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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
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.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)