What Will Save Us?

We have been discussing the impact of technology on the environment for a couple weeks now. While we all seem to recognize that technology has been very harmful for the environment, there are also some technologies that have proved beneficial such as developing clean energy. Another point that has been brought up several times throughout these blogs is that not only that we must change our attitude about the environment but we must also change our lifestyles. No technology is going to be able to replace the earth’s resources at the rate we are consuming them. The issues with the environment are very complex and therefore the solutions are going to be even more complex. There is no one answer; so technology won’t save us alone and changing our attitudes won’t save us alone. We have to take many different approaches as to how we are going to solve as the issues of the environment.

One approach is getting everyone involved on a global scale and that is what happened with the Montreal Protocol. I have studied it before and I remember it was the most successful international environmental agreement in history. I think it was so easy for countries to commit to was because there was a plan to replace CFCs with other substances. While it has been proven over time that these substances may be just as harmful, at the time they were available right after CFCs were not. In terms of technology, it helped countries get on board with this agreement because new technologies replaced the old CFCs. In today’s terms, it is more difficult to get countries to sign onto agreements because there seems to be no substitute for what we have. For example the United States would not sign the Kyoto Protocol because we had to commit to reductions in carbon emissions as well as other greenhouse gases and according to ex President Bush we were just not capable of doing that. He explained in an interview that although we are putting millions of dollars into research we are still dependent on foreign oil.

In all technology could definitely help to “save us” however it is not the only answer. As Emily stated, more fuel efficient cars would be helpful, however it would be even more helpful if fewer of them are on the road. As these new technologies develop hopefully more countries will be in agreement to make changes because we all live on this one planet and everyone needs to do their part.

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/July/200507011349191CJsamohT0.4202474.html

Technology: The Default Savior

Technology has become so intricately wound into every aspect of our lives that it will have to be our savior. To expect that we will abandon our use of cell phones, computers, I pods, and even stoves is ludicrous. We have become so dependent that we cannot imagine a world without these things. As such, technology will have to be the thing that saves us.

However, technology does not have to have a mind of its own. I believe we can shape technology. We do not have to wait for it to get to a point where it is good for the environment. We can spend our energies innovating in a certain direction, such as eco-friendliness.

Here I would like to agree with Emily and Stephen. While we can direct technology to be more environmentally focused, that is not enough. We also have to conserve and moderate our lifestyles. Technology can assist us with these goals. It's like the Kuznet curve. As a nation increases in wealth it is more able to decrease its impact on the environment. It can focus its energies on developing "greener" technologies. This is how technology will assist us.

However, like my group members, I agree that technology cannot save us without our own initiative. We have to put our energy into shaping technology. We have to show a commitment to conserving our resources. At the end of the day, this paired with technology will be what saves us.

The limits of technology

I think both Lisa and Stephen did a great job pointing out some important points answering this question, and I'd like to address what they said a bit. I agree with Stephen that, even if we suddenly all became technological genuises tomorrow and started devoting ourselves to aligning technology with environmental issues, technology will never be enough. We must take an honest and critical look at our lifestyles and how we can change them if we're serious about solving the environmental problems the world is facing. I think I spouted off about this in class last week: Even if technology could "save us," the notions of what we would have to do to the planet (geoengineering like "farming" oceans with iron) are sort of ludicrous and make me wonder what other sorts of problems we would inflict on this poor planet in the name of saving it from global warming.

I also think Lisa had a really great insight - what do we mean when we say technology can "save" us? Save us from global warming? At what cost? If we infer "save us" to mean keep our consumeristic lifestyle while not trashing the planet, then we're in trouble. It's not plausible to think we can have our cake and eat it, too. The overwhelming majority of the time, that doesn't work. I think the environment is a lot like a diet - stuff in has to equal stuff out, or bad things happen. Even with increased technological efficiency, if we keep using up the planet's "stuff" (resources) at a rate faster than the planet can replace it, that's a problem. Technology, as Stephen said, can help, but it's in no way the only answer, and if we think it is we're probably kidding ourselves.

To answer the part of ozone depletion, it seems to me like the success of those agreements was actually based as much on cutting back technologies which contained CFLs as it was about finding new technologies to offset or make more efficient our CFL use. I think what that tells us is exactly what Lisa and Stephen have hinted at - we simply can't rely on technology alone to save us. CFLs were great because they were cheap and convenient, but when we realized the harm they were doing to the environment really the only solution was to cut back on them, and doing so has obviously helped. That same example can be applied to a lot of the technologies today which are, in part, contributing to global warming. More fuel-efficient cars would be helpful, but ultimately it's not going to be better efficiency but, rather, fewer cars that will be the solution, as difficult as that is to accept.

Now, if only we could get the rest of the country (and the politicians, Obama included!) to feel that way.

Savior or Destroyer?

We have put ourselves in an interesting position in that we cannot live without technology, but if it will ultimately save is us a question that remains unanswered. It is an extremely loaded question, from the vagueness of the terms to the uncertainty of the future, there is no easy way to answer.
The use of the words “save us” is unclear in this question. What exactly does that mean? In environmental terms it can mean save us from a world of environmental degradation. It would mean using technology to create clean energy initiatives, to find new ways to reduce the amount of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and to replace habitats that have been loss or destroyed by climate change, etc. There are so many different things that we hope that technology has the ability to do, but would the completion of one of these goals be considered saving us? In think in part it would be, it is saving us from an impact that, had the technology not been created to help, we would have surely felt (although we shouldn’t forget that it was technology that created most of the environmental issues today, think Industrial Revolution). But solving one issue doesn’t save us completely, it may by us more time but that’s a far stretch from saving us. There are so many current (and I’m sure future) environmental issues that it would be naïve to think that a single technological innovation would solve them only. But that is what we would need to be truly saved, without this we’re just saving ourselves from little issues while avoiding others. We’re just buying time.
There is also a sense of uncertainty about technology. We have no idea what technological will like 10 years, 5 years, or even 3 years from now. We assume that it will lead to advances in our lifestyles. The cornucopian view has taught us that in the end someone will come up with a response using technology to get us past whatever hardship is before us. Historically this is what has happened and this is what we all hope deep down will happen, so even if it’s just the slightest bit, we like to believe it. But we really have no idea. It is as possible that the new technological would be detrimental to the environment as it is helpful. Technology could mean a faster way to harness oil or to retrieve mountain top coal; this technology could also be the same one that causes an increase in air pollution because the poor yet speedy removal methods are less inefficient. Technology has the possibility to be our savior but also our destroyer.
I realize that I did not exactly answer the question of will technology save us with a yes or no that it deserves. At this point I don’t think it’s possible to know if technology will save us because there are chances that it could do the exact opposite. I like to think that it has a capability of at least helping us (save might be too strong of a word) to work through many environmental issues. I think it will help to shape the future of environmental policies and practices, as new technologies come into place then new policies can enforce the use of more efficient technologies. But none of this is guaranteed because the future is too unpredictable.

Technology

In contrast to the mainstream media and prevailing conventional wisdom, a closer examination of historical trends shows an undeniable link between increased technology and more environmental degradation. The inherent contradiction between a society collectively clamoring for more, better, and advanced products and a planet that is rapidly approaching or has already passed its biological limits creates an enormous problem for society. Humanity is truly at a crossroads. It can either take drastic steps to cut down on consumption and resource exploitation or place its faith in technological advancement to solve the problems of massive population growth, environmental damage, and climate change. What is far more significant than my views on whether technology will save us are the views of a man who arguably has more influence on the fate of the planet than any on Earth. The de facto Chief Executive Officer of the largest economy the world has ever known had this to say in a recent Rolling Stone interview regarding climate change and technology [emphasis added].

President Barack Obama, 9/17/10

“When I talk to [Energy Secretary] Steven Chu… nobody's a bigger champion for the cause of reducing climate change than he is. When I ask him how we are going to solve this problem internationally, what he'll tell you is that we can get about a third of this done through efficiencies and existing technologies, we can get an additional chunk through some sort of pricing in carbon, but ultimately we're going to need some technological breakthroughs. So the investments we're making in research and development around clean energy are also going to be important if we're going to be able to get all the way there" [1].

President Obama’s commitment to fighting climate change is admirable and his administration’s efforts have arguably gone farther than any in history (which truthfully is not saying a lot). Even so, in the President’s diagnosis of the problem and solutions of climate change, he mentions technologies several times but never advocates for conservation or any measure to reduce consumption. While investments in clean energy are a step in the right direction, this strategy represents a serious gamble and puts the future of the planet in the hands of the human ingenuity that helped us reach this environmentally perilous era. Only time will tell if technology will be a force of minimizing the size of human environmental footprints or if it will bring about widespread devastation. Hopefully, it is the former.

[1] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395?RS_show_page=4

Can We Keep Up

In the NY Times article Friedman’s article argues that the US is falling behind in a competition against China to create positive climate change. I think the idea is framing this issue within a competition construct is really beneficial to promote change. The whole idea could possible change the attitudes of the American public towards living a more sustainable life. As Emily discussed changing people’s attitudes is very important and this seems one way it can actually be achieved. Once people realize the thousands of jobs and opportunities being created in China through “green jobs” and clean energy technologies, I believe that we may actually push towards the same.

While I do not believe in the cornucopian idea that technology will save all, it will save a lot. The technology we have created in the past greatly polluted the environment, but that was really only because we didn’t know any better. No one had planned on really wrecking the environment this much. In creating new technologies (not the planned obsolescence products) we can build them to be more environmentally friendly.

I am glad Quinn pointed out that international summits have really led to more restrictions on developing countries while not including developed ones. I think it brings up a great point. Would this competition with China even exist if it was not told it had to do take this action? They have definitely achieved a lot either way, hopefully we can keep up.

The Global Race to be Green

Thomas Friedman’s article in The New York Times argues that the United States has fallen behind China and other nations in developing a clean energy economy. In our current economic model, competition is a powerful driver to motivate industry and citizens to do their part to build a better, brighter, and more sustainable future. Ultimately, our fate as a people does not obey artificial boundaries drawn by man. The United States, China, and every nation of the world must take rapid and significant steps to stem the tide of climate change. Whether through economic competition or collaboration, these actions must be taken.

Friedman does not point out in the article the billions of dollars allocated for clean energy in the 2009 recovery act that some have characterized as the largest single piece of environmental legislation in American history [1]. Also, the proposed renewable electricity standard in the US Senate has the potential to mobilize the clean energy economy in the United States [2]. While Emily and others in class have made a persuasive argument that technology can cause more environmental harm than good, this hopefully will be a scenario where this correlation turns around. Instead of enhancing our ability to exploit the Earth’s resources, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and other technologies can make a serious impact on decreasing greenhouse gases and limit pollutants that would be emitted through the burning of fossil fuels.

By recharging and stimulating the US and global clean energy sectors, we can build a truly green economy that harnesses the positive part of the ‘T’ in the =PAT equation. The scope of the problem of climate change is so vast that a market mechanism may be the only way to move rapidly enough towards a sustainable society. Ultimately, whether or not 'green' manufacturing and the competitive global race to create more environmentally friendly products lead to a truly sustainable society is less important than these initial steps to jump start the clean energy economy and start moving us on the path towards ecological balance.

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100826/us_time/08599201368300

[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42426.html

Competition is Our Friend

In his piece, "Aren't We Clever," Thomas Friedman gives a shocking realization that America is losing the race on climate action to China and other countries. Shocking actually is not the right word, in the past year or so China has made enormous strides at becoming a greener country. Before Copenhagen in 2009, China released their plan to reduce their carbon emissions (or as they call it "carbon intensity") by 40-45% by 2020. Added to that is their creation of a green dam project and a green technology sector that has collected investors from around the world. All of these projects create jobs, jobs that are part of the green revolution and will be sustained in a green world. The United States on the other hand is having difficulties just passing simple legislation and creates a public uprising over the idea of banning offshore drilling. So why is it shocking that China is ahead of the United States in this race to be green? I don't think it's shocking, I think it's upfront and I think it's and article that needed to be published so the American people can realize the lack of progress that we have made.

Emily brings up a good point, Americans are motivated by competition, we have been historically and we will continue to be as long as we have a market based economy. So talking about action on climate change as a race between the US and other countries does make sense. It allows us to see what we have accomplished and what we need to improve, it creates a standard. Even more so, competition creates a drive to win. The United States is a world power, whether it be in the Olympics or on the world stage, American want to win. So if we look at the action in terms of a race we are currently losing, but this realization of failure could be the motivation we need to really enact change.

We cannot rely solely on technology, it's plain and simple. We do not know what technology will be in the next decade or even in the next few years. It could be our saving grace or it could be our destroyer. We must focus on other aspects of the I=PAT equation while simultaneously focusing on technology. Yet if that technology has the purpose of promoting and creating "green" manufacturing it is much more likely that it will be beneficial to our future. I think, currently, we need to focus on more "green" manufacturing, after all we are still a country dependent on oil and there is nothing green about that. Greener products could lead to less of an impact of affluence since consumers would be purchasing products that were made with limited environmental harm and could be operated and disposed of with limited harm. But all of this is speculation and we are not at the point where we can afford to leave anything up to speculation.

Our Competitive Nature

The article makes a lot of sense. How did we land a man on the moon? We competed against the Soviet Union. We thought the future of democracy depended upon it and we fought for it. I think in many ways the economy is the central focus for many Americans now, like the Cold War was in the 60s. Framing it as a competition where the US will be left behind is brilliant. I believe this will inspire people to act more so than the current nonsensical sound bytes about global warming being a real issue or not.

With so much focus placed on the economy, why not frame our argument that way? The effects of global warming are too gradual to prompt action, so why not use the every day effects of the economy? This furthers an idea that we have talked about many times in class. There's this notion of choosing the environment or the economy, but really you can choose both with the promotion of "green industry." I don't think that the only way to address climate change is through an economic discussion, but since our other methods of discussing it have led to inaction thus far, something about our approach has to change.

There are two points where the article falls a bit flat. The first is the line "And because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money." I did not feel that the wasted money link was explained in any real sort of way. Furthermore the article completely ignored that this Chinese drive for green jobs is often being pushed upon the Chinese government by outside sources. International environmental summits have often led to more restrictions on the developing world than those countries already "developed."

don't understand this link

The race for "green jobs"

Much like the Maniates article from last week, I'm sort of torn about Friedman's piece. On the one hand, I think a Space Race-style rush for green jobs could be exactly what the US needs to jump-start its environmental action and get the government to take green initiatives seriously. On the other hand, though, Friedman is obviously of the cornicupian school of thought, and if we've learned anything from this class so far it's that there's a danger in assuming technology is our magic bullet that can save us all from global warming.

We talked a bit last week about the importance of changing peoples' attitudes towards environmentalism and eco practices, and I still think it's the single biggest obstacle facing the environmental movement today. To that end, a race with China could be great for the US, because it could finally get blue-collar workers on board with environmentally-friendly initiatives. If we frame the problem in terms of jobs, maybe people will be more accepting and open to new programs. Americans love competition (and I think most of them, though they probably won't admit, are either angry about or jealous of China's ability to produce so much so quickly), so this green jobs race could be the perfect paradigm shift that gives the environmental movement the momentum it's been lacking in certain parts of the country.

That doesn't solve the problem, though (in fact, it feeds into it), that I'm coming to believe more and more: Technology really isn't going to be able to save us, not completely. We really are going to have to make some sacrifices. While it could be that debates like this were beyond the scope of Friedman's article, I think it's pieces like his that are sort of perpetuating that myth that we can have our cake and eat it too. Bill McKibben certainly isn't fun to read, but I think maybe we need more writers and columnists like that to get us into the sort of mindset I think we have to get into. If someone as respected as Friedman starts talking about the sacrifices we need to make for the good of the planet, maybe people will listen. At the same time, though, McKibben brings up a great point about how Friedman's first two books didn't deal at all with global warming, and suddenly it was like the reality of climate change struck him over the head, and now he's all about being green. We can only hope such a drastic change happens to the rest of Americans, too.

Not easy, but realistic

In his article, Michael Maniates accuses the American public of taking easy steps to deal with environmental issues. He does place some blame on the government stating that “never has so little been asked of so many at such at critical moment”. I disagree with his argument that the government is talking down to us like we are children and that we are looking for the easy way out. Many people are not interested in environmental issues, and as sad as that is, it is just fact. People have so many other things to worry with like paying the bills, finding jobs, putting food on the table. We are not looking for the easy way out; we are looking for the most realistic ways to deal with environmental issues. Realistically everyone cannot afford to buy new hybrid cars, or place solar panels on their roofs or other big projects that are environmentally sustainable. It is more realistic to not run the water while you brush your teeth or turn the lights out when you leave a room; little actions are just more realistic right now.

Like Lisa and Stephen both stated, I agree with the argument that the little measures people are taking now will not hold out in the long run to fix our environmental problems, however they are stepping stones. It is these little measures that inform people and make them aware of the issue. In the long run, we need to government to take huge measures to counteract environmental issues and there will be issues of people be willing to change but hopefully by starting with these small actions people will be more aware and willing to change. I think we should go see him on campus when he is here so he can address Quinn’s question as to how to engage the public and push them past these small steps.

Going Green Isn't Easy, but ...

I have mixed feelings on the Maniates article. I absolutely agree with what you're saying, Stephen, when you argue that the first steps we must take are small ones. I think these small steps are even more important given the perception towards "environmentalism" in many (rural) parts of the country. You can't possibly expect someone who doesn't even believe in recycling (believe me, I've met them - they're some of my family members!) to stop eating beef from corn-fed cows or turn down his thermostat in the winter. I also agree with Lisa that this article is a bit more whiny than constructive.

At the same time, however, I can relate to his central argument, that we all need to grow up, stop bickering about whether or not climate change is real, and do something before it's too late, if it isn't already. Realistically I don't think we as a nation are there yet, but I can't help wishing we were. I also agree with what I think one of his underlying assumptions is: The government needs to have a bigger role in slowing climate change. While some of the greatest movements in America's recent history have come about because of a core of dedicated individuals, I think it's worth asking whether we have the luxury of the time it takes to build up that kind of movement. Maniates argues that "we're treated like children by environmental elites and political leaders too timid to call forth the best in us," but maybe we need to be treated more like children - maybe the government needs to step up, set real and significant environmental goals, and force us, through taxes or subsidies, to follow them. While that probably won't happen because of the way we've idolized economic growth, as McKibben describes, it would be one way to start reducing our carbon footprint immediately. In the end, though, I feel like we're back where we started - back to endless rounds of debates and conversations rather than taking constructive actions.

The Overstimulated Public

The juxtaposition of the Fish article and the Maniates article creates an interesting conundrum. While Maniates insists that our leaders must ask the public to do more and move past the easy be a better consumer approach Fish says even the basics are too much. This is the inherent problem Maniates faces. It's how to mobilize the consumers to think beyond their own actions when often they aren't even making that small step. Maniates suggests that the general be public be asked of greatness, yet how do you reach greatness when they are disinterested. Yes, there is more each person could be doing, but how do you make people understand the urgency of the situation? Such as the situation Stephen was in last weekend where the campground manager didn't even recycle.

I agree with both of my group mates that no action should be discouraged. With such an indifferent public flooded with images of a bad economy, constant lay offs, failing public school systems, and two different wars, I'm unsure how this vague concept of the environment will break through. You can't discourage those who at least have the environment on their radar.

My question to you, Mr. Maniates, is how do you engage the public and push them past these small steps?

Easily Going Green

In his 2007 article Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It, Micheal Maniates introduces the idea the the cost-effective, everyday habits that society is feeding to Americans, simply won't cut it in the long run. Maniates believes that the government has little faith in the American public to be able to handle any sort of environmental measure that could be construed as something other than "easy". Changing the time you take in a shower to a shorter one is one thing, but it would be ludicrous to ask for something more difficult. I agree with Maniates's assessment that these simple practices will not get us that far in the long run of the environmental movement, but I do not belive that demerits them by any measure. In fact, I would argue that these are th eonly measures which an average person can currently make and the buildup of environmental consciousness and personal action that these small changes of habit are making will only prove to be beneficial in the long run.
In his article, Maniates gives a list of historical movements which he claims did not come to rise due to "individualistic, consumer-centered actions". However true this may be, that does not mean that these movements did not start with small individual actions. Let's take the civil rights movement for example; it was the actions of certain individuals (Rosa Parks, various students) which lead to the famous "I have a dream speech". Sure these actions were preplanned but they were also actions that break habits (sitting in segregated areas for example). There are obviously differences in the situations, but either way, the individual is challenging themselves to break habits and that is the backbone of the movement.
What I find most troubling about this article is, if we shouldn't focus our attention of imporving our individualist consumer-actions then what should we do? Maniates doesn't even give suggestions of something more that Americans can do, he justs leaves it that we should do more. I personally can't think of anything more we can do without some sort of government leadersip which is just not present at this time. I don't think it's a case of the environmental elites or political leaders looking at their subordinates and simplifying things for them as much as it is that these simple actions are the only things feasible for a large mass of people to do.

The necessity of being an easy going green

Michael Maniates makes an important point in his column on going ‘green’. He argues that a series of small, piecemeal environmental efforts will never be enough to start a sustainable revolution and allow the United States to confront the massive challenges of climate change. Maniates also says that environmentalists are wrong to talk down to Americans and only assume that they can only accomplish “easy” green initiatives. While I agree with Mainates that there is far more to building a more sustainable world than changing a few lightbulbs and recycling, I think that every effort and increasing environmental consciousness is valuable and that sometimes easy actions can lead to more meaningful changes in unsustainable habits.

Climate change and environmental sustainability remain surprisingly controversial subjects in the United States and some audiences remain unreceptive to types of environmental actions that are beyond cost effective and common sense measures. For instance, I recently returned from a retreat with the School of Public Affairs at a campground on the mouth of the Potomac River as it flows into Chesapeake Bay. After collecting the plastic bottles and paper that our group used, I asked the campsite manager where the recycling facility was. He replied that it cost him too much money to pay for recycling service and that he did not see the benefits of recycling. If residents in an area of so much natural beauty cannot commit to recycling, how will they be convinced of taking immediate steps to lower their carbon footprint by 80%? There is a more feasible path to sustainability however by opening a dialogue with individuals such as the one at the campground and explaining the benefits of recycling combined with the economic incentives of paying less to dispose of trash and improving the health of the Chesapeake in a way that would attract more visitors.

In the end, while Mainates is absolutely correct that there is a great deal more to do than what is easy to solve our planet’s environmental problems, this is where we start. Unlike other previous struggles, the environmental movement cannot afford to create enemies or alienate people who are unwilling to make even the smallest of sacrifices for the planet. If we start with what is easy but encourage citizens to think about their environmental impact on a daily basis, we can spark the change we need to build a sustainable society.

Changes in the Global Environment

After reading the Fish article, I couldn’t help but laugh. The poor man, as he says, does not want to save the planet he just wants to live here in peace. He is very cynical about the changes he has made to “better the environment”. He points out common issues that a lot of people have with more environmentally friendly products such as the cost or the differences such as dimmer light bulbs or bad tasting meat. I think it is safe to say that if it wasn’t for his wife, Mr. Fish would probably go back to the products that he is used to. It just shows the dilemma of living as an environmentalist; however as Lisa stated being educated and informed on the issues is a good first step.

This just reflects one issue facing the environment and that is the idea that huge changes need to be made and not everyone is willing to make those changes. Feelings and attitudes toward the environment are a huge challenge facing the global environment. During my sophomore year, I participated in the Washington Semester international environment and development program. It became very evident after a trip to Ghana that semester that the global environment is not something people really care about. In Ghana for example the people had more important things to worry about than whether or not their actions were hurting the environment so for example people would burn forests in order to clear land for their personal needs. Overall people are not as worried about the future of the environment and are only living for the now so they are not willing to make changes. The global environment is a very big thing that needs collaborated work in order to deal with.

Good Environmentalism

I think its interesting that we have all had similar struggles about being a good environmentalists, the Fish article puts in perspective a whole plethora of internal struggles that one can have. Since high school I have considered myself an environmentalist, and I have worn the stereotype proudly, but I often wonder if I am enough of environmentalist. I have always done the recycling thing, I have created award winning recycling programs for a high school. I've worked on multiple environmental campaigns, and even interned for Greenpeace, USA, and it can be argued that Greenpeace is the face of the modern day environmental movement. Yet even while working in this green office I still wondered if I was a good enough environmentalist.
My first day at the office I was very concerned that I would not be accepted because I was not a vegetarian. Its silly but I was seriously concerned that I would enter an office full of vegans and would be turned away because I wasn't one too. I have a huge amount of respect for vegans and vegetarians but I come from a big Italian family and the idea of not eating meat or dairy is something that is not even an option. Luckily found that only about half of the office is actually vegetarian/vegans, the other half are proudly consumers of meat. They all try to consume locally, but so I do, when I can afford it. What I'm really trying to get out of this story is that on this day I learned a very important message, that you will not always fit into the stereotype of an environmentalist but that does not make you less of one.
To me, being an environmentalist does not mean that you used recycled paper toilet paper, drive a hybrid car, and only eat locally produced vegetables. Those are lifestyle choices and ones that are extremely expensive, college students like myself cannot even dream of afford this right now. I think being an environmentalist means being informed of the issues and feeling motivated to try to make some sort of proactive difference. This doesn't have to be a global difference, it is often forgotten how much can be changed on a local level. My favorite thing about being an environmentalist is jumping into a stream to pick up trash, not something most people think to do when they try be more environmentally friendly. Once we acknowledge the issues it becomes easier to adapt to living an "environmentally-friendly" way in the modern-day US, we might not all go buy hybrid cars but we might go buy reusable grocery bags. Its a guilt trip, but sometimes guilt can be a good motivator. I consider myself informed and I do everything within my power to be environmentally-friendly so when I do get those occasional internal struggles they soon past because I know that for me I am doing everything I can, and that's what it means to be a good environmentalist.

The Problem of a Global Environment

Although I agree that it is certainly is difficult to enact environmental change when a number of people don't consider themselves "environmentalists" for the reasons that Stephen and Emily listed. But I think the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is that it is global. What one country does effects everyone. An attempt to change the way we interact with our environment must be global in order to have the desired effects. Furthermore, if one country tries to reform and reduce its dependency on oil that will lead to less demand for oil. The drop in demand on the global markets will make the cost of oil go down, thus making it more cost effective for other countries. This then means that the global oil use will inflate right back to its original levels despite the conservation of a single nation. It's our intertwined economies and fates that ultimately make this so challenging.

Building off of what my group-mates have said in regards to the Fish article, I think it is tricky to be an "environmentalist" in today's society. Public transportation is virtually nonexistent in many cities across the US and sometimes one is endangering themselves while biking. Even things within our reach, like buying locally grown food or a windmill in our backyard have an extra cost upfront. Though they may benefit us in the long-run, especially in terms of being able to sustain life on this planet, it's hard to see the long-term benefit as we are trying to balance our checkbooks. Fish goes further than just the cost problem of many "environmentally friendly" items and explains that he down right prefers the products that taste better, that he can just throw away, or that give off more light despite their extra toll on the environment. That sort of discussion is honest, but also explains our need for comfort. It's hard to think about future generations when your stomach is grumbling for a good bacon cheeseburger. It's just this sort of thought that is standing in the way of protecting our environment to ensure that there will be enough resources for future generations.

-Quinn Pregliasco

Environmentalism

While I have always considered myself to be an environmentalist, until this class, I never thought deeply about what the practice of environmentalism truly means. I was fascinated by our class discussion about whether environmentalists must be activists, whether they are required to take action, and whether they are "extreme". I have always hoped to live in a world where everyone is an environmentalist. We all live on this planet and all depend on it to survive. It is deeply troubling to me that climate change, pollution regulation, and other environmental issues have become political and partisan. I hope that no matter what one defines as an environmentalist that we can move forward towards a world in which environmental issues are debated through a lens of unity and inclusion rather than division and misinformation.

Articles such as Confronting Consumption and others raise important questions about what it means to be an environmentalist. Their arguments seem far more compelling to me than contrary articles advocating for continued economic growth in the face of environmental degredation. The shocking environmental impact of Americans through our way of life makes it difficult for one to care about the environment yet consume far more than one's fair share of the world's resources. I am a member of Eco-Sense, in the sg department of environmental policy, and an environmental studies major yet still need to eat, use electricity, transport myself, and consume far more resources than I should to support a sustainable planet. Is it even possible to be an environmentalist that 'walks the walk' in the United States or any industrialized nation?

I don't know all of the steps that need to be taken to create a more sustainable society, but it is clear that change on a systemic and fundamental level is necessary to sustain our human population. In order to do this, I think environmentalists need to reach out to people that would not normally consider themselves interested in green issues and engage them on these pressing concerns. We need to shed the mantles of perceived elitism and guilt and instead frame environmental issues as moral imperatives to lift our world up, renew our economic future, and sustain the bounty of human kind.

"Good Environmentalism"

It's funny that this is our first blog post, because my friends and I were actually just debating this question - what challenges does environmentalism face today - one our way home from our labor day weekend road trip. (Does it make me not an environmentalist if I drove? What if there were three other people in the car?) I think that the biggest challenge for environmentalism today is the attitude surrounding it. Where I grew up (Pittsburgh, PA), "environmentalist" was a bit of a dirty word. It's a little bit amazing to me to walk down Bethesda Row and see entire stores devoted to "green living," because it's so unlike what I'm used to. Back home, people regard environmentalists as tree-hugging hippies who care more for polar bears than "good American jobs." Though I don't really agree with these types of attitudes, I do understand them, and I think they are the single biggest obstacle the environmental movement is going to have to overcome if we want to make the average American's lifestyle greener. I think to get more people on-board with greener lifestyle initiatives we have to change that attitude about environmentalism. We need to show people that living with a more eco-conscious focus doesn't have to be something only hippies and radicals do. I'm not quite sure how to achieve that shift in perception, but I think it's going to be very important if we want other (more rural) parts of the country to start living greener.

Similarly, I thought Fish's article was quite interesting because I see that same struggle playing out in my house. I tell my parents we should buy recycled toilet paper, and they look at me like I've grown another head. While I was on vacation this summer there wasn't curb-side pickup of recyclables, so my boyfriend and I found a recycling station about 15 minutes away to take all our stuff at the end of the week. It wasn't a big step, but it was one a lot of people in my family wouldn't have taken. Being a "good environmentalist" can be quite difficult, especially given some of the stereotypes surrounding it. While I think it's necessary, it certainly isn't easy, especially if others in your household don't always see the point or think it's worth the effort. Being from the pretty rural suburbs of Pittsburgh, I also understand the difficulty of transportation -  Pittsburgh's public transportation system is pretty terrible, and most of the time it barely reaches into the suburbs. Biking isn't an option because it's too unsafe, and distances are too far to walk, so driving is left as the only option. As I become more aware of environmental arguments that makes me feel guilty (see above about this weekend's road trip), but what's the alternative? I think a lot of people today are struggling to live in an environmentally conscious way but are maybe at a loss as to what they can do. Along those same lines, sometimes struggling to live greener can be quite expensive - for example, my parents have looked into getting one of those backyard windmills for some of our energy needs (we live on top of a hill, so it would work pretty well), but the cost is around $14,000. It's difficult to justify spending that much money while sending two kids to college. Our conversation on the way home from our weekend trip brought up a similar point - is it better to trade in your reasonably well-cared for, not-yet-that-old car which may not have the best gas mileage for a new Prius? Does buying the new, eco-friendly car justify ditching (and probably wasting) those older but still working car materials? After what feels like a lot of rambling, I think I'm left with more questions than answers.