Cynicism and Idealism

Two hundred years from now Washington, DC landscape will be vastly altered if we continue on this path of ecological destruction. The number population of DC will be huge. The city will look more like New York City, with only skyscrapers visible. All the trees and parks will be terminated to accommodate more room for residential life. The DC population of deer, squirrels and birds are all gone. DC will have a large problem with cockroaches and rats. Most skyscrapers will freely allow rodents to inhabit there. The Potomac River will be toxic and very deadly. People will not be able to live by it without developing mysterious cancers. The metro will have expanded but also run poorly. It takes commuters two hours to get from McLean VA to Metro Center. Sea levels around DC will rise causing DC to be smaller. The bridges will get closed down often due to flooding. Mosquitoes will be a year round problem.

The Woodley Park National Zoo will no longer exist. Almost all species will be extinct except for a few zoos in areas like London, New York, Berlin and Hong Kong. The US Capitol will have been moved to Connecticut due to the security risk of living in poverty stricken and terrorist haven DC. There will be shells of old automobiles found all throughout the city. Cars will no longer be able to be used due to their CO2 emissions and the lack of gasoline available. Only the President and a few rich men use cars now. Everyone must ride on buses, walk, or bike. If a person is lucky they can grab the metro. But the metro will be so crime ridden and insanely packed that it will no longer be a valuable resource.

In an ideal world, DC will have more vegetation. There will have been an increase in the amount of trees seeded. For every building that is built, a contractor has to plant 500 trees around the DC area. There will be no cars in the city, except for government officials like the President, Senators, and Congressman. The metro will be an extremely effective system that gets anywhere in the city within fifteen minutes. Rounds every minute. Buses will also be used all throughout the city. Cars were banned in 2020.

Most people will live in houses still but have gardens to grow fruits, vegetables and herbs in their back yard. The houses will be severely altered with solar heat panels equipped on all the buildings. Water will have to be attained and purchased from a water plant. Each person will be allotted a certain amount of water. No person can take longer than 5-minute showers. The showers will be luke warm. Washing machines and dryers no longer exist. The Potomac will be one of the best places to go fishing, with strict laws on who and how much a person can fish. The UN oversees all bodies of water. The population will have severely decreased in 2050 with the UN Summit on Population Control.

Picturing DC in 2209

It is so hard to imagine what DC will look like in 200 years, because everything from lifestyle(food, clothing, housing, transportation, consuming habit, relationship with environment) to technology(energy supply, manufacturing system) will be totally different from 2009. There will be minimum park or green area in DC. The population of DC will increase enormously as any other state will be. Then there must be some form of residential complexes and stores that would serve the population. Theses complexes would be taller than any building that was ever built in Washington DC. However, each unit in the complexes would be very small in order to accommodate as many people as possible. I believe no buildings are shorter than the Washington Monument in 2209. Also I think large stores such as Target, Costco, or Best Buy would be reduced in physical size. The highly developed technology could transform large stores into something like banding machine that would only take up minimum area but provide what people need. In addition, it would be hard to see cars run on oil. In other words, there will be less use of oil but more of other alternative energies such as hydro, wind, solar, biogas or thermal energy. The size of vehicles will be reduced as well to be more energy efficient.
What I hope Washington DC to be in 200 years different from what I assume it to be. I want the big stores to be minimized as I assume them to be. However, I do not want thousands and thousands of small stores to take up all DC area. Then it is not any different than current situation. As the stores, factories or business complex reduce in size, I hope green area would expand. We not only should preserve the green area that we currently have but also try very hard to make more green areas. I also hope that by 2209 we have much greener technology that would help us to consume and spend in environmental friendly way. What I really like to see is kids running around and playing with their pets in their backyard. I wish we all could live in small but beautiful house with a garden rather than living in a tight cell in tall residential building.

That’s the way it should be.

Washington DC 2209. Sea level has risen by 3 metres. The National monuments have been displaced, and whatever is left from the Reagan Nation Airport is now underwater. The President of the United States needn’t take more than 10 steps out his back porch to watch flow by, the toxic waters of the Potomac River.

The number of climate change refugees has been on the constant rise since 2009, but chronic disease outbreaks due to increased population density and decreased access to clean water keep population numbers in check. The region is in great debt—all the money collected from taxes is being used towards keeping the waters from engulfing the city, creating shelters and emergency plans to protect Washington from ruthless seasonal storms and fighting constant disease outbreaks. No money is left to fund the region’s climate change prevention program.

Supermarkets are full and the population is depressed. What people want is here, what they need is missing. Hybrid cars and biofuels just didn’t do the trick.

A teenager walks by the White House, glances at the solar panel coated roof, That’s the best they could do?

--

Now, Washington DC 200 Annus Abeo. Society has changed quite a bit since drastic national measures were put in place during the Year of Change. Human greed and carelessness have been replaced by wisdom and environmentalism. Respect can now be gained by diminishing your carbon footprint. People are physically and psychologically healthier.

Methods of carbon sequestration have reduced the amount of harmful greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, and the compulsory internalization of externalities has reduced the carbon footprint of DC’s industries to a near zero. Surveys show a net improvement in the city’s air and water quality. Fish swim freely in the Potomac and Anacostia River.

Eat locally is D.C.’s new motto. People walk and bike to the farmer’s markets that flood the streets of the city. The air is clean, the streets are peaceful. The chirping of the birds cover the low hum of the solar powered tramway. Who would have thought the air would one day smell so good?

Every household in the city relies on natural reusable energy to power their needs. With plate glass windows, solar panel rooftops, grey water catchment systems and geothermal heating, all needs are covered. Waste is an ancient word that can only be found in history books. Everything is reused and restored. The loop is complete.

Children run around the green city’s gardens playing Raise Your Own Tree as their great-grandparents watch them thinking, That’s the way it should be.

The Washington, DC of the Future

Environmentalists have a broad range of ideas about what climate change will mean, how quickly it will occur, and how well humans will be able to cope with the change. Some believe that serious climate change will not occur for a few generations, whereas others assert that climate change will occur much quicker, within a few decades.

I believe that in 200 years, Washington, D.C. will be a very different place. If humans continue the ecological pattern they have been on, then the impacts of climate change are going to be visible most likely during my lifetime, and extremely likely during the lifetime of my future child. The Washington, D.C. of 2209 will probably be much more advanced in terms of technology and will have been able to deal with climate change to a certain extent, but the planet will look very different. The environment will have been seriously impacted by human activities such as deforestation, greenhouse gases, and other man-made environmentally destructive technologies. This environmental destruction will have greatly lessened the amount of green space in DC. Rock Creek Park will look more like Rock Creek Backyard. Even Northern Virginia, were I've grown up and which has always been full of trees and greenery will look a lot more like a city, full of increasing high rises.

If humans continue on the path we have been on in terms of environmental degradation, the ice caps are going to continue to melt, which will in turn cause a rising in sea levels. Due to this rise in sea levels, eventually huge areas near the water are going to become a part of the sea. Washington, D.C. is not incredibly close to the water but in 200 years it will be much closer. People will be able to take 30 minute drives to the oceanfront because places like Virginia Beach and Rehobeth in Delaware will be underwater.

So the amount of greenery in DC and the surrounding suburbs will have been considerably lowered in 200 years, and ocean levels will have risen to such an extent that D.C. will be considered not only our nation's capital but also a beach destination. People will spend little time outdoors, however, because temperatures will have risen to an extraordinarily high level and the amount of disasterous storms affecting the region will have risen greatly due to climate change. Visits to the beach will be few and far between because of the frequency of tsunamis and hurricanes which will occur. All in all, if we continue on the ecological path we are headed on, the Washington, D.C. which will be around for our future generations will not be a place most people would want to live.

I hope that this scenario will not turn out to be the case. I love Washington, D.C. I've grown up here and the parks surrounding the city are some of my favorite places to visit. As a child I often used to walk along the paths of Difficult Run or spend time walking around in the field near my house. These green spaces are quickly being taken over by technology and development, however. The field near my house is now made up almost entirely of residences. I hope that this process of man-made taking over nature-made will not continue to spread as quickly as it has been, but the amount of new development taken place in my area is excessive.

Hopefully, we will all realise the importance of changing our habits in order to be more ecologically friendly, and the climate crisis will be slowed. If there are major changes made to the way we live our lives in terms of our ecological footprint, and positive steps are made to reduce climate change, then the D.C. of the future doesn't have to look like the image I described above. The D.C. of 2209 could be a lot like the D.C. we know today, although some lifestyle changes will have had to have been made. The kids of the future will know a lot more about climate change and will be conscientious of their choices. Environmental ideas which are in a lot of ways on the fringe nowadays, such as recycling everything, buying locally and turning off lights when you leave a room will be ingrained in the minds of the kids of 2209. Our future generations will also be taught about the environment at school to a much greater extent. They will have grown up thinking about the environment in terms of every subject: math, science, literature and more. They will have learned to conserve energy and to take shorter showers to save water. The standard house will be built using ecologically friendly materials, lightbulbs will all be environmentally low-impact, carpooling will be a part of everyday life, buildings will have green roofs and there will be recycling bins of all kinds on every streetcorner. Environmental change will have been postponed to such an extent that there will have been minimum change in terms of ice cap melting and deforestation, and the o-zone will not have depleted much futher. More people will ride bikes and metro will have been transformed into a more green mode of transportation. All cars will be hybrids, or some technologically advanced car model which is good for the environment. The food that the people of the future will eat will all be locally grown from farms in the suburbs and rural areas not too far from the city. There will be many green areas in the city and the surrounding area; more even than there are now. I hope that the Washington, D.C. of 2209 will be a good example of a "green city" where the people, the infrastructure, everything is environmentally friendly.

Unfortunately, if we stay on the ecological path we have been on, then the first scenario I talked about is more likely what the D.C. of 2209 will look like. The environmentally friendly D.C. of the future is an extremely idealized model, hoping that enough people will realize the importance of preserving the environment to make this kind of major lifestyle shift. It will not be easy to transform peoples' ideas about their lives and what they deserve, but it is possible. D.C. will most likely never be the "green city" I hope for and imagine, but it doesn't have to be the environmentally devoid city I described in the beginning. Hopefully future generations will live in a D.C. that is still thriving, but which is environmentally conscious.

Lazy Sunday's

Maniates makes the argument that main stream environmentalist theories do not encompass the problems of the environment and thus allows Americans to slip into the habit of apathy and lazyness when it comes to matters of the environment. Maniates states that there are certain things we can do to change our impact on the environment, but they are not enough. For example he states “Avoiding the worst risks of climate change…may require reading U.S. carbon emissions by 80 percent in the next 30 years” (Maniates). The US is not embracing environmental change and damage, and instead of important environmentalist being aggressive about the world’s fate: they produce stories like “It’s Easy Being Green” or “The Lazy Environmentalist,” which shows an unrealistic approach to environmental change. Maniates states that we can not afford to be the lazy environmentalist, these problems need to be fixed now.

I do agree with Maniates argument comparing the environmental movement to Civil Rights. Where would we be if MLK gave a speech on the easy way to not being a racist? We need to be realistic and take a tuff stand on reducing our impact on the world. At the same time, I think that Maniates could have given some advice on how to heads towards a tuff environmental policy in the US. It is pretty obvious that we are not realistically headed in that direction and we are going to need large social changes to get people to stop consuming at this rate. I think its important to come up with large dynamic environmental plans, when writing articles like these, because at least the article gives you some direction of where to go from here. The reader knows that we have to reduce carbon emissions, but we don’t know how to get policies changed in the US.

-Tracey Swan

Group 5 Presentation: How to Discuss

I think that we should discuss how the fear of technological change fits into environmentalism. We could talk about how one of the arguments about how climate crisis can be averted is through technological developments which will allow us to grow more food using considerably less resources, and other technologies which could basically make nature obsolete. But the arguments in both the Joy article and in Brave New World by Huxley show that a world in which the natural way we live our lives is changed would not necessarilly be a good one.

The Joy and Huxley pieces do not necessarily talk about environmental devestation, but they do discuss technological progress getting rid of our individual choices and technology actually making those choices for us. It doesn't take too much of a leap to extend this to the environment and what kind of environment would exist in a world controlled by technology. Although we can't look into the intelligent design of robots and see what kind of decisions they would make, I don't see robots making particularly good choices towards nature. The whole debate here just goes into something basic about man-made versus nature-made, two things which are often at odds with each other since man has created many technological products which devestate the natural world.

We could talk about how their are two choices for mankind: continue this path of increasing technology which could lead to losing our individual freedoms and our environment or give up some of our freedoms now, such as the ability to have many kids and to consume as much as we want in order to maintain our freedoms and our planet for the future.

Do we want to all talk generally about the topic, or do we each want to talk about a specific aspect of the readings?

Group 5 Presentation -- Wired & Huxley

I think the main points of the article by Bill Joy are that

1.  He believes the biggest danger facing us in the 21rst century is technology. Not because it's pollutng but because we are headed such a way that we are most likely going to create machines more powerful than mankind, machines capable of taking over mankind. 

2. He mentions that the reason why the problem is occurring now, in the 21rst century, is because we have entered a new wave of technology: robots, engineered organisms and nanotechonlogy. And that these have the dangerous power to self-replicate 

3. He offers a coupld of solution to this problem: "erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous technologies," "move beyond Earth as quickly as possible"

4. "If we could agree, as a species, what we wanted, where we were headed ,and why, then we would make our future much less dangerous -- then we might understand what we can and should relinquish." We should come at peace with nature and stop our thirst for creation. Scientists must "adopt a strong code of ethical conduct": we must make sure that we don't create machines that have the capacities of mass destruction.

Final point: "common sense says there is a limit to our material needs and that certain knowledge is too dangerous and best foregone."

The piece by Huxley is an illustration of such a hypothesis. It's a satire of what the future would look like if we followed a utopic path of social stability, in a world ruled by machines. In the Brave New World, humans aren't brought up as being part of a family, children are raised communally and information in injected in their brains in their sleep. Therefore, their mind, "the mind that judges and desires and decides" is made up of what the controllers say. 

I thought it was a great passage. It says alot about freedom and discovery. And relates very well to the article by Bill Joy. 

How do you all want to go about discussing these articles?

Easy Being Green?

I enjoyed reading the Washington Post article “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It” by Michael Maniates. I also definitely agreed with many of his points that how easy doing just not enough to preserve our planet. Whenever I do essay things such as recycling, taking a short shower or using an energy efficient light bulb intending to save the plant, I always asked myself am I really helping the environment or am I going to make any difference to the climate changes? Disappointingly I know that I would not matter much in a big picture of the environment. However, I do it anyway, because I just feel good about myself. I believe most of Americans are in my shoes. They just do it to feel good about themselves, and they only do easy effortless things. However, the whole picture of environment is bigger than what we think. People hope to help the environment by doing easy, fast, simple and stylish actions. These “simple solutions” for the environment are hardly enough to bring any changes, because there are no such a “simple solutions” for the environment. The environment is so damaged by so many people for such a long period; we need long tern collective solutions. None of the action we take today will appear as positive impact on the environment the very next day. “We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins” (Maniates). These fundamental changes could take our time and money and be what politician and celebrities like to avoid talking about them. I am sure the politicians and celebrities do not want to risk their position and popularity by making any dramatic environmental statements. But I see them so comical that they just want to be appeared as if they care so much about it. I think the politicians and celebrities who have enormous advantage in media coverage or mobilization of people should stand in the front line of making really changes to save the planet. No one should think easy doing is enough doing.

The Power of Rhetoric

I agree with many of the points which Michael Maniates makes in his Washington Post article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." It's true that making small changes to our choices probably won't have much of an impact on slowing climate change. Although no one is arguing that it is a bad thing to recycle, to use energy-efficient light sources, to use the same reusable grocery bag every time you shop, and to turn off the water when you brush your teeth, these things alone will most likely not make the kind of drastic difference in climate change which will be necessary.

The environmental problem facing us is much larger than that, and I truly believe that it is going to take a huge overhaul of the way we all think about how we use resources. Telling people that climate change will be easily improved if you just recycle a little bit more is not going to bring about real change, because many people will think that if reducing our impact on the planet is as simple as that, then climate change is not a cause for real concern.

Mr. Maniates is on the right track with thinking about the power of rhetoric. A good, powerful speech can rouse people out of their stupor and truly make them think about the problems facing this earth. A powerful orator has a unique ability to stir something in the listener that makes him or her feel compelled to act. And we are ready to combat climate change. I know that it won't be an easy task to accomplish, but the most rewarding accomplishments never are.

I personally never feel that accomplished when I do something that didn't take much effort to complete. When I really feel good about what I've done is when I work hard and toil away at a project and at the end really feel like I have made something worthwhile; that I have made something to be proud of. If the world comes together to fight against climate change, and if we are inspired by some powerful speakers who give us the motivation to really do something about this problem, then we can do something about this problem.

I'm going to go ahead and make an assertion: reversing or atleast tampering climate change is not going to happen if we only make a few small changes to our lifestyles. Combatting climate change will require a lot of us; it will probably require reevaluation of the comfortable way in which we live our lives. But it will be worth it.

If those with the power to make a difference don't make one, how can we make them?

I agree with Professor Maniates that books entitled "The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time" are dangerously misleading since the environmental crisis we are facing currently has no simple solution to it. Still, I see a value in them in that they are a good way of raising awareness in people uneducated on the topic.

I also agree with Professor Maniates' when he says that "we need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins." However, this is a hard task, mostly because positive efforts and good intentions are choked by the socio-political system in place. Therefore, even though "a slowing of the growth of environmental damage" by "tweaking on the margins" is " hardly enough," it is also essential as it will save us precious time that is needed to find a realistic drastic solution to the crisis.

I have a hard time imaging how a drastic solution can be adopted considering there is still a large portion of the population that is unwilling to make small changes such as driving hybrid cars, installing solar panels in their households or even the smallest change such as switching to energy efficient light bulbs. That being said, I still think we should change the system so to stop people from destroying the planet. I'm just not sure how at this point. And with so many "lazy" people in developed countries, it's hard to be positive on the topic.

If those with the power to make a difference don't, how can we make them?
How can we get to the political and corporate giants and get them to put in place the fundamental changes we want to see happen??

Denial

The Foundry article articulated the viewpoint that “The Story of Stuff” is a leftist video trying to make children feel ashamed for living in American. The Foundry article does point out that the movie has some extreme viewpoints in it, but at the same time it displays our amazing ability to deny environmental degradation. I agree that “The Story of Stuff” has an extreme viewpoint, but I think its necessary for Annie Leonard to give a difficult perspective because it gets across to the public our consumer obsessed nation. I personally was proud that Torre Batker asked if his legos would be bad for the planet, because it shows that the video is making younger generation think about consumption. The only way for American’s to change their environment is if future generations are properly educated and begin to think about issues like consumption and environment degradation at an early age. I agree with Steve Cohen, the article may have some disparities in it, but getting Americans to think about their consumer choices can only benefit our society not hurt it.

-Tracey Swan

The Story of Stuff

I personally loved this film by Leonard. As a new comer to the environmental study fields, I thought this film was easy, compelling and entertaining enough to catch my attention. This film is certainly good start point for any people, young or old who are interest in learning about the environment. I liked how the film did not have over load of information. Since obviously this film is not for the experts in the environmental issue, it is better not to overwhelm people with excessive information that could scare people way from simply being interested in this topic. However, we cannot say this film is targeting children as the article by the Heritage Foundation did, because it is easy, simple and animated. It is true that there were some generalization of American’s materials economy. However, I do not think that this film has any intention to enforce negative aspects of the society to the children of our nation. Despite Cohen’s argument that this film is only states guilt of consuming and wasting rather than providing workable solution, the film actually provides some guidelines or solution to have better environment such as green chemistry, renewable energy and local living economy.

Politics, politics, always politics

I thought “The Story of Stuff” was well done, very powerful and brought up some very important points.
But that the debate surrounding it has, once again, taken a political turn.

I liked Steve Cohen’s article but there are a few things he says that bothered me. First, he mentions that the movie exposes problems without giving answer. But I thought it did give answers. It tells the audience, in the last 3 minutes or so, a list of things that can be done to work towards making our system circular instead of linear. Annie Leonard doesn’t go too much into details but I think she does so on purpose so that the audience can asks itself the question: “well then what can I do?” It’s for people to innovative and come up with original solutions. Solutions that have not yet been proposed.
Secondly he writes, "our survival depends on our ingenuity and our ability to develop and manage technological fixes" but as the video points out, more than a technological problem, there is an inherent problem in the socio-political system that shapes it. The people controlling the system are creating barriers to progress: problems of consumerism and obsolescence must be tackled first and foremost. If we just change technology half the problem still remains
He does make a good point though when he says that the lives of people in third world countries depend on the sustaining of our current consumption . But the idea exposed in the movie is not that all industries should be eradicated but that they must be replaced. So where jobs will disappear, new, less harmful jobs will form. "The answer to the “story of stuff” is not to shut down the economy, but change the way it operates."

As for the second article, the Heritage Foundation is a pro-capitalism conservative think tank, so even thought their answer shocked me at first, now that I think about it, it doesn’t surprise me at all. The author spends more time criticizing Annie Leonard’s political affiliation than the facts exposed in her movie. About the perceived obsolescence passage, the Heritage Foundation writes, "so when they don’t ask for new shoes this summer, it is because they have been scared into this extreme liberal way of thinking." For one thing, this point is ridiculous. I, myself, have a very strong memory of refusing to go to school when I was 7 or 8 years old because I had forgotten my new, trendy jacket at school and so had to wear my old one. And for another, politics and this “extreme liberal way of thinking” is not the point of the movie. The point of the movie is to open peoples’ eyes on what’s going on in the world and why we’re faced with a problem.

Of course the video is taking a political stance by saying companies should shrink and governments should be of the people and for the people but the idea its getting at is real. We are trashing the planet. Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, the state of the earth remains and something needs to be done.

p.s. it does disappoint me that Annie Leonard's 50% figure is wrong but, for one, the figure is probably not 20% either, but rather somewhere in between.. and for two, that's a 5 second mistake in a 20 minute movie. Not a Big Deal, just a good tool for people that want to discredit her.

Partisan politics

"The Story of Stuff" with Annie Leonard really caught my attention even though I already knew much of the information provided in the video. I like how the video focused on telling us the whole story, every step of the way, and how it is all interconnected.

I am dissappointed that the reaction to the video has seemingly played out once again as a Republican vs. Democrat debate. I believe that the only way this climate crisis will ever be solved will be through throwing partisan politics out the window on this issue and coming together as a cohesive unit to combat environmental concerns. This belief stems from my feeling that the environmental crisis is too big a problem to be tackled if we let ourselves get caught up in petty bickering and divisiveness.

I've long been a staunch believer in nonpartisan politics. The summer after my sophomore year of high school, I attended the Sorensen Institute for Political Leaderships' High School Leaders Program at UVA. The program focused on thoughtful, nonpartisan discussion of issues facing the state of Virginia, and brought together high school students from throughout the Commonwealth of VA for the two week program. During this time, the most important rule was that no one could divulge their political leanings, not even the professors or program coordinators. This fostered a feeling of freedom in the classroom where I did not fear speaking about my ideals. Everyone thoughtfully listened to everyone's point of view. At the end of the program, our class formed a website where everyone wrote in what political party they aligned with, and I was suprised by many of my classmates' responses. I was also surprised to learn that it didn't change how I felt about these people at all: they were my friends, and that was that. Political divisiveness tears us apart. What I learned during my time at Sorensen is that we can all learn to work together, even with people who have views that differ greatly from our own. I have continued to embrace nonpartisan politics or atleast friendly discussion between political parties, and have been particularly pleased with Virginia's previous governor, Mark Warner, who embraced a more moderate approach to politics to bring Virginia together to focus on issues important to the Commonwealth.

The debate over "The Story of Stuff" seems to have once again pitted Republican versus Democrat. The debate has moved away from the actual content of the video and has turned into another excuse for partisan bickering and divisiveness, which does not solve ANYTHING! People always have the right to have an opinion, and they ofcourse have the right to say that they do not like Annie Leonard's film. But the critique should not be based solely on maintaining opinions down a party line, which seems to have happened here. Just look at where the sources are from: the article giving (mostly) positive feedback (although it raises some issues with the content and discusses how there might be some incorrect information present) to the video is from an environmental institute, and the article giving negative feedback about the video is from a conservative group. The article from the conservative group even says that Leonard's video is a video coming from the far left. I have no problem with a debate over the content of the film. What I do have a problem with is the fact that instead of merely having a debate over what the film says, the articles written about the film are changing the debate from what they like or dislike about the film to asking which party has the right idea, the left or the right. How will we ever solve the climate crisis, or many of the problems facing todays world, if we cannot get out of the cycle of partisan politics which distracts from the real issues?

Depressing

Hey all

My name is Lisa Ailloud. I’m a senior at AU double majoring in Environmental Studies and Marine Science (yes, this major does exist at AU..!). I was born and raised in Lyon, France, and moved to the US for College, three years ago. I was therefore brought up in a very different environment where public transportation is the easiest way to get anywhere and where the environment, seeing that France is in the European Union, is the center of most political debates. Even though France is a 1rst world country, people’s attitude towards the environment differs a lot form that of mainstream Americans. French people drive smaller cars, take baskets or reusable bags to the grocery store since plastic bags have been banned, and go to the local outdoor market several times a week. The US, on the other hand has a much stronger culture of mass consumption, mainly due to its historical background.

I was told during my entire childhood to turn off the water when I brush my teeth, switch off the lights when I leave a room, turn off the water when I shampoo my hair, etc. So when I started living in the AU dorms and saw half the girls on my floor leave the water running while brushing their teeth, it drove me crazy! Similarly, when I went to visit my friend in Houston I was confused as to why we drove the car everywhere. But I soon realized that the way houses were built made it impossible for people to walk anywhere. Back home, houses in city and suburbs (not so much in the countryside) have at least one marketplace, post office, and a bakery close enough for individuals to walk there.

Therefore, I think the issue at stake isn’t that Americans are less environmentally conscious but the way society is structured makes it very hard for individuals to lead more environmentally friendly lifestyles. If farmer’s markets were cheaper and more abundant and plastic bags banned in supermarkets most people would embrace these changes and lead more sustainable lifestyles.

Reading Fish’s blog gives me the same feeling I have when think of how much water flows during the 180 seconds my friend brushes her teeth. It depresses me and makes me sick. And it’s when I read such testimonies that I start to lose hope that we’ll ever save the planet. I spent 6 months in Tanzania last year living with local families where I had no choice but to use water instead of toilet paper, accept that there was no electricity between 7pm and 7am (when the system worked) and cleaned my hands with water rather than a paper towel during meals. My friends and I could have fought the change, bought some toilet paper at the supermarket but we didn’t. We accepted the change because we knew that wherever that paper would end up would have disastrous impacts on the environment. Especially in Stone Town where there was no sign of any waste management plan. If the Earth’s population all had that same attitude, we would slowly but surely climb back up the slope and move towards healthier ecosystems, more plentiful fisheries and cleaner air. Yet, as Fish proves us, there are still a lot of people out there who are scared of change and don’t think the Earth is worth their time or money. People who “resist and resent the demands made on [them] by environmental imperatives“ and “just want to inhabit it as comfortably as possible for as long as [they] have.” All I can say to that is that I hope these people don’t have children or these children will forever hold bitterness towards them for thinking about themselves and themselves only.

I agree with Lucy that it would be nice to think that the majority of people care about the environment but what scares me the most is that environmental unconsciousness is no longer a question of education. People know, they just prefer to look away. I may be very pessimistic but I personally don't give our civilization much long before it destroys itself if that attitude doesn't change.

Hello everyone,

My name is Jonathan Southgate and I am a junior in SIS. I am concentrating in International Communication and minoring in International Business. I was born in Boston, MA but grew up in Charleston, SC. I have always been interested in environmental issues, but have always found a problem with the way that environmentalists went about promoting their cause. I try do what I can to reduce waste and live more environmentally friendly. At the same time, I don't like the idea of the "carbon footprint". This idea that if I didn't buy a certain object would reduce my "footprint" is ridiculous. Whatever I was going to buy would have been made and transported regardless of whether I bought it or not. On top of that EVERYTHING we own and use at some point had an adverse effect on the environment.

I believe that a more effect way of fighting environmental change is to focus on our waste. Focus on using less and using better methods to dispose of what we have to use. Finding better ways to travel is key in my opinion. I believe that people should focus on waste management and transportation improvement. I am fascinated by this issue that I have little background knowledge in, so I am excited for this class.

In terms of the article that Stanley Fish wrote in the New York Times, I find it a bit strange. I don;t think it is the best strategy to scare people or to make people seem like they are destroying the planet personally. The human race in general is destroy the planet and people contribute to this only because they live in our society. We need to change the society (focusing on transportation, waste management, and energy production) of our Nation. I think its pointless to make people feel bad about the way they live, since it is the way they HAVE to live in this society. Changing the amount we consume and the car we drive is very useful steps, but paying twice as much for a new kitchen because of where the wood came from seems silly to me. In all the changes that happen, there probably was more environmental damage than not. I look forward to talking more about this in the near future and learning more.

Cheers,

Jonathan

To recycle or not to recycle? That is the question.

Dear fellow bloggers,

My name is Tracey Swan and I’m a junior majoring in International Relations with a double minor in Literature and Justice Law and Society. I enrolled in International Environmental Politics to fulfill my core curriculum requirements for SIS. However the environment is an issue I’ve been passionate about since I was very young. I grew up in Portland Oregon, which I’m proud to say is extremely environmentally active and has one of the best public transportation and recycling programs in the US. Living in Oregon gave me the unique opportunity to grow up using many of the environmental techniques mentioned in Stanley Fish “I Am, Therefore I Pollute.” I grew up in a household with no paper towels, only wash clothes. I didn’t realize that people used paper towels for so many different activities until I came to college. I realize that this is hard to believe, but for my entire life my family has always used wash clothe for all household chores. I remember walking around downtown Portland with my mother once. She had bought me a soda and I drank the entire thing. Now I was stuck with this bottle. My mom refused to let me throw it out because their was no recycling bins around and I had to keep the bottle with me until I got home and could recycle it. I’m pretty sure it was a good three hours later. This is a prime example of the childhood I had.

I have found it very challenging to be environmentally friendly living in DC. Living with roommates and on a budget has significantly decreased my ability to perform many of the environmentally friendly tasks that I use to perform in Oregon. I am hoping to get out of this class smart realistic methods that are low cost on how to be more environmentally friendly. Additionally I am frightened by concepts like global warming and overpopulation. I grew up hearing all about global warming. I am hoping to get out of this class an idea of the best method to prevent and decrease environmental problems such as global warming. I would like to have a strong knowledge of smart realistic policies that can affect and change the US impact on environmental degradation. I would also like a stronger foundation of knowledge as to what the United Nations role is, in the fight against global warming and mass species extinction.

Stanley Fish’s view in “I Am, Therefore I Pollute” deeply annoyed me. Fish is a prime example of a typical American who is too lethargic to perform environmentally conscious tasks, and would rather waste than take 5 minutes out of his day to sort out his recycling and rinse out a washcloth. Buying environmentally friendly products can be more expensive, but they can also save a person a lot of money. Hydro cars saves a person a ton of money on gas, using wash clothes over paper towels saves money, unplugging your appliances saves money on energy, and buying environmentally washing machines give you a tax break and a person uses less water thus saving you more money. I think the thing that bothered me is how he has the luxury to be environmentally friendly but instead he views it as a battle with his wife. I find this frustrating because as a professor and scholar, I think he has a responsibility to lead us into being more environmentally friendly. Being a highly educated man taking on a teach position, gives you the ability to lead and the responsibility to shape the minds of the future. It bothers me that a intelligent, impressive man like Stanley Fish can be so lethargic over the environment.

I think what it means to live in a environmentally friendly way in the modern day US is to do everything you can to maintain an environmentally friendly household within your own capacity. Not everyone can afford to shop local food and buy hydro cars, but that doesn’t mean that they are not being environmentally friendly. I think people who make the effort to cut back on their waste, recycle, and use a few other normal environmentally friendly methods can be considered living in a “environmentally friendly” manner.

-Tracey Swan

Jung Kim

Hi, my name is Jung Kim. My major is International Studies concentrating on International Politics. I am from Korea, and I spent my high school year in California. I recently studied abroad in Seoul, Korea. It was pretty fun experience to study abroad in my hometown. I am taking this class for my core course for SIS requirement. This is my first environment class, so I am very excited to learn new things. I do not consider myself as an environmentalist, but my interest in environment increased after many horrible natural disasters in recent year. I hope that I could have better understanding and appreciation for the environment that is crucial for our lives. I realized how much I have used up and destroyed the environment, so I want to learn what I could do to preserve the environment for my future generation.

After reading I am, Therefore I Pollute by Stanley Fish, I asked myself if I am an environmental criminal. I think I am or in some sense we all are. Every single action we take brings good or bad impact on the environment. Even a little thing like breathing effects the environment. This present moment when thousands and thousands of people are killed by unexpected natural disasters, changing our “human-centered” lifestyle to “environmentally friendly” lifestyle is not an option but mandatory. I do not mean that we all need to breathe less to save the environment. However, there are many ways as easy as breathing that could help the environment.
When I first came to the United Sates, I was shocked by how many plastic bags I was given at the cashier every time I go to grocery shopping. About 5 years ago in Korea, the Korean government started the national campaign to bring own reusable grocery bags to shop. Furthermore, we need to pay ten cents for every plastic bag and 25 cents for fancier paper bag we like to use. However, we could get our money back if we bring those used bags back. When the government first started this policy, I was not sure anybody would bother to bring their own bags to avoid paying such a small amount of money. However, in 5 years, “bringing own grocery bag” places at the very top of “things to buy list” for almost everyone shopper.
I totally agreed with Stanley how he said “it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require.” Bringing own grocery bag, using environmentally approved light bulbs, eating local meat and recycling could be easy for some of people but more challenging to other. I think to live in an “environmentally friendly” way in the modern-day US, we need to find what we like to do for the environment. Everyone has different ways to save the environment. If you are caught up with so many create things that other people do for the environment, you could be overwhelmed even before you actually do something for the environment. What I am saying here is having expensive solar energy panel at home is not more valuable or meaningful than turning off the running water when you brush your teeth in the sense of saving the environment. Therefore, I think if each one of us picks few things small or big that one likes to do or good at doing, we could make the world “environmentally happy” place. .

Environmental Conscience

Hey all! I'm Lucy, I'm a junior International Studies major trying to decide on my functional field. I've never blogged before, and am a pretty technologically challenged person in general, so I hope that this posts correctly! I'm in this class for a lot of reasons: I'm considering environmental politics as my functional area for my major, I studied abroad this summer in Copenhagen, Denmark, which is a pretty environmentally conscious place and also where the Copenhagen climate change Summit is going to be taking place. Also, I want to learn more about what I can do to help the environment, because I want my future grandkids to be able to ski in Colorado and play in a park and live on the Earth.

I think that Stanley Fish, in his blog from August 3, 2008, I Am, Therefore I Pollute, views environmental protection the way that a lot of people do: as something that is vaguely menacing as a future event, but not currently concerning enough to change their lifestyle. By now, I think that there is no way that climate change can be denied (although people will try). The problem is no longer so focused on whether or not climate change is occuring (it is). The issue has now become: will enough people decide to be more environmentally consciencious that it will slow down the process of global warming?

I want to think that they will. I want to believe that everyone in the United States will make adjustments to their lifestyles which will benefit this planet and maybe do a little something to reduce the horrible destruction that humans have done to the Earth. But the reality is that most people will be horrified by climate change when they hear about it from such films as "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore or if they go to an environmental lecture or anything else trying to raise awareness about climate change. And then they'll go home. And they'll think to themselves, "I should recycle all my newspapers." Maybe they will...for awhile. And then eventually life will go back to normal. They'll convince themselves that the environmental problem is something for someone else to deal with, for another generation to tackle.

I don't think that people don't change their lifestyles because they don't care about the environment. Most people, when you talk to them, feel that the environment should be protected. It's just that they have grown up living a certain way, and many people find it hard to change the way things have always been. Call it lazyness, stubborness, anything. It's still a large group of people who aren't going to do much to help the environment.

To live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the US, I think that we could all probably do more. I've always prided myself in being someone who tries to be consciencious about the environment: I always turn out the lights, recycle, don't eat much meat, occasionally shop at Whole Foods etc. From calculating my eco-footprint, however, I learned that my footprint is bigger than I would like it to be. If everyone on the planet consumed as much as me, we would need a few more earths. That was pretty distressing to learn, so I'm going to try and do better. Maybe living in an "environmentally friendly" way means continually being open to learning more about what we can do to help the environment, and realizing that there's always more to learn.