The first quote is from Cradle to Cradle and I thought it expressed the "Next Industrial Revolution" that the book is about.
"The key is not to make the human industries and systems smaller, as efficiency advocates propound, but to design them to get bigger and better in a way that replenishes restores and nourishes the rest of the world."
The second quote that I enjoyed was from earlier in the class from the "Confronting Consumption" piece that we read. I thought the unit in the class where we talked about the North and South divide about environmentalism was very interesting.
"In global environmental policymaking arenas, it is becoming more and more difficult to ignore the fact that the overdeveloped North must restrain its consumption if it expects the underdeveloped South to embrace a more sustainable trajectory."
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Quotes
"Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment... 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. Which is a pity, since Americans are at their best when they're struggling together, and sometimes with one another, toward difficult goals."
-Michael Maniates, Living Green? Easy Doesn't Do It.
How is it that Congress talks about stimulating the economy when much that will actually be stimulated is the destruction of things it says it cares about on other days? How did the notion of economy become so totally uneconomic?
Our Phony Economy, Rowe
-Michael Maniates, Living Green? Easy Doesn't Do It.
How is it that Congress talks about stimulating the economy when much that will actually be stimulated is the destruction of things it says it cares about on other days? How did the notion of economy become so totally uneconomic?
Our Phony Economy, Rowe
Friday, December 4, 2009
2 Quotes
The first quote I chose was from Stephen Meyer's "The End of the Wild," page 8.
"Fundamental is the nation of a landscape where the handprint of humanity is invisible and specifically where the forces of natural selection smother those of human selection. The problem is that there is virtually no place on Earth that fits this description."
I'm not sure if we're supposed to explain why we chose these, but basically I lived in Washington state this summer and did a lot of hiking. I was surprised that even at altitudes of 8,000 feet on Mount Rainier, there were tourist shops and litter and other degradation. This was kind of shocking and also eye-opening to the fact that humans are everywhere! I don't think that we need to move out of these natural places, but we just need to be more conscious of our actions.
The second quote is from Meghan's blog post about "The Story of Stuff." I really believe that "The Story of Stuff" should be showed in schools, even if just for its' basic take home message of excessive consumption, and the chain that goods come from. I also think that all of the uproar over this video was really unfounded, which is why I liked this quote. It basically sums up my feelings on the matter very effectively:
(Meghan was blogging about the impacts/potential negative influences on kid from the movie)..."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."
"Fundamental is the nation of a landscape where the handprint of humanity is invisible and specifically where the forces of natural selection smother those of human selection. The problem is that there is virtually no place on Earth that fits this description."
I'm not sure if we're supposed to explain why we chose these, but basically I lived in Washington state this summer and did a lot of hiking. I was surprised that even at altitudes of 8,000 feet on Mount Rainier, there were tourist shops and litter and other degradation. This was kind of shocking and also eye-opening to the fact that humans are everywhere! I don't think that we need to move out of these natural places, but we just need to be more conscious of our actions.
The second quote is from Meghan's blog post about "The Story of Stuff." I really believe that "The Story of Stuff" should be showed in schools, even if just for its' basic take home message of excessive consumption, and the chain that goods come from. I also think that all of the uproar over this video was really unfounded, which is why I liked this quote. It basically sums up my feelings on the matter very effectively:
(Meghan was blogging about the impacts/potential negative influences on kid from the movie)..."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."
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The future...
As it stands, the future of the environmental "movement" is bleak. Fractured, unable to truly work cooperatively or communicate effectively, and fairly ineffective in the face of huge, game-changing issues, the movement stands to lose in the long run. The sad part is that we have it easy: there is a single, identifiable issue to rally around (climate, duh); the scientific case for this issue is virtually unassailable by sane people; and we have an unprecedented opportunity to relate climate to a variety of disparate and engaging ideas like poverty eradication, global security and health. Unfortunately this ideal situation has been squandered, thus far. Why?
In the wake of Climategate, I think that the environmental movement needs to stop isolating and ridiculing people who disagree with us. Okay, so maybe climate skeptics are stupid, close-minded, and ornery. Maybe their science is fixed, misrepresented, and just plain wrong. But shutting them off and refusing to talk with them just makes matters worse. When left to scheme and simmer together in their collective ignorance, skeptics just get more stupider, more close-minded, and more ornery. I'm aware that the science is clear. The American public doesn't care.
The fact is that we need to add some PIZZAZ to environmentalism! Example: in a climate debate on NPR two years ago, climate skeptics battled climate scientists. Guess who won? That's right, not the people with the unimpeachable data, but the people with charisma, appealing arguments and Michael Crichton on their side. The skeptics made global warming sound fun: new beaches reaching into the midwest, longer summers to lounge around on those new beaches, and the expansion of the wine growing market to England. Instead of telling those losers that the English can't handle wine and that nobody wants to see Midwesterners in bikinis anyway, the environmentalists got flustered and implied that the audience couldn't handle the available information. Really? There are so many amazing reasons to avoid global warming and these guys couldn't come up with one, instead choosing to stutter about the science and isolate the audience. Michael Crichton (RIP. And really. He was a panelist...) said that climate change shouldn't be a priority because development work would suffer. Not one of the climate advocates suggested that climate adaptation and mitigation work can facilitate development. We need to seriously get it together and present appealing, glamorous, and imaginative views of what the world could look like if we made positive enviromental reforms. (It's not that hard, solor panels are very sparkly and pretty, Manhattan as Atlantis...not so much).
In the wake of Climategate, I think that the environmental movement needs to stop isolating and ridiculing people who disagree with us. Okay, so maybe climate skeptics are stupid, close-minded, and ornery. Maybe their science is fixed, misrepresented, and just plain wrong. But shutting them off and refusing to talk with them just makes matters worse. When left to scheme and simmer together in their collective ignorance, skeptics just get more stupider, more close-minded, and more ornery. I'm aware that the science is clear. The American public doesn't care.
The fact is that we need to add some PIZZAZ to environmentalism! Example: in a climate debate on NPR two years ago, climate skeptics battled climate scientists. Guess who won? That's right, not the people with the unimpeachable data, but the people with charisma, appealing arguments and Michael Crichton on their side. The skeptics made global warming sound fun: new beaches reaching into the midwest, longer summers to lounge around on those new beaches, and the expansion of the wine growing market to England. Instead of telling those losers that the English can't handle wine and that nobody wants to see Midwesterners in bikinis anyway, the environmentalists got flustered and implied that the audience couldn't handle the available information. Really? There are so many amazing reasons to avoid global warming and these guys couldn't come up with one, instead choosing to stutter about the science and isolate the audience. Michael Crichton (RIP. And really. He was a panelist...) said that climate change shouldn't be a priority because development work would suffer. Not one of the climate advocates suggested that climate adaptation and mitigation work can facilitate development. We need to seriously get it together and present appealing, glamorous, and imaginative views of what the world could look like if we made positive enviromental reforms. (It's not that hard, solor panels are very sparkly and pretty, Manhattan as Atlantis...not so much).
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Thanksgiving discussion
I probably chose the wrong person to seriously sit down and discuss climate change for the first time: my uncle. He's incredibly intelligent, quick witted and, it seems, knowledgeable about every issue. His one fault is that he's horribly opinionated and very biased; he's a staunch Republican who watches only Fox News (and can also be frequently seen sporting many different Rush Limbaugh tees) and is famously obstinate about his beliefs. I tend to not discuss any 'controversial' topics with him because of just how intense and personal he gets. However, he's the only one in my family who is 'familiar' enough with the subject to have a solid opinion and I knew he would be an eager participant.
I learned much from our discussion - especially about how to prepare myself for future conversations on the subject. I was not surprised when my uncle played the politics card (he views it all as Democratic propaganda), or when he pulled the 'lack of science' card - I had rebuttals for those (having recently looked over the "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" article again to make sure I had my facts straight before our chat I was able to counter many of the points he made about there being a 'lack of evidence' and his assertion that this was just another one of our planet's natural fluctuations), and was able to raise counter points to the Democratic propoganda. However, I really was stumped when he brought religion into it. When we began discussing alternative energy sources his response was simply that God had put fossil fuels in the earth for us to use and aid in our progress, so we should use them as long as we could. In addition he was also certain anything created by God could have no negative effects, so he saw no connection between the two. Having never discussed climate change from that perspective, I was stumped. Religion is obviously another one of those 'better left alone' topics and who am I to judge or potentially insult anyone else's beliefs? I tread carefully, asking what we would do after fossil fuels ran out, and but the conversation fizzled.
In order to discuss the subject with someone like my Uncle, I realized I needed to learn the facts more thoroughly so that I would be able to sound more like I really, really knew what I was talking about. In the future, if he brings up one point, I want to be able to instantly have a rebuttal. I also realized how important it was to stay calm, hear him out and not get too worked up. I think it's something that will get better with practice!
One thing I will bring up next time are the ideas within Cradle to Cradle. I think he'd actually be really interested in the text and it'd be a great way to show him that economics and environmentalism actually can go hand in hand. Maybe it would help take the 'taint' off environmentalism for him. But that's a project for Christmas break!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Final Blog Post! Thanksgiving Debate...
The environment-themed conversation I had over break was mainly with my uncle, who runs the public works (facility management?) for a town in southern New Jersey. We’ve always butted heads (in an amiable sense of the word) over environmental issues. He would write me off because I was interning at Greenpeace, and therefore, apparently, my opinions are invalid. Anyway, at Thanksgiving, he actually brought up the topic of environmental technology because he was complaining about how his city council voted to put in solar panels on public buildings, and the community is working towards LEED-certifying many public buildings. (He was complaining about the cost). I then put in my input about the holistic approach to development that we read about in Cradle to Cradle without framing it as my opinion, but rather more as just a discussion topic. I found that as soon as I presented the idea of this approach of cradle to cradle products, my uncle and father both immediately agreed with the idea. When I then threw out there that it was for my International Environmental Politics course, my uncle kind of scoffed at it, but I still had an admission.
I moved on from there and talked to him about the problems with LEED certification, because he was clearly not on board with the program. It was really important for him to hear from someone who is working towards LEED certification (through the class here at AU) that it is not a perfect system. This led to an actual dialogue, because he was much more responsive when I talked to him about the environment and problems with initiatives within it, such as LEED problems. I learned that it is much more important to converse with people instead of talking down to them. By the end of the conversation, we had both learned something - he learned about the different solar technology his county was implementing as well as the benefits and downfalls of LEED building. I had learned about all of the hurdles that a city must go through in order to present a new environmental initiative, such as solar panels. I have to give a lot of credit to the individuals who actually go through the work of okay-ing these projects within their cities - it seems very un-democratic and frustrating.
I moved on to talk about the Story of Stuff, mainly because my parents and my cousin are both in the education field. My father was the only one who had heard of it, and he wholeheartedly agreed that the video should be showed in schools. He had worked as superintendent of one school district where the video was widely accepted by teachers, but at his current school district there was a debacle over showing the video, and in the end it was up to individual teachers’ to decide. My mother and uncle did not agree with the general message we conveyed to them. I think it is a matter of upbringing - both of my parents and my uncle worked extremely hard growing up to get to the positions they are in now and enjoy the money they now have (because it wasn’t always there). I think that it’s hard to relate to this because I grew up in a comfortable wealthy middle-class home (because of their dedication) and didn’t experience what they had to work so hard for. It’s hard for me, who seems to have everything, to tell them that they should stop consuming so many goods because of the environment. It seemed almost disrespectful, so I veered off topic to different political actions that they thought were most effective.
Overall, the conversation about Cradle to Cradle resonated most with my family. My father admits that we are continually degrading the environment and our reach is too far into nature to NOT be causing things such as global warming. My uncle was harder to persuade, but he also conceded that we must be causing climate change. It’s hard to debate where I live though; we have an advantage of viewing ocean waters rising. I live on Absecon Island, a barrier island off of South Jersey and the end of our island ends at ‘11th street’ because streets 1-10 are underwater, and used to connect to the island south of us. It’s hard to argue with evidence like this happening over the past century and a half (even though this island should have never been developed in the first place). In the end, the conversation taught me that understanding and listening to someone else’s viewpoint is more important than proving your own point - something that I’ve learned over time working in the environmental field. However, I had never thought to have this conversation with family members because many, such as my brother, seem pretty much unchangeable in their carbon dioxide emitting ways. I’ve tried to talk to my brother about his excessive use of his 1980 Volvo station wagon, his 45 minute showers and obsession to wash every piece of clothing that he wears even for two seconds, but that’s an uphill battle. I found it very interesting that the people who this conversation actually was mutually beneficial with were my parent’s conservative-minded family members. I guess it shows that there are ways that we can effectively converse with climate ‘skeptics’ to address problems with climate change and its widespread consequences.
I moved on from there and talked to him about the problems with LEED certification, because he was clearly not on board with the program. It was really important for him to hear from someone who is working towards LEED certification (through the class here at AU) that it is not a perfect system. This led to an actual dialogue, because he was much more responsive when I talked to him about the environment and problems with initiatives within it, such as LEED problems. I learned that it is much more important to converse with people instead of talking down to them. By the end of the conversation, we had both learned something - he learned about the different solar technology his county was implementing as well as the benefits and downfalls of LEED building. I had learned about all of the hurdles that a city must go through in order to present a new environmental initiative, such as solar panels. I have to give a lot of credit to the individuals who actually go through the work of okay-ing these projects within their cities - it seems very un-democratic and frustrating.
I moved on to talk about the Story of Stuff, mainly because my parents and my cousin are both in the education field. My father was the only one who had heard of it, and he wholeheartedly agreed that the video should be showed in schools. He had worked as superintendent of one school district where the video was widely accepted by teachers, but at his current school district there was a debacle over showing the video, and in the end it was up to individual teachers’ to decide. My mother and uncle did not agree with the general message we conveyed to them. I think it is a matter of upbringing - both of my parents and my uncle worked extremely hard growing up to get to the positions they are in now and enjoy the money they now have (because it wasn’t always there). I think that it’s hard to relate to this because I grew up in a comfortable wealthy middle-class home (because of their dedication) and didn’t experience what they had to work so hard for. It’s hard for me, who seems to have everything, to tell them that they should stop consuming so many goods because of the environment. It seemed almost disrespectful, so I veered off topic to different political actions that they thought were most effective.
Overall, the conversation about Cradle to Cradle resonated most with my family. My father admits that we are continually degrading the environment and our reach is too far into nature to NOT be causing things such as global warming. My uncle was harder to persuade, but he also conceded that we must be causing climate change. It’s hard to debate where I live though; we have an advantage of viewing ocean waters rising. I live on Absecon Island, a barrier island off of South Jersey and the end of our island ends at ‘11th street’ because streets 1-10 are underwater, and used to connect to the island south of us. It’s hard to argue with evidence like this happening over the past century and a half (even though this island should have never been developed in the first place). In the end, the conversation taught me that understanding and listening to someone else’s viewpoint is more important than proving your own point - something that I’ve learned over time working in the environmental field. However, I had never thought to have this conversation with family members because many, such as my brother, seem pretty much unchangeable in their carbon dioxide emitting ways. I’ve tried to talk to my brother about his excessive use of his 1980 Volvo station wagon, his 45 minute showers and obsession to wash every piece of clothing that he wears even for two seconds, but that’s an uphill battle. I found it very interesting that the people who this conversation actually was mutually beneficial with were my parent’s conservative-minded family members. I guess it shows that there are ways that we can effectively converse with climate ‘skeptics’ to address problems with climate change and its widespread consequences.
Thanksgiving Debate
Over Thanksgiving break, I asked my dad about what he thought about climate change. I knew going in his thoughts on the subject, that he thought climate change was happening but that global warming was something made up by Al Gore. He is a very political right-wing man, and his dislike for Gore sometimes overshadows really thinking about the situation. Also a businessman, I decided to start the conversation by bringing up the Cradle to Cradle book and just telling him about it and seeing what he thought since the book does a good job of expressing the idea that business and the environment can work together. I was pleasantly surprised by his reaction. He thought this was an interesting idea and that it was definitely a possibility and also that it was becoming a reality. He thought the concept of waste=food was very interesting and said it could be a reality only if the practices are cost effective. What did make my father very worked up was when we started talking about the government and what it is doing right now to get on board with the environmental movement. When I brought this up, he was very adamant that he didn't the government should be involved in this. He also brought up the economy and taxes and how the cap and trade systems and government negotiations with other countries are just ways to get more of the taxpayers money. So this could have been anger stemming from different things, but he definitely disagreed with government intervention and regulation when it came to the green movement.
After this conversation, I think the best way to approach a controversial discussion like this would be to find some common ground or bring up a piece of information that makes the other person think. By just attacking them or even suggesting that you know they will disagree with you makes them hostile and ready for a fight. Bringing up common ground lets them know you just want a discussion or their opinion. Usually when emotions get involved both parties tend to forget what they know and immediately just bicker. I learned that in situations like this, whichever side that people are on, they still have their own opinions. Opening up to someone, even asking for advice, gives them a chance to foster their opinions, and then opens the door for discussion and even a little debate.
After this conversation, I think the best way to approach a controversial discussion like this would be to find some common ground or bring up a piece of information that makes the other person think. By just attacking them or even suggesting that you know they will disagree with you makes them hostile and ready for a fight. Bringing up common ground lets them know you just want a discussion or their opinion. Usually when emotions get involved both parties tend to forget what they know and immediately just bicker. I learned that in situations like this, whichever side that people are on, they still have their own opinions. Opening up to someone, even asking for advice, gives them a chance to foster their opinions, and then opens the door for discussion and even a little debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)