This is a really tough question to answer, because I have about three or four different memories running through my brain right now. But the one that sticks out the most was a night that I spent up in the White Mountains in New Hampshire. It was over the summer, I was backpacking with a friend, and we decided to spend the night outside of our tent since the weather was so nice. That night, lying in my sleeping back I had a panoramic view of the night sky, dotted with thousands of stars. But I think the thing that was so “magical” about it was that they way I was laying and looking at the sky, you could see the curvature of the Earth, like a reminder that the mountain I was on was part of an enormous thing, much bigger than my own existence.
The experience that I described above is probably the biggest reason why I think preserving nature is one of the biggest factors in working to reverse environmental harm. Not only is recreationally-speaking an important part of a healthy lifestyle, its a scientific fact that the benefit of spending time in nature as a child is a huge factor in management of things like ADHD, etc. Look at Richard Louv's book “Last Child in the Woods”, in which he argues for the therapeutic value of outdoor time for children. I think the best thing for our society is to return to an appreciation and awareness of the benefits of the natural world.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Responding to Question 2: "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"
Michael Maniates wrote his article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" in an appealing, motivational manner at least to me. Maniates criticizes the mantra of "Keep it simple, stupid" in solving the world's environmental problems, which seems to have been the attitude among environmental leaders for the past few decades. While it is true, when first facing complex, global interdependent issues, such as the environmental ones our world is facing, it is easier to begin small and simple in order to start the forward process of change. However, these environmental problems are not new nor small, and as Maniates argues it's time for people to stop treating them as such.
Maniates' main criticism, it appears, is with the leaders of the environmental movement. The leaders, including Al Gore, are focusing on babying Americans with simple and small plans, that will lead to great change. (Recycle, take shorter showers, etc.) However as Maniates points out, great change does not come with encouraging small ideas or easy solutions, and the great leaders will realize this and adapt a policy which will encourage big thinking and new ideas to solve the world's problems. I really enjoyed the author's comparison to FDR's New Deal ("Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.") and the environmental movement. FDR would not have been able to pull the nation out of the great depression and stimulate the economy without A New Deal, a new way of approaching the economy, and encouraging people to take an active role in reshaping the world. Similarly today's leaders of the environmental movement, need to take a more active and progressive role in encouraging Americans to think of new solutions to our environmental issues and move beyond the easy and simple steps to help save our environment.
On the other hand, Maniates seems to feel as though individual Americans can do more than the simple and easy solutions currently presented to us. While I agree that Americans could all be doing a lot more to help live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, without strong leadership and fresh ideas from within the environmental movement, large changes from individual Americans are nearly impossible to expect. Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." If the changes need to occur within our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems, which is mostly a call for leadership amongst America's political and environmental leaders, then what per say is the average American to do to help with these changes? While I agree that average Americans are the heart of most change in this country, through our individual innovation, without strong leadership it is hard to blame Americans for taking the "easy" way out in regards to environmental problems.
Amanda
Maniates' main criticism, it appears, is with the leaders of the environmental movement. The leaders, including Al Gore, are focusing on babying Americans with simple and small plans, that will lead to great change. (Recycle, take shorter showers, etc.) However as Maniates points out, great change does not come with encouraging small ideas or easy solutions, and the great leaders will realize this and adapt a policy which will encourage big thinking and new ideas to solve the world's problems. I really enjoyed the author's comparison to FDR's New Deal ("Franklin Roosevelt didn't mobilize the country's energies by listing 10 easy ways to oppose fascism.") and the environmental movement. FDR would not have been able to pull the nation out of the great depression and stimulate the economy without A New Deal, a new way of approaching the economy, and encouraging people to take an active role in reshaping the world. Similarly today's leaders of the environmental movement, need to take a more active and progressive role in encouraging Americans to think of new solutions to our environmental issues and move beyond the easy and simple steps to help save our environment.
On the other hand, Maniates seems to feel as though individual Americans can do more than the simple and easy solutions currently presented to us. While I agree that Americans could all be doing a lot more to help live a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle, without strong leadership and fresh ideas from within the environmental movement, large changes from individual Americans are nearly impossible to expect. Maniates states, "We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss." If the changes need to occur within our energy, transportation, and agricultural systems, which is mostly a call for leadership amongst America's political and environmental leaders, then what per say is the average American to do to help with these changes? While I agree that average Americans are the heart of most change in this country, through our individual innovation, without strong leadership it is hard to blame Americans for taking the "easy" way out in regards to environmental problems.
Amanda
Response to question #2
I found Michael Maniates article about going green interesting because he frames his argument in an almost...economics-based format. Based on his evaluation of other study on the topic, on how to "be green", he explains how human beings, by nature, would prefer greening methods which are the simplest to do; that is, those that do not change our usual routine too much. These do not necessarily return the optimal results, though. This rings of economics to me in that it is an example of how we prefer to function to the best of our natural capabilities, not necessarily what is best for our neighbors or the environment.
So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.
So, is this laziness? hardly. Like i said, its pure economics, supply and demand. But what Maniates is advocating is that there needs to be a shift in expectations, in demands -- everyday people need to understand the results of what changes they can make, and the urgent need for them to do so. If they do, if these choices are enabled by the market to be consumer AND eco friendly, perhaps led by charismatic leaders of hip marketing campaigns (Live Earth, anyone?), these changes will occur sooner rather than later.
When we enjoy doing more than just the "easy" solutions, we will see more dramatic results.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Discussion Question 2
The first connection I had with this article was the frustration with books such as “The Lazy Environmentalist” or “Its Easy Being Green”, that reduce a global crisis to something that is solvable within our day to day lives. This is obviously just not true – changing all the light bulbs in your house, and recycling your overpriced bottles of water isn't going to halt the cataclysmic movement of climate change.
However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.
As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.
Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.
However, I would disagree with Maniates in saying that these sort of books arise solely from the fact that, “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.” True, making these small household changes can be individualistic, easy, and cost-effective, but the fact that these sort of books make a bestseller list speaks much more to the trend as a whole.
As middle-class Americans, caught up in our consumer society, we recognize that “going green” is the new thing, the new trend, the new cool way to establish yourself within society. Its Descartes for the 21st century - “I recycle, therefore I am”. We do these things like purchase literature on saving the environment because we as individuals feel the need to be a member of something greater than ourselves. Maniates is most certainly right when says that being able to do things like quote “An Inconvenient Truth” or buy Seventh Generation products, we are stylish. We in essence buy into something not because we deeply care about it or value what it stands for, but because it is part of a habit of consuming and taking part in society.
Finally, I would argue that not all adults are aware enough of the difficult choices that Maniates says we must make. We will certainly listen if and when our leaders present us with the honest truth about the destruction of the planet, but I'm not sure that most people understand the necessity of hard work. The environmental movement has a lot of growing to do, but the fact that so little is being done now, makes me pretty pessimistic about the ability of average man. Don't get me wrong, I think we have the resources and power to make some really great changes in the world, but I wouldn't put so much pressure or faith in the creativity and endurance of people who rely on “The Lazy Environmentalist”.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Check it out...
http://earthstar.newlibertyvillage.com/thinkingsmall.htm
I found this link in random searches on the Internet, and I thought it was pretty applicable to what we've been talking about in class.
I found this link in random searches on the Internet, and I thought it was pretty applicable to what we've been talking about in class.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Response to Discussion Question #1
Echoing the sentiments of my fellow Lorax Lovers, I see a sort of backlash attitude displayed in Stanley Fish’s article “I Am, Therefore I Pollute”. What I mean is that although Fish practices fairly progressive and thorough methods of being eco-friendly, his gripes about adopting eco-friendly practices do seem totally frustrated, and full of…resentment?
So, noting this chagrin about complying with eco-friendly practices, does this make him “environmentally friendly” at all? Or simply “environmentally conscious and active”? What does it mean to live “environmentally friendly” in the modern-day United States? I think that Fish, aside from his personal lamentations, still illustrates in his article some of the different versions of this. While Fish, in his own attitudes does his part only by force (or if not, with complaints at hand), he also shows how is wife advocates the more environmentally friendly options in their household by choice, by her own free will, as a means of helping to reduce her consumption (or at least her eco-footprint). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Fish also portrays a neighbor that is “planning to stockpile incandescent bulbs in the face of a prediction that they will be phased out by 2012”; this seemingly represents an attitude of those who feel unaffected by climate change, or not personally responsible for saving the planet, even with the simplest changes in habits (like switching the type of light bulb that they use).
In regards to whether his article rang true to me? Well, yes and no. It did in the sense that I understand his gripes about how complicated that methods of being environmentally friendly can be. Sorting one’s recyclables goods, the often seemingly convoluted nature of programs like carbon offsetting, and simply the concern of truly knowing whether our efforts ACTUALLY make a difference can be frustrating. But on the other hand, it is validating, with each and every contribution effort, to know that through minor changes in our personal routines (remembering to turn things off, what we buy, how much extra we pay for “eco-friendly”, etc.), we easily have the potential to ensure a healthy planet for ourselves and our future generations. What it means to be truly “environmentally friendly” is (hopefully) to understand the impacts that our changes can make, and further, to keep a positive attitude about doing so!
So, noting this chagrin about complying with eco-friendly practices, does this make him “environmentally friendly” at all? Or simply “environmentally conscious and active”? What does it mean to live “environmentally friendly” in the modern-day United States? I think that Fish, aside from his personal lamentations, still illustrates in his article some of the different versions of this. While Fish, in his own attitudes does his part only by force (or if not, with complaints at hand), he also shows how is wife advocates the more environmentally friendly options in their household by choice, by her own free will, as a means of helping to reduce her consumption (or at least her eco-footprint). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Fish also portrays a neighbor that is “planning to stockpile incandescent bulbs in the face of a prediction that they will be phased out by 2012”; this seemingly represents an attitude of those who feel unaffected by climate change, or not personally responsible for saving the planet, even with the simplest changes in habits (like switching the type of light bulb that they use).
In regards to whether his article rang true to me? Well, yes and no. It did in the sense that I understand his gripes about how complicated that methods of being environmentally friendly can be. Sorting one’s recyclables goods, the often seemingly convoluted nature of programs like carbon offsetting, and simply the concern of truly knowing whether our efforts ACTUALLY make a difference can be frustrating. But on the other hand, it is validating, with each and every contribution effort, to know that through minor changes in our personal routines (remembering to turn things off, what we buy, how much extra we pay for “eco-friendly”, etc.), we easily have the potential to ensure a healthy planet for ourselves and our future generations. What it means to be truly “environmentally friendly” is (hopefully) to understand the impacts that our changes can make, and further, to keep a positive attitude about doing so!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Discussion Question #1
We, as Americans, are not generally the kind of people to change our ways willingly, and this goes along with the environmental problems we face. Its not that we don't care or that we want to see the Earth destroyed, its that trying to undo societal norms that have been in place for decades, that represent what it means to be an individual, are really hard to begin to change. Stanley Fish makes this point clear: “I believe in global warming. I believe in Al Gore. But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require.”
That being said, I think living in an “environmentally friendly” way for most people in the US represents the exact problem that we have – instead of consuming less (flying less, driving less, eating less, buying less, etc.) we continue to consume the same amount, just in a way that societal pressures allow us to feel better about. I will still buy 100 trees worth of toilet paper this year, but it will be Seventh Generation instead of Cottonelle, because consumer America tells me that Seventh Generation is more “environmentally friendly”. I sympathize mostly with what Fish writes about in his article. Its hard to “keep up with the Jones”, especially when defining how much you care about the environment often means whether or not you drive a hybrid car.
Emily Melhorn
That being said, I think living in an “environmentally friendly” way for most people in the US represents the exact problem that we have – instead of consuming less (flying less, driving less, eating less, buying less, etc.) we continue to consume the same amount, just in a way that societal pressures allow us to feel better about. I will still buy 100 trees worth of toilet paper this year, but it will be Seventh Generation instead of Cottonelle, because consumer America tells me that Seventh Generation is more “environmentally friendly”. I sympathize mostly with what Fish writes about in his article. Its hard to “keep up with the Jones”, especially when defining how much you care about the environment often means whether or not you drive a hybrid car.
Emily Melhorn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
