also. He suggested making environment into a business and I think that is one option to progressing environmental issues to the forefront of people’s conscience. In the grimmest sense, the general public, especially in America, will only really make big changes if it is economically viable. I believe that is the biggest challenge that environmentalists face. As the past forty years of efforts have shown, people won’t change without an incentive. You would think that Earth’s wellbeing would concern people, but it’s not as immediate of a concern as money…so it gets trumped. On a more positive note, I do believe it is possible to shift our economic infrastructure to the point where it is more feasible to use environmentally friendly practices. It will take a long time though…

Most Pressing Challenge of Environment

In my opinion, the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is coordinating the activities of world governments. The science is out there as it is, and while there are still those that question the validity of the concept of Global Warming, I would say that there is a consensus among most people that the climate is changing. Scientists have projections (based on what we know as of now) on what will happen, from a best-possible scenario to a worst-case scenario, and based on the readings, there are general theories about what to do, even if some of the damage is irreversible. Drilling into ice cores, long-term studies, and observations of ice sheets are confirming that the planet is changing, so we already know what is happening, and what can be done to minimize the effects (being that some of the damage appears permanent). On this front, we know what is wrong, and we have ideas of what to do about it, but the real part of the solution comes down plainly to tackling the solution—otherwise, the problem is still there. It is simple.

We could have some type of enormous problem that could drastically alter the planet forever, and while some may point to it as being the worst challenge, the true challenge is doing something about it, and the true worst problem would be if countries simply failed to respond. It would be like the Titanic spotting the ice berg from a far distance, and not reacting at all. If nothing is done to mitigate a disaster, it will be much worse. Physics. You hit the brakes in a car when you sense a collision because a crash at 30mph is better than at 60 mph.

What makes this more frightening and supports that this is the most pressing challenge is the fact that as of now, governments have failed to do much beyond token measures. It is true that steps have been taken, such as the new mileage limits imposed by the Obama Administration, but these will take time to implement, and time for old cars to gradually be replaced. World climate summits have virtually failed, and I do not see any type of cooperation at all in the future. Not to be a pessimist, but the professor was correct in labeling people as occupying the world of the economy. The economy dominates, and all countries want to better themselves. Developing countries want to maintain high rates of growth to bring their people out of poverty, and developed countries want to regain growth to satisfy their understandably upset populations following the Great Recession. No one in this environment (no pun intended) wants to now slow down their economic growth rates for the sake of the environment. Developing countries would justifiably be angry about slowing down their industrialization, because those countries, or any country for that matter, does not want to be told to impede its own growth, especially because they see the current environmental mess as a byproduct of Western industrialization. So looking at it as a whole, the concept that nothing or little will be done seems like a possibility. It appears as if no one is doing much to at least minimize potential losses.

What I have not understood is why politicians do not transform the environment into a business. Especially since economic growth is needed, it would make sense to pour massive amounts of money into developing green infrastructure. It would stimulate the economy and bolster a currently small segment of American business. A whole new major industry could be created, and being that the United States has the most advanced economy in the world, it would appear we would have a comparative advantage to produce such technology, and even boost trade because we can export that technology overseas and take advantage of the fact that there are relatively few major players in that market. There is money to be made with every challenge, and if it is the economy that drives the world, people should sell environmentalism not as some high-moral concept (Although saving the world does deserve to be placed high on a set of morals and values) that some people stereotypically see it, but rather as a business opportunity.