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.