Analyzing our Food

When I go grocery shopping, what goes through my head first is what do I need? The second thing is how can I get these items at the cheapest price possible. To be honest trying to buy organic or have a smaller carbon footprint does not really go through my head because, as a college student, I really try not to have a huge grocery bill. Usually the organic and specialty foods are on the more expensive side, so it doesn’t really make sense for me to get something I can get cheaper at the same store. When deciding to eat out, I do sometimes pay more attention to places that offer organic choices or places that provide local food choices. I will do this because it is a lot easier to buy at places that do the hard work for you! I also enjoy buying fair trade coffee, which is provided for a lot less money at some places and it is at least better for the developing countries, which in turn can help the environment. Honestly at this point in my life, although it’s not something I am proud of, buying environmentally friendly foods are only in my interest if they are the most inexpensive option. I will say that I try to stay away from very processed foods or fast food and try to at least buy items that are fresh. Hopefully this factor of my shopping is a step in the right direction.

Out of the last two days, the worst thing (for my body and the environment) was probably pizza. Not my first choice, but when its free I’ll take it! The pizza was the most impacting on the environment because of the way it got to our plates. It was delivery, so it made its way over in a car that put gas into the air. It was also delivered in a box, that was most likely not recycled cardboard, and the chances that it got recycled are slim because of the lack of facilities. Usually I get my groceries to my apartment by walking, so this definitely was a different and more harmful way to get my food. Also the fact that the ingredients were not organic and definitely not locally produced tells me that they travelled a long way before they were even made into a pizza. I actually read that the average meal travels from 5 different countries, that’s thousands of miles just to have one measly slice of pizza! The delivery, ingredients and materials put into the pizza made it the most harmful dinner that I’ll hopefully eat for a while.

DC 200

I think if we continue on our present course, DC 200 years from now will be a very different place. 200 years ago we couldn't begin to imagine the technologies we have today and I think the same is true for the next 200 years. If we continue on our present course, where building, consuming and growing is the most important thing on the agenda, then I think we would be hard pressed to find traces of nature in the city, or in any big city. Property values are already so high in DC; so like Kristen, I think this high demand will drive the development of most of the green areas that remain in the city. It's awful to think about considering all the history this city contains, but if current attitudes persist, I think 200 years from now history will be bulldozed for more development. I definitely picture more high rises, more traffic (whether it is from cars or spaceships, I can't say) more concrete, more shopping centers and definitely more people. 

Ideally, in 200 years, thanks to a serious global environmental movement and the implication of some eco-friendly technologies, DC will look even more green and vegetated than it is now. Sustainable buildings will be a staple of the city and even though there will be more people, they will have less of an impact than they do now. In my preferred future, I think there would be definite improved public transportation systems that are super fast and super efficient. I think that, unfortunately, the great divide between rich and poor in DC will still exist due to the location, although in my preferred vision, the divide will be smaller and  the entire city would be equally sustainable and green. 

DC in 200 Years

In 200 years from now, I think that Washington DC will look similar to the outlines that Meghan and Kristen gave. Since it is the nation's capital and the 'capital of the free world,' one would expect it to stay culturally diverse. However, even now gentrification is happening in areas such as Columbia Heights, with the threat moving to Adams Morgan which is geographically close, but still a cultural hub. Even areas around U Street, which have been culturally diverse throughout Washington DC's history as one of the areas where the civil rights movement really manifested itself; the area is now catering to wealthy young adults who can afford to live upper middle class lifestyles in an area of downtown DC. On the other hand, as we have continually discussed in our class, the need for a change to focus on the environmental is coming. I would expect DC to be a leader in that change towards living sustainability when the time comes (basically the last minute). I think that DC will reluctantly move to sustainable architecture, practices, energy, etc. and it will be a leader in this technology because it is the capital. I do not think that green space will be eliminated because it is such a huge part of the makeup of DC, and is one of the things the city is praised for.

I hope the region will change and move to more efficient technology and energy uses. I think that the future of energy holds a combination of bio fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. None of these technologies is going to be the 'silver bullet' that revolutionizes the way we use energy. I think that harnessing energy is going to become a real issue, and that 200 years down the line, we will have perfected this technology (we already have it, its just too expensive and no one is willing to invest to help bring down costs). Like I said, I think energy will be a combination of all sorts of renewable energy because this will make renewable energy able to be catered to individual areas (example - Washington DC does not have a lot of open areas for harvesting bio fuels, and transport brings costs up. DC could harness solar and wind energy because you do not need open spaces, just areas on top of buildings where you can place small wind turbines or solar panels). I hope cars of the future will have solar panels on the top that generate energy while running, and there are significantly less. DC is already applauded for having a clean (though not as safe as people had originally thought) public transportation system and I hope that we can expand on this in the future. Providing public transportation to more and more individuals with efficient service and clean technology is something that DC should strive for as a leader in public transit. I also would hope that office buildings would look more like the Merrill Center in Annapolis. This building contains energy saving technology, LEED certification tools, such as catching storm water runoff and using gray and black water in the building, and creates a general atmosphere where workers are happier and have more control over their setting. I recently saw in downtown DC (17th and G streets I think) that the first LEED certified office building was built in DC. I do not think that LEED has all of the answers, but I think it is a starting point for making the future of new construction and modifying existing structures more sustainable. I also hope housing will follow a setting similar to Battery City in NYC, but even more sustainable. The complexes will generate their own power through wind or solar energy, and recycle all water and capture storm water runoff. If there is a gym in the housing complex, it can be attached to the power grid so you can offset energy use when you are working out.

I do not think that all of these things will happen, though I feel that a lot of them are necessary if we want to continue living our western lifestyle. I think that I am generally idealistic in terms of the future. I think that many environmentally-aware individuals are waiting for oil to peak, and then when things start to go downhill from there, the government and the people of the world will clamor for the change that should be happening now, and it will happen rapidly. However, as we have seen in our class, not all individuals even at our age acknowledge the impact we are having on the environment (this is not a criticism, it's just a way of showing how peoples opinions are significantly different). This type of mindset will lead to more hanging around and waiting for the planet to change or somehow produce a new energy source, which is what government and policy makers seem to currently be doing. I would expect DC to look significantly different 200 years down the line, but at the rate that changes are being made, I'm not going to hold my breath.

Washington in 200 years.

If Washington DC continues on its current development course, I agree with Kristen that the entire city will be come gentrified. Already, culturally significant areas around the city are being obliterated by corporate growth and the buildup of middle-class friendly, cookie cutter condominiums. I think this is a tragedy, as Washington is a historically rich and culturally diverse place that will suffer without a continuation of this legacy. If this gentrification were to happen it would push the poor into the surrounding suburbs and farther, necessitating the development of a more extensive public transportation system. Additionally, I agree with the idea that green space will be used for development, although I believe that with more housing development for the upper-middle class will come a high demand for some green areas to be left alone. I think currently there's a really good culture of organic farmers markets within the city and I can't imagine this changing, especially if the city continues to grow as a home for wealthy, young people.

In 200 years ideally DC would look both really different and really similar. In differences I would hope to see the installation of tram car systems to expedite and better the transportation system. These could potentially be run on some sort of magnetic rail system that is awesome and carbon friendly (I sort of made that up, but I imagine somebody had ideas for magnet energy!?). Additionally, I would advocate for more high rise (LEED certified, of course) buildings in the downtown area to avoid development spreading outwards toward residential neighborhoods. I would also like to see the refurbishment of many low income neighborhood parks and gathering places, in addition to refurbishment of older homes into mixed income housing. In terms of what would stay the same, I'd like the charm of the old residential areas to persist, much of which depends on keeping property taxes low enough and the minimum wage high enough to allow the diverse range of people who live there now to stay. It would be essential, in this ideal city, that the gathering spots and parks are maintained and stay as beautiful and protected as they are now. I would advise the government to stop building memorials to wars and dead presidents and start building ties in the community by increasing funding for the arts so that local artists could paint more murals and organizers could fund more free concerts and screenings around the city.

DC in the future

200 years from now, I think Washington, DC, a fairly lush and green city, will probably be rid of foliage and parks. Currently, DC loses about 6% of its trees every year, so with this loss we will definitely be nearing an end to the tree population in 200 years. I think the parks will all be gone, used for some urban development like housing or more stores. I also think the National Zoo will be replaced. It occupies a huge part of the city, and I really think one mayor will come in and be able to use politics to eliminate the zoo in order to put more development. I also think a big problem in the city today is gentrification, so in 200 years I think the problem will have escalated. DC’s lower income areas are being remodeled and huge development is occurring. In turn, the people who live there are being pushed out. This causes a huge environmental problem because not only is more development happening, but more people become attracted to areas which brings more cars giving off gases and more consumption. I think in 200 years the whole city will be gentrified and therefore less environmentally friendly. I think there will be a lot more apartment complexes, and probably even small communities within the city. For example, a new apartment building will go up and along with it, a grocery store, a salon, restaurants and clothing retailers. I think they will try to squeeze in any type of commercial place that they can in order to appeal to consumers.

I hope that in 200 years the city will be transformed into a very modern and environmentally savvy place that citizens would love to live in. Since the cost of living here is already extremely high, I think it should be a place where you actually get something special for your money. In 200 years, DC should be the “green city”, somewhere that people know is expensive to live, but also is almost entirely green in the way that they do business, hold classes at universities and in all commercial businesses. The government should promote this, and therefore there would be laws in place that state all existing businesses, residences and private establishments have to convert their facilities and practices to be eighty percent green. This doesn’t have to exactly be the law, but something like it would be a great start. I would love to see the parks and neighborhoods with backyards still exist in DC in 200 years, because I think it is the green space tucked away that really makes the city alive and interesting, not to mention green!

Going Green. Easy Doesn't Do It.

I'm a huge fan of Michael Maniates' article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" (in fact, I posted it to my Facebook on Thanksgiving 2007), because it addresses an issue that has been difficult to address in the modern environmental movement: the insufficiency of personal accountability in addressing major climate change issues. Through advertising, media and even scholarly pursuits, we have been told, as a society, that small lifestyle modifications could virtually halt the rising tide of climate change; making informed consumer choices and thinking briefly about the natural environment every so often has been touted as the route to absolution. Feeling bad about those poor polar bears? Pump up your tires! Wishing you could make a difference in the life of a climate refugee? Change a light bulb! Personal choice, an adulated saint in the Western religion of individuality, is seen by many as the end all and be all of environmental activism.

Maniates' basically throws this easy-does-it lifestyle attitude back in the faces of those who adore it. In his mind, the only way to viably address global warming is through a complete overhaul of our global mindset, a reevaluation of how we term growth.

One issue I have with the article is that while Maniates' certainly acknowledges the benefit of personally sustainable choices, he does so only saying they might help dent the effects climate changes. He does not, however, acknowledge the idea that leaders who advocate mandatory global lifestyle changes should already have experience with these changes in their own lives. Personal accountability is tantamount to honesty in politics; relevant cliches include "practice what you preach" and "you're the pot calling the kettle black."

I'm not sure Maniates is really criticizing the environmental movement itself, but actually being critical of the way most groups try to inspire action in the more mainstream public. Advocating green consumption and small choices is not the most effective way of dealing with climate change, but is not completely useless. These campaigns can inspire people who would not otherwise be thoughtful to action and I guess that's better than nothing(?).

Maniates' strongest point comes when he suggests that "Americans are at their best when they're struggling together, and sometimes with one another, toward difficult goals." I would like to make a slight modification to this and say that humans are at their best when they're struggling with and together. In Copenhagen and in the future, lets hope that this statement is holds true.

The Story of Stuff

I personally like the Story of Stuff. It reminds me of the School House Rock videos that teachers used to show me in elementary school. To this day, the “I’m just a bill” song from School House Rock still remains my basis for how a bill makes it to law. Yes, I have taken many a political science class that has shown me in great detail how a bill is hassled over and debated in Congress and then has to make it to the desk of the president, etc. However, when I think about the core of the process, nothing makes it easier than that original video that I watched as a second grader in Mrs. Smucker’s class. Because of this, I understand why there has been such a debate over the Story of Stuff in the classroom.
As I mentioned before, I like the Story of Stuff. I believe that it expresses an essential truth: humans have a negative impact on the environment and our way of life leads to the deterioration of the earth that we live on. While this is true, I can understand why people would have a problem with the way that Annie Leonard portrays it. While I agree that consumerism is a big part of the problem, I generally tend to agree with Steve Cohen’s article and that it is the way that our economy operates that should change rather than obliterating it.
I feel as though I have to play devil’s advocate when it comes to the Story of Stuff because it is not pure fact, it is fact put in a satirical and political manner. Annie Leonard exercises her own political views in the video and while it might not have been stated outright, they were always implied. Because they involve political views, I can see why parents would not want their children to watch it in the schools. Schools are supposed to be a place of unbiased learning. It should teach children to question and challenge them without a doubt, but the Story of Stuff has a political undertone that I feel can be seen as inappropriate for schools. My teachers were always professional enough to never reveal to which way their political views tended and it is illegal for them to do so as my AP Political Science teacher told me in high school. While I would advocate that all people talk about this and watch the video to be informed, I can sympathize with why parents would have a problem with it.

Michael Maniates article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" hit the nail on the head when it comes to American's perception of the environmental movement and our role as citizens living the "western lifestyle." Throughout this class and many other classes and articles, it is clear that if everyone lived the lavish and wasteful lifestyle that we live as Americans, we would need 5+ planets to sustain us. This fact alone should be more than enough to get people to realize that we need to stop doing things at the micro level and move to more awareness and more pressure to reduce our impact.

I think the way that Michael Maniates challenges the modern environmental movement is correct, but the main target isn't the modern environmental movement - its' those who are only partially aware of the environment who need to change. Working with the DOE and various environmental NGOs that make up the 'environmental movement,' it is clear that at that level, individuals are doing all they can and moving out of their comfort zone to stop their impact on the environment. It's people who are unaware or uninterested in the environment who really need to read this article. The environmental movement has grown and become a more broad-based term, but at its' core, individuals are very aware and working very hard to bring about changes to our system.

I have to confess that I bought my parents one of those books (I think it was something like "Your Basic Questions about the Environment Answered") to help raise their awareness and to try to connect to them on the level that I am focusing on at school. While the suggestions these books, celebrities and other media outlets provide for individuals to help save the planet are mundane and basic to many people involved in the environmental movement, they are also necessary. I'll admit that I get extremely disheartened studying environmental problems and working to try and get others to understand the urgency of our problems, only to be met with attitudes that are unwavering on their wasteful, overconsuming way of life. However, people and governments can only turn a blind eye for so long. I think that Maniates' call for hard work is extremely important. In America, we know what this means. When there is a huge problem that needs to be solved, we've been able to do this. This is evident in World War II and the creation of the atomic bomb. We needed to beat Germany to finish the bomb, so we put our best efforts forth and did it, regardless of cost or hard work expended. It's this type of mentality we need to see in America in order to change our climate and the way that we view the looming energy crisis and climate changes.

It's still 'easy does it' with this article...

I enjoyed Michael Maniates article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" on the surface level. As a believer in the issue, I agree with his 'call to arms,' but I'm not sure if this article is at all practical. The article is a plea: lets stop hesitating with the baby steps and get on with it! I too want people to stop yakking and start doing. After all, as Maniates points out, this is a serious problem just like any war or issue we have faced in the past and we should look to history to learn our lesson and get inspired. However, as much as I wish this attitude change could be so simple, his logic is perhaps too Utopian. Maniates does not take into account that unfortunately, not everyone feels the way that he does and not everyone believes that there is even a problem; he is treating climate change and the environmental crisis as 'a truth universally acknowledged' (to borrow from Jane Austen!!) when it actually isn't for some. And even if they do believe, perhaps our leaders aren't as Maniates writes, "too timid" or "afraid to discuss" these problems but rather simply don't think the problem is important. One of the major issues we're facing is that we're all so scattered in our beliefs about climate change to begin with. Also, (sadly) political differences aren't going to get out of the way of the issue and that is definitely a huge hindrance in this argument that calls for quick and immediate action. Moreover, even if Americans do accomplish great things when "struggling together" behind an issue, people usually won't band together until something drastic happens and they are forced to do so. For example, it took Pearl Harbor to get Roosevelt and the U.S. to jump into to World War II, and it was a series of ridiculous (and more importantly, tangible) taxes and the actual presence of British soldiers that finally made the colonists truly begin a war against King George III. As much as I firmly believe that an issue that deals with our planet (our home!) should never get hung up behind petty politics it unfortunately does.
I do love how Maniates is challenging the mainstream environmental movement with this article (because yes, what does a gaggle of celebrities really have to do with anything?). Certainly these current efforts to glamorize the movement almost hurt rather then help by making it seem less like the crisis that it is and more like another L.A fad. However, I'm not sure if the problem is that the issue is being dumbed down or rather if for most, it's just personally not an important one. Yes, what we're being asked to do is certainly not enough, but I think that even Maniates makes the solution seem too easy.

It's definitely not easy.

I really enjoyed Maniates piece "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It". Even before I read the piece, one of my main issues with being environmentally friendly was that there are so many options and ways out there to be green, but for most people, they need an attitude adjustment in order to start practicing these ways. With the advancements in technology and research today, there should be so many things that each American can do to significantly help the environment, but some people are lazy, uneducated or too selfish to change their lifestyles. Maniates really portrays this message in his article by basically saying, going green in a way that actually DOES change the environment and stop global decline is not going to be easy, so we need to stop thinking it will be and just do it. If people changed their attitudes and instead of thinking a change in lifestyle means re-using their coffee cup, they need to realize stopping environmental degradation is a call to action in all aspects of their life.

Although Maniates argument is a little harsh, I really believe someone needs to tell it like it is so that people really get the point. I completely agree with his statement about celebrities and even government organizations tip-toeing around the issue and telling the American people it will be an easy thing. It's true that human nature is to do things that are self-rewarding and relatively easy but it is also true that American culture is one of the hardest working societies in the world. People love to work hard and challenge themselves, so why not apply that sixty hour work week to something that could help your future generations and planet? I think it makes a lot of sense, and by saying being green is east and everyone can do it, is almost a cop out for people who are excited and ready to improve the earth. Mainstream environmentalism makes being green seem like a fad, like a fad diet or the trendy clothes of the season. I think this needs to change and turn into a way of life, not just something celebrities promote and affluent people do to show off their wealth. Maniates was right in saying authors and government organizations are trying to make being green simple and easy for everyone to do, but if we do that, people simplify their "green" practices and think they are doing something great. If people were to tell the public that being green is difficult and tough and will take time, but the benefits are endless and the detriment is deadly, then maybe people would listen and take being green as a challenge.

Just some more general exasperation

Having never seen "The Story of Stuff" before, I was happy to watch it in class last Tuesday. I almost felt like I was being let in on a secret - albeit a horrible one. It was  definitely eye-opening and definitely provocative. Reading the reaction articles on the other hand was just sickening. Maybe the reason some people hate it so much is because it forces them to see the reality of our lifestyle - it shakes them out of their 'ignorance is bliss' bubble and makes them see what they would rather not know. Case in point, the one horrified parent who exclaimed, “There was not one positive thing about capitalism in the whole thing." I don't get it. The video is simply showing a negative side of capitalism. Of course there are many great things about the system, but they unfortunately don't apply here. No system is perfect and they are foolish for thinking ours is. I love how this parent and the writers of the "Story of Lies" article are immediately all up in arms about it, calling it un-American and the like. I thought being an American meant you were allowed to freely critique and express an opinion, so why are they so defensive and angry the minute someone lets the nation in on the truth about the negative effects to our system?

As for the "Stuff of Sustainability" article, I will say there were some valid and realistic points there - such as high

lighting the fact that our waste won't simply disappear like magic, or the idea that people really do like their modern 

conveniences and aren't going to simply give them up for the greater good. However, by focusing on this people are 

missing the point. The point is to raise awareness and get you thinking about the issue and your role in it. It is not an 

all encompassing manuel on the problems and how to solve them. However, I will say that the one section where the 

author writes "making people feel guilty aboutconsuming and opposing all forms of solid waste management doesn’t seem particularly helpful," really irked me. Um. Yes it does! We should feel guilty! Not only that but if a person actually realizes their impact, realizes a feeling of guilt, then I think they'd be more likely to take some action! Maybe more people will start hesitating before they make their next purchase of useless crap; maybe more people will hesitate like the little boy in the NY Times article did before buying his legos. Maybe more of us will become conscious shoppers. This video is a catalyst for promoting further individual ecological literacy. Sure the Annie Leonard's video doesn't address solutions but I believe that that is the point of the video. It's gimmick - it is short and it is done in a way to keep your attention. She has made us aware, now we must take the next step and begin working on solutions!

Another brick in the wall.

I'm a firm believer in the Story of Stuff. Okay, so the film may play a little fast and loose with the details and definitely ignores the idea of presenting both sides of an issue, but in my view, the message Ms. Leonard is presenting shouldn't be controversial at all, because in large part, it's indisputably true. Critics of the film claim that the message will corrupt the minds of our poor, naive youth. Frankly this underestimates the intellectual capacity of our children and the instructional skill of our teachers, and overestimates the potency of classroom learning tools. While the conservative pundits who lash out against this film may have had the intellectual capacity of an amoeba in grade school, most children are perfectly able to critically analyze and pull out "take-home messages" of popular, accessible works without the vicious and often irrational partisan bias that seems to permeate contemporary political debate. Even if some individuals aren't able to separate some admittedly contestable truths from the facts, the job of the teachers showing the piece is to question these aspects of the film. I'm a firm believer that most good teachers will challenge students to question things they don't agree with. Finally, I'm fairly certain that while parents are freaking out and school boards are reverting to some psycho Fahrenheit 451 mentality (aside on the school that voted the film showed inappropriate bias: every part of the school system is structured to promote and perpetuate the Western ideals of democracy and capitalism. This is inappropriate bias) most students are snoozing. That's right, I said it, most students aren't going to take away much from this movie, particularly when it suggests a complete structural reassessment of society without offering a concrete solution. Some students will, of course, be influenced to...gasp!...stop buying so much shit (and much of the stuff we buy is, frankly, worthless shit), question the perversity of a system that advocates mindless and insatiable consumption, and reassess the way their government works. Just as many students will be provoked to defend this system and assert their right to buy.

The take-away message of this post? To critics and supporters alike...this film is not that serious. Use your energy to propose solutions to the problem that is indisputably going to affect these kids: climate change.

Story of Stuff

First off I think the short film “The Story of Stuff” was a great and creative idea in order to get a point across. Annie Leonard realized the issues that she had to address were grave matters but that they affected everyone, not just one specific group of people. I do not think she was targeting just children with her movie even though the pictures were animated. She just presented this very complicated issue in a way so that it could reach all audiences and be processed. Some adults may not understand our environmental problems fully, and this is a good place to start to get informed. The people who were so concerned that Leonard was “targeting” children should realize that not only was Leonard just trying to condense and be creative with her message, but also that children are able to make their own opinions about issues. If they see this video and it bothers them, then maybe it is best that they try to enact on those feelings. I was thoroughly shocked reading the Heritage Foundation’s article when they say that Leonard is trying to pit children against their country. I do think that some things she says in the video could be a bit less anti-American but people are focusing on the completely wrong points of her message. When it comes down to it, she is trying to conjure up a call to action for the well being of everyone, not just liberals or conservatives or capitalists of socialists, but for everyone living on the earth. It is appalling to me that the Heritage Foundations article hardly mentions the environments; they really just want to rip down Leonard. I don’t really agree with any of the articles one hundred percent, but I do think that whatever the opinion, Leonard should be pretty pleased with herself for bringing so much attention to the issue. Now hopefully everyone can take the politics off their minds and focus on the real issues she was trying to inform us about.

The Story of Stuff - Generally Irritated

I think the huge debate over "The Story of Stuff" is a little ridiculous and everyone who is up-in-arms about how anti-American and anti-Capitalist the movie is, should take it with a grain of salt. One of the first steps to solving America's problem with 'saving the environment' (more like the fact that we have done absolutely nothing for the environment) is to acknowledge that we suck. American has done nothing and will continue to do nothing until people realize that this IS A BIG PROBLEM. We consume way more than we need to. The fact that this is being shown in schools is GOOD because we are brought up with the notion that 'more is better' and will make us happier. This is not true. We can see it everyday on American University's campus. Further, let's not focus on the warped fact about military spending because it's not important. Honestly, if that's the main thing that people get out of this movie, then there is something wrong, because it is not the focus at all.

Further "making people feel guilty about consuming and opposing all form of solid waste management doesn't seem particularly helpful." Yes, actually, it does. People should feel guilty for buying their fourth car, their eighteenth pair of shoes, their 48-pack of water bottles or their $200 pair of jeans. If not on an environmental level, at least on a humanitarian level of looking at the disparity between the United States and the third world. It's hard to understand how someone can justify such waste and frivolity when other people in the world will never even be able to look at half of the stuff we consume. What other way is there to get people to stop consuming other than making them feel guilty? Obviously, awareness, science and technology is not going to change anyone's opinions. We need to appeal to emotions rather than facts, because nothing else is working.

Also, people need to focus on real issues! The extensive debate and energy and time used over this 20-minute movie could have been put into something so much more useful! Like, actually trying to address some of the issues presented in the movie. It's pointless to debate this movie, what is it going to change? Annie Leonard isn't going to back off and be like "okay guys, sorry, this was a little too extreme." She's going to continue promoting her movie like she should. People need to learn how to deal with opinions that differ from their own and focus on what is really important and what really needs to be done (And no, I'm not claiming to embody this train of thought - I get very worked up over other people's opinions, just like everyone else).

As a sidebar - I also think it's really silly that people are getting stressed out that Annie Leonard is a Greenpeace activist. I got the impression that the Heritage Foundation has a notion to "bar the door" when presented with Greenpeace. At least Greenpeace is out there actively engaging people in environmental issues instead of sitting behind a computer screen complaining about minute facts in a movie on a blog. And come on - their name is Green-peace. They may be a little radical, but they're not that bad. Get over it. The French bombed their ship in 1980's...not the other way around.

Post #1

Hi everyone! My name is Connie and I am a junior pursuing a dual degree in International Studies and CLEG. I’m hoping to go to law school and pursue a degree in international law. I will be honest and say that the initial reason that I ended up in this class is that I needed other classes to cover different sections of the international studies requirement and I took World Politics with Professor Nicholson and really liked his teaching style. However, that being said, it does not mean that I did not choose this course over several others that I could have taken. I am legitimately interested in environmental studies and believe that it will be an extremely important international issue facing the world, both literally and politically. I definitely took a larger interest after the environment has climbed the list on the agenda of international summits and meetings. I really do believe that the environment is an issue for the world to tackle and despite all the differences that different nations might have over security or culture, all that should be put aside when it comes to the environment and whether the world needs to work together to solve this problem.
As far as my personal life goes, I believe in doing the little things on a day to day basis. I think it can go along way by just taking the time to empty that can all the way, rinse it out and put it in the recycling bin or to turn off the water while you are brushing your teeth. My family has always emphasized doing the little things. My brother and my sister-in-law started the family on our green path. They are the ideal organically environmentally conscious couple. And because of them, my parents have always taught me to take the time to wash the dishes and dry them with a towel, as opposed to using paper plates or cleaning with paper towels. To me this has always been an average way of life and it’s always been second nature to me and I think we can all do more.
As far as environmental education, I took AP Environmental Science. It was the first time that I understood the science behind what happens to the environment. It was a real eye-opener between the labs that were done and the different experiments that showed human impact on the earth. There’s nothing like learning the effects of acid rain by watching it kill grass right before your eyes. I had a rather scary talent for killing plants it turns out; I’ve since stayed away from raising plants. It was the first time I thought of the environment in a grander scheme, instead of something that I worried about in my small way on a day to day basis when I throw the compost pile out. And when I started taking international studies classes, each one of them featured those very scientific lessons in relation to what countries are doing to help the situation. It was then that I realized that all the elements came together, what we do in our daily lives, what the countries to, etc.
I actually really liked the Stanley Fish article. I think what he articulated is similar to what many people believe in the United States. And I can relate to it. I have days where I think why walk all the way to the other side of the building just to throw this can away when there is a trash can six inches from me. Then as usual, the guilt hits me and I walk dutifully to the side and put my can in the recycling bin. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not lazy sometimes. But what I think this article illustrates is that being environmentally friendly in the modern US means being inconvenienced in our daily lifestyles, which middle to upper class Americans have become accustomed to. I think it means that people are aware of the environmental problem and will do what they can to help it as far as it doesn’t make their lives overly difficult. I don’t think that this makes the average American person a bad person with bad intentions. I just believe that in our culture, we have become accustomed to a certain type of lifestyle and it is hard to convince people to leave that lifestyle. I think being environmentally friendly in the modern US means doing what they can to a certain degree.

Response Question 1

So, the question at hand is who I am and why exactly I'm enrolled in the course and interested in environmental issues. I guess this really goes back to the way I was raised: my mom really emphasized (emphasizes!) being critically aware of how I interact with the people and places that surround me. Since I was in grade school I was sent to school with a reusable lunch box (while really wanting ordinary, non-dorky brown paper bags...), taught to save every spare scrap of old clothing to be reused as rags and was encouraged to remember that repairing old objects was certainly more economical and ecological than replacing them with new ones (even if that new one happened to be an amazing new MP3 player). While I certainly begrudged these lessons as a teen, I am now able to readily acknowledge the way they've shaped the person I've become.

I worked on environmental issues in high school, primarily traveling to Springfield, the capitol of Illinois to lobby my representatives on wetlands protections legislation with the Sierra Club. While I certainly respect their methods and applaud their successes, I realized early on that more conservative lobby groups weren't really my style; I was always a little into gentle rebellion, experiencing many of the typical teenage phases of avowed anarchism, socialism, etc . While these pursuits were, at first, attempts to buck the restraints of a society I felt completely contradicted everything I had been taught to believe in (after all, George W. Bush had just been elected...twice) I have learned that the value in pursuing abstract political ideas really comes in finding a passion to apply them to.

I'm no longer an anarchist (although I've recently re-discovered the value in a lot of anarchist theory and history) or a socialist (okay, maybe a little) but I have held onto my passion for trying to address the things I see problems with in the world. The biggest issue I see right now is climate change. This interest isn't as simple as it seems, however. I'm really interested in climate change because it relates, really, really elementally to a lot of social justice issues I care about (see environmental justice) and also to issues that are fundamentally addressed in some of the political philosophies I find interesting (consumerism is a huge part of why a lot of anarchists find fault with capitalism). I'm naturally inclined to participate in direct action environmental tactics (I'm currently interning for Greenpeace) but also see a lot of value in approaching environmental challenges in different ways, including lobbying congress, doing intensive scientific research and engaging in huge (and potential disastrous?) negotiations like Copenhagen. After taking a lot of classes with a lot of environmental studies majors, I have to say that I'm really eager to get a fresh perspective from a class that seems to be really diverse in terms of academic interest. I'm hoping to really get some creative feedback on these pressing issues from people who have a really different view on the environment than I do.

In response to the Stanley Fish article, I have to say that mostly, I'm disappointed. I understand (like Christina) that approaching huge environmental problems can be difficult and isolating. Using earth friendly toilet paper may seem like a bore when you don't see trees immediately growing out of your toilet. But I expect more from someone as intellegent (and frankly, as old) as Mr. Fish. He is obviously cognitively aware of how his actions affect the earth and I hope by the time I've lived as long as he has, I'll realize that good things take time and rarely show themselves immediately. Living an eco-friendly life doesn't necessarily have to do with taking the superficial steps that Fish takes, anyway. Yes, changing your lightbulbs is a great way to save energy and buying good toilet paper is essential to halting the destruction of important forests, but the more important part of being an ecologically minded person is changing the way you think and live. My current goals? Consume WAY less by repairing old, "broken" things and really evaluating need and being more mindful of where my food comes from. There are a million other goals to make, but changing a few aspects of your life, regardless of how "comfortable" it is, is really an essential part of "living green."

Discussion #1

Hey guys! My name's Kate and I'm a senior in SIS majoring in International Studies and minoring in French. I recently decided to focus on Environmental Politics for my SIS major because I think it's the most important issue facing us today. Its something I've been aware of and concerned about - (I'm an animal lover and animal rights issues are always closely tied to environmental ones) and truthfully, for a long time, I thought it was just one of those things that everyone automatically cared about. After all, our planet is the one thing that we all have in common, so why wouldn't we want to take care of it - even if it wasn't 'in peril'?! It was only when I got older that I realized that definitely wasn't the case. That being said I'm not going to pretend that I'm a huge practicing environmentalist, well-versed in the ways of the field. I don't make my own biodiesel and I can't spout out persuasive facts or figures to others about why they should care. Embarrassingly, I really don't do anything more than turn off lights when I'm not using them and recycle, but that's why I'm in this class now - to learn, deepen my interest, become educated and hopefully start contributing to a solution. It is important to me that for the first time, I feel emotion when I read texts for this class and my other one, Practical Environmentalism - I'm interested, enthralled even, and more importantly shocked and worried.  

   There are other, more personal reasons, as well. The majority of my family live down in Alabama and are firm believers that this "new" focus on the environment is a huge load of crap. My Aunt, Uncle and cousins just flat out don't believe in climate change ("That's Democratic foolishness! What a bunch of yahoos!"), mock 'going green' and laugh about carbon footprints and the impact of humans. During our visit this summer, I learned they simply don't recycle and that they feel that fossil fuels are "in the earth for a reason, for us to use and we had better use them up! We've still got plenty down there." I love them so much and we are all so close but their attitude about what I believe to be such a serious subject, is utterly fascinating to me. They are intelligent beings and unfortunately, they are not the only ones out there who feel this way. 

I think that their story helps to highlight the enormity of the issue. There are people like my family to persuade combined with  people like Stanley Fish: informed believers in the issue, but who feel no desire to take action.  Of course, I feel like such a bundle of hypocrisy writing this because here I am wanting to say 'Shame on you, Stanley for promoting this kind of mentality. For thinking that just because you confess your laziness, that it somehow makes it ok.' But then, just a few paragraphs ago, I basically admitted to the same thing! I believe in the issue (like Stanley), I care about the issue (unlike Stanley) but I don't do anything about the issue (like Stanely)! However, I think that's what we can learn from this article. I couldn't stand him, but he provides insight into the mentality of the majority. It's human nature to want to cling to your comfort areas and what you know. People will bitch and complain like Stanley's friend about having to unplug an appliance immediately after it has been used, because it goes against what is good and easy - what they are familiar with. And they will resist with all their might. Two liter bottles of pop in the grocery stores are all that remain of our country's attempt to completely switch over to the metric system. But we have to just keep pushing for change. Stanley, his friend and all the rest of us are going to have to learn to make all of those little conservation tips and tricks second nature because it will truly have an impact! Unfortunately, I believe that any actual solution is going to come about by focusing more heavily on the big picture - namely by decreasing the cost of being environmentally friendly - something (actually, one of many things) that Fish complains about in his article. Unfortunately, it seems people will act only if they get something in return (I guess simply saving he planet upon which we live is not enough). That coupled with the acceptance that living more simply is completely doable and won't detract from happiness, but I think it's even harder to change a whole population's beliefs and mentality that more=success=happiness!

Discussion Question 1

Hi! My name is Kristen and I am a senior in SIS with a minor in International Business. I have to be honest and say that I have not been as environmentally friendly as I could be, but I have become much more interested in being green in the past few years. What prompted my interest was two-fold. First, my aunt is the Recycling and Marketing Coordinator for her county, and really pushes our family to dispose properly and be more conscious of the environment. When I came to school, she told me to study environmental policy and practices in order to become more educated and said that there is still so much in this field to learn and job-wise, it was a good field to get into. To this day, she still sends me articles and emails about new green practices or just recycling facts in general. I have always wanted to take an environmental class since she sparked my interest and this was the first opportunity to do it. The second reason was that I was recently abroad in Europe and while I was there, it seemed that the Europeans were somewhat more environmentally friendly, at least when it came to recycling. In the US, I feel like it is still an optional way of life, whether you want to recycle or not. In Europe they had trash bins and recycling bins outside on every street and I actually saw an Italian yell at someone for not recycling their plastic bottle. I think it was just the fact of making it so public that gave me the feeling that recycling there was more mandatory than it is here in the States. I also read an article recently in National Geographic that discussed an innovative and useful idea of rooftop gardens. They were saying that in cities it could really make a difference considering how much ground area there is compared to roof space. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland law requires these types of roof gardens if the building has the right conditions for this project. I thought this was such an awesome idea and something that the United States could really learn from the Europeans. It also made me realize that not only does every little bit help, but that there are so many different and inventive ways that our planet could be saved. From this course I really hope to lessen my ignorance on the environment and honestly I would like to be scared into taking action and like my aunt, maybe encourage others to take an interest.

Stanley Fish’s piece made me angry. Although I did just confess that I am not the greenest person that I could be, I at least am willing to try. Fish just seemed to me to be a cynic. He seems like the type of person who really just thinks about himself, his wife practically spelled out exactly what he had to do in order for their home to be environmentally conscious, and he acts like it is such an inconvenience to him. I think these types of people are probably the hardest to convince that they need to take action or the posterity of human kind will be in danger. These types of people, in my mind, are ones who live in the moment and only care about themselves right now. If it is something they don’t like, they wont do it. If it doesn’t bother them right now, it’s all going to be ok. Stanley Fish strikes me as a person who is very self-serving in all aspects of life, not just in pollution. He says he doesn’t wear a seatbelt because it is uncomfortable or it bothers him. He likes the processed meats and dislikes vegetables. Fish is obviously someone who doesn’t think about long term consequences even when it may harm his well-being. I do think that people are allowed to live however they want, but when it comes down to the fact that everyone must do their part in taking care of our planet, attitudes like Fish’s really hurt everyone. The part about the article that bothers me the most is the article in itself. The fact that Fish is an esteemed writer whose pieces get read by many people daily means he could really make an impact to the people he reaches out to. This could either be a negative impact or a positive impact, and I think he made the wrong decision and put out an article without thinking it could set a bad example. On the other hand, contrary to almost everything I just said, he could have been very very clever and done this article to get a rise out of some people, like it just did to me! So maybe he wrote it disguised as a call to action, so that the audience got mad at him for being so selfish and cynical and in turn went out and did something positive for the environment. In the US, I think living environmentally friendly really means going out of your way to do something that you normally wouldn’t do. That way you aren’t changing your lifestyle completely and at one time to be green, because this would probably result in most people giving it up in a few weeks. I think a gradual change of one new habit, like taking a shorter shower, each month could result in a whole new, environmentally friendly lifestyle within a year. I realize the actions need to happen quickly and as soon as possible, but the fact of the matter is that we are human and waking up one day and turning around the way you live is great, but will not happen for most Americans.

Environmentally-Friendly

As way of reintroduction, I’ll focus on how I became involved in studying the environment. Freshman year in college (I’m now a senior) I read a book called “The Cyanide Canary” about a boy who got stuck in a cylindrical tank and ended up becoming a vegetable because of prolonged exposure to cyanide. This was a result of unsafe construction practices by the contractor, and led to the first case in which an individual was put in jail for environmental crimes. My college writing teacher then brought in one of the attorneys who worked on the case, who was actually her husband, and through talking to him I realized that working in the environmental field seemed to be right for me. I then pursued internships and changed my major. The two most defining areas that I worked in were grassroots organizing with Greenpeace (last semester) and with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE) in Washington State over summer. These two extremely different experiences provided me with a foundation to figure out which ‘side’ to work on in the environment. Greenpeace was a lot of work – grassroots organizing isn’t easy, and everything about working for Greenpeace ties back to the article we just read for these discussion questions. Nothing was easy, I stuck out because I was not a vegetarian or vegan, and I ended up forming a strong divergence from my supervisor over the best way to bring about environmental change. She believed in civil disobedience, whereas I felt the best way to act was through policy, law and raising awareness (which Greenpeace does, as well). You might remember when the Senate’s coal-fired power plant was shut down (or in the process of being shut down) last spring. Greenpeace had staged a huge rally with other environmental NGOs, speaker such as Bill McKibben, and the intent to get arrested. However, the government shut down the pl ant the night before this rally, saving me the trouble of disagreeing, yet again, with my supervisor on the topic of getting arrested. In order to get a ‘full experience’ of Greenpeace, I was recommended to get arrested, something that I did not want on my record and did not have time for (I was still in school!). This made me realize that this end of the environmental movement was not for me, and I submitted my application to work for the Department of Energy.

Through the DOE internship, I gained invaluable experiences in networking, research and insight into the way real scientists think and get exposure. I realized that a lot of the reasons why scientists are not able to adequately present their research is through restraints in ‘the system.’ Everything at the DOE was, understandably, on lockdown. Besides the fact that the nuclear bombs dropped in Japan during World War II were developed at the Hanford site outside of this particular lab (the reactors are now not in use), I could see no other reason for the lack of informational spread from the lab to the surrounding community. I realized, once again, that this particular type of work was more for me, but I needed a medium in which to express my research. I had conducted extensive research on the economic viability of developing an industry for algae biofuels, and ran into dead ends in various areas of the lab. I would have thought that others working in the same area would want to held and input from another team, but this didn’t seem to be the case. The lack of sharing information within the laboratory’s walls seems to be the key problem in my mind. I came into this class hoping to be exposed to different types of organizations that work cohesively within their own foundation, as well as with other organizations. International Environmental Politics is a phrase that covers both ends of the spectrum, from grassroots organizations that lobby governments and try to influence politics, to organizations that make up the government and feed information to make policy. I came to this class to gain a broader understanding of the relationships in global environmental politics, and examine how effective (or ineffective) and how these politics have evolved. I hope to contribute from my experiences working in various areas of the environmental field, and maybe a little bit more of a science side to the debate.

Stanley Fish’s article was effectively written, and seems to have the ability to connect to each environmentally-conscious individual (or ‘environmentalist,’ depending on how you want to classify yourself) to some degree. Whether it applies to you specifically when you occasionally become annoyed with the environmental safeguards you practice yourself (some of which aren’t as easy to continually do, such as biking to work every day, including winter) or the reactions of those around you who inevitably feel pressured by how environmentally aware you are, this article rings true to most of the environmentally-conscious individuals. I think it is important to acknowledge the problems that come with living sustainably. As a college student, and I’m sure others would agree, it’s hard to go into your house or apartment, take out all of the light bulbs and replace them with ‘environmentally-friendly light bulbs,’ when the cost is double or triple the amount you would have spent on normal light bulbs. In addition to the cost, there are also new reports coming out about how compact fluorescent light bulbs can actually be bad for the environment! Where do we store them when they’re broken or need to be replaced? Also, as a college student (I’m assuming here that many college students don’t have excess money laying around) how is it justifiable to yourself to go into Superfresh, see a pint of strawberries for $1.99, then see a pint of ‘local organic’ strawberries for $4.99 and spend an extra three dollars on that? If you practiced this for all of the food or produce you bought, you’d be broke before the semester was halfway over.

On the other hand, I think that Stanley Fish’s article negatively reflects a lot of viewpoints about the environment that individuals have in the United States. People assume that since there are still trees growing in their backyard, there is still fresh water, the temperature still goes into the 40’s in winter, and there are still large cars on the market, that we can ignore the changes happening in our environment. In my experience, many Americans find it difficult to look beyond their own backyards to see environmental change and degradation. Fish acknowledges his desire to just ‘live comfortably’ which is what many Americans feel and focus on when making environmentally unsound choices – themselves. Looking at the eco-footprint assignment, it is clear that it is hard to live “environmentally friendly” in the United States. It is ingrained into our culture to have bigger, better, faster everything, and this needs to change in order to reduce our impact on the environment. I considered myself environmentally aware and sustainable, but through the eco footprint quiz, I came up with the result that if everyone lived as I did, we would need 3.9 Earth’s. I think that living ‘environmentally friendly’ in the United States means traveling less, using smaller, more efficient cars, buying locally in a joint effort to bring down prices and make food generally safer, and raising awareness. The main problem in the United States is the viewpoint that we are not going to be affected by the degradation to our environment because we have money. This is clearly not true to many individuals, and this awareness needs to be fostered and spread.