Cradle to Cradle

I think that McDonough and Braungart are on the right track, and that there needs to be a shift in the ways of looking at waste and the environment in order to bring about change. The whole ‘waste equals food’ concept is really innovative, but I do not see its implementation in the near future. As far as using our current solar income, I have noticed initiatives to start using more solar panels, but in most cases this is still cost prohibitive. The other initiative to using solar income in ways such as drying clothes again requires awareness and a societal shift that seems not feasible at this point. The other point the book talks about respecting diversity. There seem to be many different programs that are working to stop endangering animals and wildlife, but these are generally targeted at the life that we can see, such as polar bears, pandas, etc. I think it is important to think about the species that we do not think of on a daily basis and take into account our actions on these different types of species.

Overall I think that the book is a bit too much on the optimistic side, but this is just my opinion. I think the ideas presented are really great and innovative, but do not have as much applicability right now because people aren’t interested in setting up a clothesline or paying more money for detergent that is less harmful to the environment. This isn’t saying that people don’t care; it’s just a problem of awareness. I understand that Cradle to Cradle has gotten a lot of press, especially internationally. However, I do not see this in the US, unless it’s with people whom I take classes with who are already involved in environmental issues. However, I do not think that anything is going to get done unless we have some misplaced optimism that keeps work moving. The only way to raise awareness (since we a such a ‘democratic’ nation and would never just impose a law to start saving the environment without popular vote) is through action. I think combining the call to action in “Cradle to Cradle” with Maniates ideas is important in working towards a solution. I liked the comparison of human life to ant life – ants leave no trace on their environment except in positive ways, while humans are essentially ruining things that cannot be replaced.

Cradle to Cradle reaction

I think the main point of the book, Cradle to Cradle, is to show that the relationship between environmental action and the business world is not completely doomed to work. McDonough and Braungart want to point out that the conflicts of interest here are not entirely different, it’s just that people haven’t been able to see the opportunities that could come about from environmental products and services. What they are trying to do is turn on the industrial world to environmentally friendly products and practices and to show them that this industry is very lucrative for them. They claim that if producers realize the use of natural systems can benefit them more than the “old way” of doing things, that nature and business can co-exist.

I am very much enjoying this book and the optimism that the authors have. As a student with a minor in business, I often have a lot of trouble seeing where the two worlds could merge. It almost seems like the people involved in business and those involved in saving the environment have two different points of views on everything and just the way the world works in general. It has always been a disappointment because I think that the two worlds couldn’t co-exist because of the two entirely different mentalities that each trade encompasses. I do really enjoy the optimism and think the ideas they put forth are very innovative and interesting; I just do not know how practical the ideas behind the book are. The fact that the authors think that it is simply a matter of putting forth new ways of manufacturing and new ways of thinking about production to get the world of corporations and producers to change their ways is a far cry from reality. I think it would take many different factors for these worlds to begin to merge. I think business would have to be terrible in every industry for companies to turn to a new way of doing things. I think the new designs that McDonough and Braungart come up with for manufacturing would have to become law in order for producers to begin using them. I also think he would have to do some more advertising and really convince businesses that this would save them money in the end. Business is all about being on top, making money and being the best at what you do. Nowhere in their top priorities is saving the environment. So somewhere in their plan to merge these two schools of thought, the authors must think of a way to make some very set in their ways kind of people to turn around their thinking and their businesses in order to save the earth.

Trinity of Despair

I thought Professor Maniates “trinity of despair” was a great modern way to describe the current environmental problems. I believe we were in need of a sort of updated way to describe what was going on and why the environmental degradation was happening at such a rapid pace. The Human Nature component is definitely something to think about because in my opinion it is one of the main reasons our world is in trouble. People are very self centered; it is a part of human nature. It is not necessarily always a bad thing; it is innate to the human being. But it does cause a huge problem when it comes to trying to solve ecological dilemmas. If the way to stop the causes of pollution and climate change is a different lifestyle for the population, then that’s what should happen. It is not that simple though because people are so reluctant and some refuse to change their lifestyle when the harm is not happening to them at the moment. This is precisely what Maniates is talking about in the first part of his trinity and I think it is the most important problem to call attention to. It may be virtually impossible to get everyone on the “save the environment” boat, but if you bring attention to the human flaw of selfishness, this may cause people to change their ways.
The second part of the trinity, the Easy Stuff, is a great way to exemplify the Green Movement that seems to happen right now. It is when companies advertise their products or services to the general population and use “being green” as a marketing ploy to suck them in and have the consumer think they are doing something good by buying this product. There is a flaw in this entire chain of thinking because consumerism is one of the main causes of the environmental problem. The easy part comes in because a lot of people may not have the knowledge or resources to truly become a green and environmentally friendly person, but they do want to join in the efforts. What corporations do is give them this answer by putting out products that, if you buy them, will make you green! This is a very flawed way in thinking, but consumers go for it because it is the easy way out.

The third part of the trinity is the one that I am very skeptical about. Maniates says that a problem is that people think we ALL have to get on board in order for something to happen, but he argues this is not the case. He states that if only a few small, but key groups start to try and make a change in the world, the change will come. Although his arguments for this are strong, I still do think that everyone needs to do their part. It is amazing how one person or a handful of people can make a huge negative impact on the environment given the right set of materials. So I think in order for a significant change to really happen, we do actually need a huge majority of the population to get on board.
Overall I think Maniates has great points and speaks many truths about the reasons for our environmental concerns today, and I think his “trinity of despair” is like the modern day IPAT equation and I hope more people pay attention to it because a call to action is what we really need at this point in time.

Trinity of Despair

I think that Professor Maniates’ ‘trinity of despair’ is effective in identifying problems with the environmental movement (or any movement, for that matter) and that I really agree with his viewpoint. The first part of the trinity makes the assumption that people are selfish, and out for only themselves. This is true, if it is what you are looking for. I feel that this assumption depends on an individuals’ own outlook on things. For example, while I was working at Greenpeace, the workers and volunteers there honestly believed that social change could be brought about through public awareness of a problem. I believe that this is true, and it can be seen through the Civil Rights Movement. If organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, etc. all believed that people were inherently selfish; then most of their work in the public sector would not be effective and the foundation of their organization would basically break down. If an individual wants to look at the world in a way that assumes all people are inherently selfish, then that is what one will find. You can basically find anything if you look hard enough, but I think it’s important to focus on positive things to look at, instead of negative assumptions about people that already put a damper on your view of individuals.

The ES (Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff) also has an element of assumption. I think it’s necessary to look at how people respond to initiatives that make things easy. Personally, I don’t like being targeted with easy goals and strategies. I think a part of human nature is accepting challenges, and that by always giving individuals an easy way out such as changing light bulbs, nothing is really getting done. Their motions are so simplistic, that there is no thought process going on behind their actions. I think that it is way more important to challenge people with hard goals so that people actually feel some sort of emotion, whether it’s positive or negative, but still get the challenge completed. I think that a better assumption that Professor Maniates spoke about in our video conference would be that people generally face challenges more than they face easy stuff, and that element of human nature is what should be targeted.

Last, there are problems with social change. I do not think it is necessary to get everyone on board with an initiative before it is put in place. An example of this is in Washington State along Puget Sound. A city (I’m completely blanking on the name) decided that it was necessary to stop residential growth in their area, and made an ordinance for all property owners with undeveloped land at the time to keep 65% of that undeveloped land as it is. Sure, this is a real issue with some people because it is their land. However, in the long run, the local lake, which flows to the Suquamish River, which flows into Puget Sound, will not get the contamination from surface and storm water runoff because there is undeveloped land that the water can flow into and recharge. Individuals right now, especially in Congress where most laws get created and put into effect, are too divided. I think that a mechanism that puts the necessary laws in place by looking at science is what is needed for change to be made. Yeah, this might sound a bit socialist, but we’re not getting anywhere with our current goal of making EVERYone aware of environmental issues and trying to get everyone we can to advocate for change. This is effective, but many of these environmental issues are time-sensitive, and we do not have the time to waste on extensive public acceptance because at this rate, it is never going to happen.

I'm not sure if this take on the 'trinity of despair' is exactly what Professor Maniates has in mind, but I do think that it is a good basis to start a movement and help others understand the point of a movement, and how it can affect change. I think that Professor Maniates view of the environmental movement is innovative and needs to be acknowledged on a larger scale. I also feel that this model can be applied to many different types of social movements.

Manietes

First of all, I think it's fairly evident to anyone who's in my other class on climate that I'm a big fan (is that an appropriate description for intellectual admiration? I don't know...) of Prof. Manietes' work: I think the trinity of despair idea is a challenge to an established order that needs to be challenged. It seems fairly apparent that the modern method of inspiring meaningful change has not been effective, but I agree that the odds (and statistics) seem to be in the environmental movement's favor in terms of popular support or concern for "green" causes. The idea of mobilizing small groups of dedicated people around logical pressure points is clever and derived from a long lineage of successful social justice movements. That said, there are a few aspects of Manietes' argument that are not necessarily wrong, but need clarification or perhaps reevaluation (something that I'm aware might come if I read his upcoming book).

While I really like the idea that not everyone needs to be on board to make significant change--and that, realistically, the time it takes to get everyone on board can impede the progress that might be made in the interem--I felt as though, at least in the lecture, Manietes diminished the importance of education activism. I agree that activism aimed at attempting to lasso every stray climate denier into some glorious kum bah yah circle of unity is pointless; however, public events that confront potentially borderline activists are extremely important. Again, I'm not in support of self-mastubatory "I'm better than you because I know the carbon footprint of my pet fish" exercises, but presenting events that could motivate potentially passionate proponents are essential. I know I wouldn't be involved in the climate movement without them.

Additionally, although I know that Manietes mentioned this, I think its really necessary to emphasize the importance of personal political action in establishing legitamacy. Pressuring leaders to make commitments while refusing to make them yourself is hypocritical and, worse yet, fails to impress the seriousness of the issues on those you're pitching them to. So maybe eating locally doesn't make a huge difference in aggregate emissions, but it is pretty essential if you're calling on your local supermarket to stock local milk.

I'm looking forward to reading Manietes' upcoming book where some of my issues migth be clarified.

Lorax rewrite!

SO...
Catch!" calls the Once-ler.
He lets something fall.
"It's a powerful hammer,
to smash the old system, all.
You're in charge of rebuilding this decrepit old town
Into a place where there'll be nary a frown.
A local food system, a co-op to boot,
we'll barter, we'll trade with no natural resources to loot.
We'll share all our profits, build sustainable forests
Then the Truffula trees and the Lorax will flourish!

You must mobilize people, but maybe not all
Not everyone thinks that this system must fall.
Gather your forces, make them grow strong
Give them your tools to prove their foes wrong.
Logic and reason and science and morals
These are the tools to liquidate quarrels!

Someday, perhaps, all the people will see
that greed and growth just shouldn't be
The foundations of human day to day life
They just cause more pain, and hurt and strife
Your new society equal and fair
and based on ideals of earthly care,
will be the model for other struggling nations
who desperately need a new kind of creation.

Speak for the trees, but also the people
who need your voices when theirs are feeble
This world is for everything big and small
Protect it forever, preserve it for all!