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.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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
Friday, January 30, 2009
Responding to Question 1: Environmentally Friendly Living in the U S
I was really intrigued with Stanley Fish's article about environmentally friendly living in the U.S. Fish seemed to argue that being eco-friendly in the U.S. was a major challenge, some extreme ideal, which he was unable to ever live up to. (i.e. finding new paper products because the ones he used were not eco-friendly). However I do not find that a majority or even half of Americans live in such an "extreme" eco-friendly lifestyle, let alone a "mildly" eco-friendly one.
Having spent a year living amongst the ecologically conscious Germans, I do not think the American lifestyle is nearly as extreme or eco-friendly as our European neighbors. Living with a German host family, I quickly learned that all trash can be sorted and recycled. Plastics, newspaper, colored paper, food wastes. Very little trash was actually just placed in the garbage can. Upon my return to the U.S., I began forcing my roommates to do the "bare minimum" and sort the garbage into three piles: plastics, newspaper/cardboard, and other trash. (Besides we pay for recycling so why not actually use it.) While my roommates comply (usually without complaint), not one of my four roommates actually had recycled before in their homes. I'm constantly reminding my roommates to simply turn off a light when they leave a room (admittedly as much for the environment as for our pocketbooks), let alone trying to get them to buy the more expensive, yet eco-friendly, light bulbs. On the other hand, my German college friends, so used to a life where there are sorted trashcans on every corner, think nothing of turning off lights, sorting garbage, and using public transportation or riding bikes on a daily basis. I cannot think of one friend at AU who rides his/her bike to class and I'm the only one of my roommates to use the Metro daily.
I do not think by any means that I live an extremely eco-friendly lifestyle, however my time in Germany really opened my eyes to various environmental problems and more efficient ways of dealing with the many environmental issues. The article by Stanley Fish, in my opinion, made it seem as though many Americans are already making daily sacrifices for the environment, in order to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. (Although the author does argue that he realizes he doesn't do enough for the environment.) However the reality is that Americans are a wasteful society, and we all have a long way to go before we can be considered an eco-friendly society, let alone an extreme one.
Amanda Schaeffer
Having spent a year living amongst the ecologically conscious Germans, I do not think the American lifestyle is nearly as extreme or eco-friendly as our European neighbors. Living with a German host family, I quickly learned that all trash can be sorted and recycled. Plastics, newspaper, colored paper, food wastes. Very little trash was actually just placed in the garbage can. Upon my return to the U.S., I began forcing my roommates to do the "bare minimum" and sort the garbage into three piles: plastics, newspaper/cardboard, and other trash. (Besides we pay for recycling so why not actually use it.) While my roommates comply (usually without complaint), not one of my four roommates actually had recycled before in their homes. I'm constantly reminding my roommates to simply turn off a light when they leave a room (admittedly as much for the environment as for our pocketbooks), let alone trying to get them to buy the more expensive, yet eco-friendly, light bulbs. On the other hand, my German college friends, so used to a life where there are sorted trashcans on every corner, think nothing of turning off lights, sorting garbage, and using public transportation or riding bikes on a daily basis. I cannot think of one friend at AU who rides his/her bike to class and I'm the only one of my roommates to use the Metro daily.
I do not think by any means that I live an extremely eco-friendly lifestyle, however my time in Germany really opened my eyes to various environmental problems and more efficient ways of dealing with the many environmental issues. The article by Stanley Fish, in my opinion, made it seem as though many Americans are already making daily sacrifices for the environment, in order to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. (Although the author does argue that he realizes he doesn't do enough for the environment.) However the reality is that Americans are a wasteful society, and we all have a long way to go before we can be considered an eco-friendly society, let alone an extreme one.
Amanda Schaeffer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
