Thanksgiving talk

This assignment was the hardest assignment throughout the semester for me. I believe that I never had conversation on environmental issue with my family or friends, so I do not know what to expect during or after the conversation. I do not even know how to start the conversation or in what manner I should do it. I feel like it is somewhat wrong or uncomfortable to talk about such a serious or negative subject during holiday when everything is overly plenty and happy.
Instead of going back to Korea, I went to Atlantic City with my friends. I think this is little more environmental friendly than going all the way back to Korea. I shared a suite room with three other girl friends. I tried to find best timing to bring up the topic, but it was not easy. I was scared that I might ruin their holiday.
One morning when we all took a shower, I ask my friends to reuse towel rather than throwing on the floor of the bathroom. My request fired the conversation on the environmental issue. I explain to my friends how much we could save the environment by just simply reusing the towels. I also added that the environmental problems we currently face are real, serious and need reaction. One of my friends agreed to me and gladly reused the towel. However, my two other disagreed. First, they started by saying how much they pay to use the room which includes all the other supplements such a towels, bed sheets, toilet paper, water, electricity and many more luxurious items. They said that this holiday is only few days they could enjoy some luxury and really treat themselves nicely. In addition, they argued that they are paying more than they should if they do not use everything that is offered to them. I agree that they should get what they paid for and should enjoy their holiday. However, they could do it much eco-friendly way. We do not have to use new towel every single time we take a shower. The towels that hotel provided us were so big and thick that I did not even use half section of the towel to dry my body.
Then my friends said to me “since when you become a green person?” I do not consider myself green person at all. I still do many things that are environmentally harmful. I am just a same person with slightly more awareness of environmental issue than before taking this class. Then, my friends went on saying that we are over reacting to the environmentally issue. They believed that the media over emphasize the environmental issues. Since media only focus on the extreme cases such as Tsunami or hurricane Katrina, people are over reacting to the problem.
I was tempted to interrupt my friends, but I tried to be a good listener as professor Nicholson told us to do. I was very surprise what a big gap my friends and I had. It was very disappointing for me to see how people consider themselves apart from the environment. They are so num about the current environmental issue like they do not belong in this environment. I realized how this course has changed me. If I did not take this course I could be spending more wasteful holiday than my friends.

Giving Thanks for the Environment

Talking with someone about the environment can be a daunting task. It's difficult to know which way to approach the subject. In my mind, I pictured the conversation being awkward and forced. I would be sitting at the dinner table having a normal conversation when all of a sudden I would blurt out, "What do you think about climate change?" Everyone at the table would be stunned into silence and would stare at me in horror. "Why are you bringing that up?" They would ask. With this scenario in the back of my mind, I tried to think of alternative ways to broach the subject with my family over Thanksgiving Break.

Bringing up the environment to my father was interesting. My father is a lot like me: we like to avoid thinking about things which are unsavory. Unlike me, however, my father is a libertarian and believes strongly in personal liberty; he wants to live his life the way he has chosen to live it. I decided that the best way to bring up the subject with him would be to talk about what I had been learning in class without making it seem as if I was lecturing him or trying to change his mind, because then he might have been less open to what I was telling him. I felt that attacking his lifestyle choices or being argumentative would not be right way to get my point across, and would take away from the ideas I wanted to discuss.

The subjects I discussed with my dad emphasized personal lifestyle changes less and ideas about changing systems in order to make positive environmental living easy. It seemed to me that he would be more responsive to these types of ideas than to me telling him that he would need to change the way he lives his life. Additionally, I believe that these system-wide changes are much more effective in terms of helping the environment than individual actions. Therefore, I talked to him about the importance of getting rid of the concept of waste, and giving items back to manufacturers once they have completed their use to be broken down and reused, using all the materials from the previous item. I also explained how individual actions are important, but that changing the way that society functions in order to make environmental change simple is the way to go.

I was surprised by his response. He said that thinking about the environment made him feel guilty about the way he lives his life, even though I wasn't bringing up personal changes particularly. I feel like many people have such an ingrained idea about what environmentalists think people should do that even though I was talking about a different type of environmentalism which would require less lifestyle change personally for him, and more of a societal shift which would make being environmental easy, he was still thinking about those personal ways of living that would make him environmentally friendly.

This made me think about how much of what we have learned in class this semester. We have learned a lot about how making changes in the system instead of putting a band-aid on the system is the most effective way to help the environment. Many people who are not taking environment classes, however, do not know very much about this type of environmental movement. I think that much positive change could be brought about if more people were educated about the different ways in which we can help the environment, besides the relatively small-scale, practically ineffective measures of turning off the shower while you shave.

Talking to my mom about the environment was interesting as well. Her main point after our discussion was that she did not want many more different recycling bins cluttering our kitchen. For her, the environment is important but concerns about global warming are not a part of her everyday life. I tried to explain about how recycling is important, even though it is small-scale, individual change, because it keeps us thinking about the environment, and keeps these issues fresh in our mind, in front of us, in the form of recycling bins. I explained that more recycling bins in the kitchen might not look pretty, but they are a positive step towards being more environmentally friendly. I think, through listening to her point of view and thoughtfully responding with rebuttals of my own, I have convinced my mom to start recycling more of what we use in the house. Additionally, from our conversation, we decided to have a Turkey-free Thanksgiving. This was not only an environmentally-friendly thing to do, but also saved us a lot of time in preparing the Thanksgiving day meal.

Talking about the environment with people who are not actively engaged in the field or taking a course on the subject can be difficult, but sometimes some positive changes can result. This was heartening for me, because I saw that someone who does not necessarilly have the same views or the same level of concern about the environment as me can still be persuaded to be more conscientious about the environment. Having a Turkey-free Thanksgiving and adding some recycling bins to the house may not seem like much. It is small-scale, individual action, which is not as effective as a movement, as going to government and changing policies, as finding leverage points to change the system and make being environmental the norm in society. But it is not useless--it's a start.

Environmental discussions around a delicious Turkey!

On my way up to New York I thought to myself How on Earth am I going to find someone who disagrees with me on environmental issues? I was going to have dinner at my Aunt's house and the only people there were going to be my 2 uncles and their respective families, my grandma and her boyfriend. All of whom have strictly leftist ideals and are constantly making a point of putting them forth. 

So when I launched the topic of environmentalism and the problems and solutions therein, both my uncles took strong stances on the issue and put forth ideas that did nothing but reinforce my own.  But then I heard my grandma's boyfriend arguing with my Aunt and it reminded me of how much this man loooovveeesss to play the devil's advocate. (Why? I haven't quite figured that one out yet..)

So I walked up to him later that night and talked about future careers I was considering and I let him know what I had learned this year and how strongly I felt about the fact that we should try to change the system, rather than changing the people.  I then made the statement that the world would be a much better place if people could think long term rather than short term and just move away from fossil fuels today because we have alternatives rather than wait another 25 years until supplies run out and we've polluted the Earth that much more. Surely enough he counter-argued my point. He answered Well if we do a sudden transition what will happen to the poor miner in a third world country. No one will be here to train him on renewables, he'll just loose his job and his life will be done for.    I listened to him go on about how we can't just change the system, we are too engrained in the system for any change to occur without negative impacts on people, etc., etc. Basically saying we messed up and our Earth is going to pay for it. I listened to him awhile, fighting the urge to counter his arguments and finally I just asked the simple question: well then, should we just let things happen and watch the earth get destroyed even though we have a solution to this problem? And of course, to this he answered No. But it's going to be a long and strenuous process. 

This talk made me realize that, if the person you are talking to shares the same concern as you, it is important that both parties be aware of it so that even if they differ on ways to solve this common problem, they listen to each other's comments and arguments in a constructive way. 

(It was difficult to do so in that case though because Paul wasn't exactly listening to my reactions to his comments...) It also made me frustrated that a lot of the good arguments I had against his comments came to me later in the night.

I tried to present to him the ideas expressed by Cradle to Cradle and Maniates, but his answer was on the pessimistic side, saying that since the system is too complicated to change we shouldn't try. I think part of this comment is rooted in the fact that he is 80 years old and has seen people try and fail too many times for things to actually work. He actually mentioned the health care bill as a proof that even if people had the right ideas, things just can't get by politics in the US. But by the end of the conversation I was able to make him agree with me that through innovative schemes, we would be able to make a difference and a change in the system.   

Being less bad isn’t being good

Too many times I’ve read or heard people say “we’re doomed”. And that, I think, is an awful message to send out to our society. Yes, we’ve destroyed or polluted nearly all ecosystems on Earth, but now that we know that we did it and how we did it, we can repair our mistakes. It will take time to return ecosystems to their pristine state and we will not be able to recover all ecosystems but if we find a way to completely stop polluting our environment, then restorative actions will bring about incredible positive change. And William McDonough and Michael Braungart offer such solutions.

I therefore find "Cradle to Cradle" to have, by far, the most inspiring ideas, out of all the pieces we’ve read so far. In their book, William McDonough and Michael Braungart not only bring up a great point that “being less bad isn’t being good” but they offer solutions to the problems we are facing. Instead of listing all the things that humans have done wrong and are still doing wrong and leaving the reader in a pit of despair they offer tangible, inspiring solutions. I find that very existing and uplifting.

I think the authors are correct in saying that “Eco-efficiency /…/ presents little more than the illusion of change.” However, I think that putting their ideas in place is going to be very challenging on the political spectrum since it requires great cooperation between industries and their (often many) suppliers. But if everyone starts thinking in a similar way as William McDonough and Michael Braungart, then I believe our problem would be solved.

I would lastly like to point out Michael Braungart’s quote on page 11: “I directed Greenpeace's chemistry department and helped the organization to protest more knowledgeably, but I soon realized that protest wasn't enough. We needed to develop a process for change.” As much respect as I have for Greenpeace, I agree with Michael Braungart. Environmental activism and education won’t do the trick. We must offer people alternatives that have no negative impact on the environment. If people don’t care about the environment, they won’t bother to live by Greenpeace’s advice of saving water and turning the lights off when you leave the room. But with tangible evidence that 100% eco-friendly alternatives exist to every negative thing we do on Earth, politicians will be more inclined to set strong environmental regulations since it will be possible for industries to abide by them.

Cradle to Cradle

I really enjoyed reading “cradle to cradle” by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. Expect its funky smell, I liked the in and outside of the book. As outside of the book, I mean the cool but soft texture of the book. As inside of the book, I loved the authors’ optimism, easy and simple writing style and newer or different approach to environmentalism. Most of the time I read the environmental work, I was so dragged by its depressing atmosphere. Usually, works on environmentalism address what we have done wrong in the past and how hopefulness our future is due to that.
However, cradle to cradle untangle such a crucial and serious problem in friendly but persuasive and effective ways. I loved several phrases that authors put in: “Waste equals food,” “Being less bad is not being good,” and “Do more with less”. Many times people mistakenly think that they saved environment by being less polluting, consuming or bad. However, we are just simply less bad which is totally different from being good. In addition, it is so true that in the process of saving the environment, we should do it with less. I also agree with authors’ point that unless we completely change the problematic change, we are doing not more than slowing down the problem.
I also liked the idea of eco-friendly architectural change. Buildings and appliances that are built in eco friendly and effective way definitely reduce human impact on the environment. If we change way to build buildings slightly, we could naturally comfort both people and environment. In this sense I am looking forward to tour around the new SIS building that is built in eco friendly way.

"Cradle to Cradle," the new SIS building, and the future of design

I've been really enjoying reading "Cradle to Cradle" for the last couple of classes. Many of the readings we have had this semester have talked about how we can change people's mindsets and change policies in the nation, but it never even occured to me that perhaps we should not be expending our energy in trying to improve the system we already have, but that we should in fact be throwing the current system out the window. I love the phrase the authors use that says that being less bad is not being good, it's just being less bad. I think that the phrase is extremely resonant and poignant since it hits upon the fact that most of the efforts done to make the system less harmful to the environment are not going to truly stop this problem, because the problem is the system itself.

I tend to be someone who is easily persuaded by a good argument--I admit it. If someone presents to me an argument that is well researched and well organized, I find myself more often than not atleast giving some credence to their argument by the end of it. I believe that in the case of "Cradle to Cradle", however, the argument truly is solid despite my tendency to find myself persuaded easily. The authors brings up many excellent points, such as the fact that the system we live in is not sustainable, and that trying to reduce problems within the system will only slow things down, and not stop them completely which is what is required in order to stave off global warming. Eco-efficiency will not be enough to save us in the long run; the authors are correct that we must turn to eco-effectiveness which means rethinking the way things are made.

Besides making sense in terms of an approach to help the environment, the design ideas brought forth in "Cradle to Cradle" are appealing. I really loved the description of how buildings should be like cherry trees, taking in light for solar energy, wind, etc. and interacting with the natural world and replenishing it when its done. I love the idea of having buildings which interact with the natural world just like the natural world itself--just like a tree! That is incredibly neat. It's exciting, and I'm really proud that AU's new SIS building will incorporate so many of these design techniques and that I attend a school that is working towards buildings from a new design approach that is beneficial to and which benefits from the environment. Everything should work that way. I hope that the author's design ideas will really take off, and was heartened by the video on the authors which we watched in class which illustrated several examples of the visions from "Cradle to Cradle" coming to life.

I think that if more buildings, appliances, etc. are designed in these ecologically effective ways, then people will be able to be proud of what they have accomplished once again, and will start to feel that we are a part of the natural world instead of forces apposing it or trying to control nature. These new design approaches, such as the new SIS building, are beautiful and interact with the environment in important and natural ways which take what nature has to give us in a replenishing, sustainable way. Even though these buildings might cost a little bit more than a building built in other ways, as the example from the video "The Next Industrial Revolution" showed us, sometimes that money can come back when people want to work more because the building is light and appealing and because the buildings have lower energy bills. Putting the authors' design ideas into practice on a wider scale, and harnessing solar power, respecting the planet and all its creatures and getting rid of the whole idea of waste will lead to a more beautiful, prosperous and sustainable world. There are some technical difficulties which need to be worked out in terms of the fact that some products cannot be continuously recyclable and others, but the ideas put forth by the authors of "Cradle to Cradle" are achievable, the technology exists, and can do important work to save our planet. In the future, I hope that these design techniques take over for old design techniques and bring about instrumental changes to the system in order to help the Earth.

Trinity of Despair

First of all, I really enjoyed the videoconference with professor Maniates. It was amazing to me, who is not a good friend with high technology, that we can have a discussion with someone in hundreds miles away from us. It was great to actually see him after reading few works by him.
I think professor Maniates made very interesting and convincing arguments throughout the videoconference, and I agreed with many them. Especially, his “Trinity of Despair” brought up many interesting and new points to me which helped me to look at the environmental issue in slightly different way. How he described the environmental movements to be civil moments practiced by Gandhi or Martine Luther King Jr. was totally new to me. However, it definitely makes sense. Environmental movement should be practiced same as any other movements. Environmental movement should involve a strong leader, time, efforts and devotion by many others.
I agreed with him the most on the part where he talked about Environmental Strategy or Easy Stuff. After reading several Maniates’ articles, we already know Easy stuff would do not do enough for the environment. Environmental crisis that we are facing is too serious that easy stuff like turning off water while brushing teeth would not be enough. Anything hardly would change without our sacrifice. We need fundamental change on our lifestyle or political and economical system to most effectively save the environment.
I also agree with his point that we do not need majority of the poluation on board to bring changes. It could be true that one policy or regulation made by one leader or one small group could be more powerful and effective in helping environment. However, I think it is important to motivate individuals and keep them in the right direction by sharing some responsibilities. Everyone does not have to be on board, but it is crucial that all of us stay alert.