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.