Hello Everyone!
Welcome to our Blogspot were we will share our observations about the readings for this semester as well as share thoughts about what these readings mean to us in the context of holistic sustainability.
Following are Blog Post Project instructions that can also be found in our class CANVAS page.
Blog Posts Project: Instructions
You will write to this Blogspot weekly for 14 weeks (1-September – 1-December). For the first part of your contribution, you will write a short quotation from the week’s reading, or from the book on which you are writing your report, and include with the quotation the page number indicated or in the case of a video, include the minute/second point at which the quote can be found. Along with your quote, pose a question, comment, or challenge pertaining to the quotation.
For the second part of your blog contribution you will respond to another student’s question, comment, or challenge about the quote that they posted. Your response to another’s question, comment, or challenge must be a minimum of 100 words.
Students are strongly encouraged to read and respond to other students’ submissions in a timely manner. Late submissions, submissions less than 100 words or lacking substance, and submissions not appropriately submitted (for example sent to CANVAS rather than to the Blogspot) will not receive credit.
There are no make-ups for online submissions, so submit yours early to ensure that a late developing event (e.g. illness, family emergency, etc.) does not prevent you from receiving credit.
A grading Rubric for this your blog posts has been posted to CANVAS.
Your initial post as well as your 100-plus word response to a fellow student’s question, comment, or challenge is due each Thursday by 12-noon, September 1-December 1. Your blog posts, initial and response, are worth 5 points each for a total of 70 points.
Readings for Week 4
Thiele, pp. 115-141.
Worldwatch, pp. 244-252, 279-291. Linked from our CANVAS course page in Assignments for Week 4
Thiele, pp. 115-141.
Worldwatch, pp. 244-252, 279-291. Linked from our CANVAS course page in Assignments for Week 4
“Others point out that individuals may think they are engaging in pro-environment behavior, such as buying shampoo with the terms “natural” or “organic” on the label, when in reality the products they buy do not differ in environmental impacts from conventional products.” World watch pg 246
ReplyDeleteI think this just really highlights people misunderstanding of sustainability and being “ green” in general. So many options are available to “green” up our lives, but are they really helping? I’m going to relate it to pseudoscience, if you don’t know what that is, it’s science with no evidence. So people think that by eating organic they are making a huge environmental impact, but they do it with no proof. People think that if they buy recycled products they’re changing the world, but if they don’t apply one of the 4r’s when they are done, they aren’t helping anything. It was just later used to pollute the world. Starting good and ending bad doesn’t equal out. Everyone wants to make a change, I just don’t think they know where to start. It relates back to the reading where no one knew what sustainability really was, it’s the same here because people are again trying to be sustainable but they don’t know how to do it.
Courtney,
DeleteI think you make an excellent point. The “green” trend is just as bad as the “gluten-free” trend we see these days and both are based in pseudo-science. For example, many people do not know that the word “natural” is not regulated by the FDA and thus has no environmental benefit. Because words such as “eco-friendly” and “natural” seem beneficial and are associated with positive feelings, this may boost the success of any product labeled as such. Ultimately, I agree that consumers do want to help the environment and make a change but their efforts to do so often result in simply following trends and thus effect no actual change. I believe to remedy this problem we must develop novel ways to educate consumers on how to actually live an environmentally friendly lifestyle. This involves utilizing the 4 R’s in daily life, seeking out local companies and products created in a genuinely sustainable way, and doing the proper research to discover which producers truly take sustainable initiatives and which are simply shams. It is so wonderful that consumers want to make a positive impact on the environment! All that is required now is channeling these good intentions into taking truly sustainable measures and purchasing environmentally friendly products rather than the items that simply boast of being sustainable when they are not.
Courtney, you chose a great quote to discuss because we can all think of people who do this. I will even admit I fall into this category because I can be careless. So many people, mostly in the United States, believe by doing small things like eating “natural” or buying recycled products make a big difference but they don’t. It is a shame because we are one of the top producers of trash on the planet. I think the problem is many people just expect it to be better one day or it won’t affect them in their lifetime so they essentially put off making any changes. If the majority of people think this way, which most people do, our situation is going to continue to worsen.
DeleteI completely agree Courtney. Sustainability is a large misunderstanding. There is a lack of education about sustainability, so often times companies take advantage of this. The organic trend seems that it would be eco-friendly especially to those who do not understanding being “green”, however it actually is just the same as normal products. Sustainability is also thought of in an individual context. Going green and buying eco-friendly products is good for the environment, but in reality it makes such an insignificant impact if you are doing it alone. The companies and corporations are what the individuals need to look at and try to change. In order to make a green impact, there must be education and people must come together to collectively change businesses and daily activities rather than solely change their individual daily habits.
Delete“Traditional threats to national security, such as the military power of large rival states, have arguable been superseded by environmental threats.” (Thiele page 136)
ReplyDeleteThis quote particularly stood out to me because, in a way, environmental threats are now the basis and root for most, if not all, threats and crises we see in the world today. Food and land scarcity fall under the realm of an environmental threat and certainly fuel many wars and conflicts that we see in the world today. For example, the copious wars and conflicts currently seen in the Middle East may seem to be about things such as religion, power, and terrorism; however, these crises actually stem from more environmental and planet-related issues. These conflicts are truly based in land and resource struggle, aspects that the constant degradation of environment is making scarcer. The search for power and dominance involves having territory and natural resources to control and with which to make a profit, things that we as consumers degrade daily. Thus, environmental threats are now our national security threats because everything links back to the current state of our environment. Even the current refugee crises links to the environment because these countries’ national security is threatened because to their lack of sufficient resources and need for their own distinct territory, both issues that relate to the environment and the threat of its degradation. In what other ways do you think environmental threats are replacing traditional threats to national security?
In what other ways do you think environmental threats are replacing traditional threats to national security? This is a trick question if taken the way you’ve explained environmental threats, since almost all wars in history can arguably be caused by lack of resources weather that resource is land, water, oil, coal, precious metal or stones. Tradition threats like religious or governmental differences usually just place individuals into groups to fight for those resources. I think what the passage was trying to say is that foreign and domestic threats have died down and the new threat is drought, or food shortages, or the rising climate, since those threats are going to be what kills and destroys the most.
DeleteThe large migration of people from the Middle East to nations in Europe can definitely be seen as a new type of environmental threat. It is an environmental threat in that is caused by the lack of well-being that these people are provided in their nations of origin. This lack can be traced back to the fight over resources like food, water and oil. There are groups fighting over oil since it is such a huge asset in the world economy and the profit that comes with it. If nations weren't so dependent on fossil fuels to run their economies this would not be a problem. So, without meaning to developed nations like the US are causing this mass migration of refugees. With the current state of the environment, we can expect more of these mass migrations due to the instability of resources, therefore making them the number one national security threat to developed nations.
Delete"Clearly, much needs to change beyond the level of our individual actions. Society-wide, we need to implement new technologies, cultural norms, infrastructure, policies, and laws." - World Watch pg. 248
ReplyDeleteHumans are social animals. The characteristic of humans that makes us so distinct from all other animals is our ability to come together and work as a whole. Coincidentally, this is also the only way for us to achieve sustainability and halt the degradation of our suffering Earth. No substantial change can be made by just an individual, we need to understand that the only way to save our world, is to band together and prompt reform. How long will it take for society to understand this concept?
Zack
DeleteI completely agree with your statements. I think society is becoming more aware of pollution and overuse of resources. I don’t think much change will happen until something negative happens and forces it. I think this because the people who govern change that happens, for the most part, are driven by money and greed. People try to find the cheapest way to do things the quickest way possibly and once they have taken advantage of Earths nonrenewable resources is when we will see crisis, but then hopefully solutions. Solutions to do things more sustainably and change peoples want from what’s best for them to what’s best for the environment and society.
Zack,
DeleteI agree with you that no substantial change can be made by just one individual and that in order to make a different we need to come together. Regarding you question “how long will it take?” I do not have a definite answer for you, but what I can say is that this is not a problem that we can solve overnight. This is an issue that has developed over many years and will take some time to solve. That being said, there are ways we can speed this process up. Some in our daily routine could include recycling, turning off our lights, when showering turning off the water when shampooing etc, keeping the apartment temperature around 76 or higher, and constantly voicing to others how they can become more sustainable. On a larger scale, I think we need to reach out to the “big boys”, large corporations who are causing a lot of these environmental problems, we need to campaign for “mother earth” and rally for our cause. Getting media attention on this issue could help, as well as getting wealthy sponsors to support this cause. It is hard to solve a problem which has been around for 10+ years, but with time we can slowly start to improve the environment we live in.
Zach,
DeleteI think you made an interesting point in the fact that we need to think broad if we want to make an abiding change. No matter how romantic the idea may seem, it is simply not likely for meager efforts to cause lasting impacts. Your post reminded me of something that Dr. Barnett mentioned in today's lecture. Rather than targeting individuals or individual policymakers, she found it most effective to focus on the "caring middle." This group of interested citizens who are willing to learn have the power to serve as catalysts for widespread change. If we focus on educating these people, we send a message to the policymakers that have the resources to enact change. By gaining the support of the caring middle, we start a citizen ethic change that eventually trickles down to those who didn't care to listen in the first place. Another interesting point to make about today's society is the fact that we have a platform for worldwide communication at our fingertips: social media. Social media gives us the power to project our ideas to the ends of the earth and start a conversation about change. If we are able to harness the powers of social media and send out a captivating message, we give general education and awareness the chance to grow.
Zack,
DeleteYou bring up a compelling point. Even if we do our best to be sustainable citizens, our efforts may be for nothing if our government and infrastructure do not support our endeavors. Following our guest lecture last week, my group was discussing this exact topic. I recalled a time last year when I was at my apartment complex carefully sorting my recyclables, crushing cardboard boxes and placing my rinsed plastic bottles in the correct bin. The man who collects our recyclables was there at the time and informed me that I shouldn’t spend my time sorting because he throws all of the recyclables in with the trash anyway. It was then that I realized how futile our individual efforts are without systematic change. I didn’t blame the garbage man for not sorting out the recyclables; did I really think that garbage trucks have separate compartments for glass, plastic, cardboard, and every other recyclable category? Until our government calls for regulation and widespread change in the way we handle waste, it is our civic duty to focus on consuming less to reduce our carbon footprint.
Zack,
DeleteI am also in agreement with you regarding the need for society as a whole to reform. Additionally, your points in relation to human nature as social tie in well with our right to community under the concepts of basic human dignity. In terms of how long it will take for society to understand the drastic changes necessary, I believe that this is subjective, and depends on future events as well as individuals. We already have many countries (one example being Germany) pushing for and promoting sustainability, as well as the Pope strongly advocating to address environmental issues. While they don’t reflect the global community in its entirety, I believe these are positive steps towards getting to the point of larger societal change. There is still a long way to go, but this allows for some optimism. After all, we’ve come from dumping picnic trash down hills to laws and social scorn against littering in half a century.
Zack, i agree with your post above regarding the communities need to come together to create a meaningful shift in popular opinion involving sustainability. At times, the individual effort that you or I make does seem futile, but i believe these actions are necessary and set an example for our friends, family, and community. As Jacob from We Are Neutral stated, if you can make a community leader sustainable, the ripple effect will apply until sustainable action is the public norm. As for societies recognition of this much needed change in attitude, I believe that although we are in early stages, a shift is coming as it did with littering in the mid 20th century. This may take a generation or two but we are definitely trending in the right direction and need more individuals to step forward to educate the masses.
Delete“Small, everyday acts of green consumption are important moments of ‘mindful living’: they serve as daily reminders of our values, and of the larger struggles before us.” Page 245 Worldwatch.
ReplyDeleteI like this quote because one of the most impactful ways to change the world is by starting with you. When looking at the big picture of sustainability it can be a little intimidating. Are you trying to use renewable energy, create little to no waste in your life, all of those are commitments that take a lot of work. If people would just look at themselves first and do little things such as recycling or using cloth bags instead of plastic. Little things like this can go a long way and eventually become habit. I think its good to realize that the little things do add up and make a difference and its not just expensive big projects to go green that can change the world. Reusing material cannot only save money for the consumer but can help save the earth and nonrenewable resources. Once people understand that everything they do impacts the world, moments of ‘mindful living’ can make our society a better place.
I too liked this quote and very much so agree with your point. The small everyday acts of green consumption helps us make it part of our routine. A major reason i believe that their is not an abundantly large driving force behind the green revolution is because too many people still believe that their small actions will have no effect on the environment in conjunction that they will have to dramatically change their lifestyle to make a difference. Humans are social creatures and the larger the challenge the bigger the movement has to be in order to overcome it. If more and more people continue to capitalize on small everyday acts of being more green/sustainable more will join the movement creating the momentum needed to actually make a change.
DeleteKelly, I could not agree with you more. While our actions seem small and meaningless, they can add up to a large change. All of our decisions have an impact on the world we live in, however, I believe that we do not usually recognize this. More often than not, we expect some large groups like the government or corporations to make changes for us when in reality, those large groups won’t make the adjustment unless society bands together to improve their habits and show that they want to see change. Another factor that I suspect causes our lack of action is our shortage of knowledge about the world we live in. We do not tend to put research into our purchases or actions in general. Although, once we are informed about the crises that are at hand, most people understand that something needs to be done, but they rarely realize that they themselves can make an enormous impact with just a little bit of effort.
Delete“It remains to be seen whether or not we Earthlings will safely negoti-ate Spaceship Earth’s bottleneck and advance from our civilization’s reck-less adolescence to a state of sustainable and flourishing maturity.” Worldwatch pg. 245
ReplyDeleteI think this is a good analogy for the current state of global thinking on environmental issues. So before the industrial revolution mankind was a child very ignorant but largely harmless to our environment other than overhunting which hurt ecosystems but not the global climate. Then we went into adolescence and industrialized, using every resource we could get our hands to fuel our new inventions and discoveries, still very selfish and ignorant though. Now we are reaching the college years and all this new information, which we have been rejecting for decades, is flooding in and we don’t know if we should crawl under a rock and act like these issues don’t exist or solve them, but we don’t even know where to start. This frames mankind’s environmental awareness into human maturity throughout life, the only issue with that is we don’t know how long it will take mankind to fully mature and it may be too late already. What stage or age do you think the world is in terms of sustainability or environmental concern
Hello Andree,
DeleteI believe that mankind is in its college years when it comes to environmental and sustainability issues. We really are in an era of open-minded research that is producing dramatic results. Unfortunately, there are still those out there that ignore the education presented to them and refuse to become enlightened with facts about environmental issues. In turn, they also refuse to make changes for the world, or simply just don't know how to at the moment. I do believe that we are in a period of growth and self-improvement though, despite it being a very intimidating task at times.
"Environmental decline is framed as the result of an epidemic of bad individual choices rather than of an economic, regulatory, and physical infrastructure that facilitates environmentally destructive activities over environmentally restorative ones." Worldwatch pg. 247
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote because I think it really explains in few words the main reasons our world is still struggling to become sustainable. Although individual choices can lead to poor conditions in the environment, it is not solely because of certain individuals that our world is crumbling beneath us. The reasoning is much more, this problem is due to a global scale of events which have led us to this "stage" of destruction. I know that solving this problem will take time to solve, but my question to you is what should we focus on changing first in order to best solve this problem?
To answer your question "what should we focus on changing first in order to best solve this problem?" I believe we need to focus on political change in order to start forcing these organizations who pollute and destroy our environment. If I were to think as a business man, I would want to do whatever I could legally to make the most profit. And right now these companies aren't really even breaking the law. If we were to enforce politically laws to be made to tighten regulations on the amount these organizations pollute. Their will be a greater change. Yes there will be those few companies who risk breaking the law in order to continue to make a few extra dollars. But I would like to think the majority of them would change in order to not risk heavy fines or even imprisonment. This helping solve this issue.
DeleteI agree with Ryan. It is all about the businesses who control industries and can basically do what they want to the environment with very little effects to the growth of their company. People who own businesses typically are looking to expand and produce not look out for the environment and choose options that will help rather than hurt. Laws and/or regulation should be put in place so that these businesses do not keep deteriorating the environment. This is the most necessary and the quickest way to solve the problem of destruction.
Delete"Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices - littering, leaving the lights on when no one is home, failing to carpool- not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline." This quote taken from page 247 of WorldWatch; exemplifies that the small personal, individual environmental failures humans face causes ecological guilt and thus we are more likely to blame ourselves then the major corporations who are the real drivers of demeaning our environment. These distractions remove issues from the political realm where they belong to the personal realm, implying that the problem and solution lies in our individual accomplishments and failures rather than in better and more sustainability designed policies and business practices. For example gross waste created in the US is less than 3< due to municipal waste and more than 75% due to industrial waste.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that large corporations are at fault, people must still be conscientious of their actions because if we are not willing to make a change in our own habits we can not expect others to change their ways. “Traditionally, the main strategies used to influence individual choice on environmental issues have focused on providing information and persuasion rather than working together to change the context in which the choices are made.”(Worldwatch, page 247) The implementation of government laws and policies towards sustainability would force society and corporations to change, rather than urging them to change like was tried in the past. I am concerned if the change is forced if it will cause some to resent sustainability.
Delete"The missing ingredient is not more information or more individual eco-perfectionists, it is collective engagement for political and structural change."
ReplyDelete(The world watch institute; Is sustainability still possible? Pg. 251)
It has been said that the reason why humans have developed and done so well is because of our social interaction with each other. We have the ability to communicate and express our ideas in order to better ourselves and future generations. Essentially this is the exact thing The World Watch institute is doing. However with this social interaction comes disagreement, which puts us at a stand still until we decide what is actually best for us. We have been at this stand still for a while now I feel like, and I agree with this quote. Nothing is really ever going to get done by being an individual. There's just no feasible way, with almost 7 billion other individuals on this planet. I also feel that if collectively we begin to come together to start to demand change more people will join and support and ultimately get what needs to get done. What do you think? Do you disagree or agree?
I agree very much with your statement regarding the success of humans, and our ability to function so well socially is what has allowed the human race to evolve so well. This characteristic of humans is what separates us from all other creatures. With that being said, the only way for us to make a real change is by coming together and bringing the issue of environmental degradation into politics. This change cannot be made by an individual, nor can it happen without the backing of the law of government. I agree with your statement that more and more people will follow a change started by a lesser amount of people; we have to begin somewhere.
DeleteRyan,
DeleteI totally agree with you with the idea that when we come together and start demanding change, we actually have a bigger impact on others and consequently will do what needs to be done. I like how you point out that “with this social interaction comes disagreement” as this can be observed nowadays in an array of global issues and key decisions. Also you mention that nothing is going to get done as an individual, which I agree with and I think is the main point of this article. Our world is undergoing difficult times and is our job as a generation of young scholars to shape these happenings and spread awareness that united we can stabilize our issues.
I totally agree, one person can't change the world. One person can bring people together to change the world though. A lot of times we like to find a scape goat for all the damage and issues we face daily, but in reality we are also to blame. If we can't pull together as a group of people, our actions mean little to nothing. If a tree is rotten at the core, it won't produce fruit, not matter how bad its needed or wanted. I think more people need to understand the importance of cooperation and team work, that make this world a better place.
Delete“As explained in The Story of Change, the latest Internet film by The Story of Stuff Project, these small actions are a fine place to start. But they are a terrible place to stop.” (World watch, Pg. 245, second paragraph)
ReplyDeleteThis quote reflects on the idea that small acts of greening your daily activities and habits are a good idea when you think about starting to change for the good of the environment, but it also reflects in how we shouldn’t stop there, we should keep going and eventually take on bigger ideas and concepts to truly “go green” and sustainable. I totally agree with what this quote states, as we all know, no one is born and starts running, instead we crawl, walk and then run. Nothing is perfect or functional since the beginning, we always need to work and dedicate time to perfect things, therefore small “green” actions we are encouraged to take in our daily lives are a good start but we should always think bigger, just like society has done several times for numerous other things. Do you think these small actions do contribute to making us more sustainable considering the size of the human population? Is it better is everyone does these little “green” procedures than if half the population goes big?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete" But these individual actions are puny when compared to the challenges before us, and can’t achieve the kind of change we desperately need today" pg 245 2nd paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI think that this quote is very easy for us to relate to. When we recycle a piece of paper, it does have a great effect on the millions of acres of trees that are destroyed every year. If we want to make a change in the environment, we need to go big or not do anything at all and watch our environment degrade. Having people recycle and consume less is just a small start and not everyone wants to reduce. In order to make a change in society, we need to go after the companies that are having the biggest impact on the environment. Restrictions and limitations are going to have massive effects on the conservation of resources and the health of the environment. Instead of using resources we do not use, we should be more aware and use the resources we need. Informing people on how to use their resources and how to be more efficient is also another strategy that could help save the environment. We need to understand the value of the resources we are using up or start trying to find alternative sources that will not harm the environment as much as other resources do.
I totally agree. We are all aware of the initiatives we must take to live more sustainable lives. But are we really doing everything in our power to make the biggest impact possible by doing so? When it comes to making a change that requires a movement as big as a new “ethic”, an idea that Dr. Barnett mentioned in class, it’s going to take a lot more than recycling every day to actually find and implement change that will impact the every day person who holds, ultimately, the most power to make a difference. It’s going to require shooting for the target, the government, large corporations, places with the highest power and the source for true change within our society, to create the ripple effect that this sustainability movement requires. If we want change to occur, we have to be willing to come together, use each other’s strengths, and make sure that our voices are heard. Nothing will change if we only work towards alleviating the mistakes that have already been made. We must do that,yes, but at the same time we must get involved at the source, strive towards the solution, and make the necessary change for future generations to come.
DeleteOne of the first references in Chapter 23 of World Watch shows how a quote used in an add started a "green" movement. "People start pollution. People can stop it." This quote reminds me of a quote that Dr. Chandler brings up in nearly every lecture. "The future is nothing more than a choice today." While I agree that change can start from within, I sometimes wonder if it is always so simple. Do you think that change can be enacted by an individual and his/her choices or is widespread support needed to make lasting impacts?
ReplyDeleteI believe you bring about a very good point here. Things often times are easier said than done, and it seems unimaginable that one person can enact change. It reminds me of a story I once heard:
DeleteA young man is walking along the ocean and sees a beach on which thousands and thousands of starfish have washed ashore. Further along he sees an old man, walking slowly and stooping often, picking up one starfish after another and tossing each one gently into the ocean. “Why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?,” he asks. “Because the sun is up and the tide is going out and if I don’t throw them further in they will die.” “But, old man, don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and starfish all along it! You can’t possibly save them all, you can’t even save one-tenth of them. In fact, even if you work all day, your efforts won’t make any difference at all.” The old man listened calmly and then bent down to pick up another starfish and threw it into the sea. “It made a difference to that one.”
Sometimes it seems as though it is impossible to make a significant change completely unaware ourselves of what a difference we are making already. I absolutely believe that an individual can enact change; indeed I believe it is solely individuals who enact change, and the efforts certain individuals make serve as inspiration to others and that is how widespread support is garnered and that is how revolutions start. The power of the individual is certainly a force to be reckoned with, they are the ones who light the fire, like professor Chandler says, change starts with a choice, and in my opinion that is an individuals choice.
Yes, I do believe that. I'm often annoyed when people tell me that I'm overthinking something, or when they are able to look at life so simply when I am not. I tend to over-analyze every detail and make mountains out of molehills, an annoying habit. But every once in a while, I'll take the easiest path I can imagine- I'll smile and take a deep breath when I'm upset, or I'll simply get up and do whatever it is I've been avoiding, and every single time, I am amazed that the simple solution worked. If we each changed just one habit, or if companies each cut down x%, or if grocery stores supported one more local grower, the results would be dramatic. Simple changes starting with an individual can change the world.
DeleteAnd hey, what's to say that the individual that decides to make a change isn't the CEO of a major corporation?
Lilia, I too agree that people can make a difference. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it seems. It all must start with an individual's resolve to work toward a change and an understanding of the problems. I feel that if an individual is driven, they could generate momentum in their community and the affect could spread from there. If enough people are working toward a goal, they can cause change. The support of many people would be needed to create a lasting impact. When the many work toward a goal, they can accomplish what they are set out to do.
Delete“Small, everyday acts of green consumption are important moments of
ReplyDelete‘mindful living’: they serve as daily reminders of our values, and of the larger
struggles before us. But these individual actions are puny when compared
to the challenges before us, and can’t achieve the kind of change we desperately
need today.” (Worldwatch Pg.245 Paragraph 2)
I believe this quote speaks worlds about one of the major problems plaguing sustainability. There is too much “green washing” and too many people that think they are “green” just because they recycle or because they have LED light bulbs and whatnot. As valiant as these small efforts are, at the end of the day they are indeed SMALL and more needs to be done to help save this planet. It is not enough to recycle, reduce, reuse, repurpose etc., people need to go out and take action because the challenges we have to face are immense and the only way we will overcome them is through big changes.
I totally agree with you Danielle. Too many people think they have done their share by simply using a reusable water bottle that day or throwing something into a recycling bin over a trash can. Where being sustainable actually counts for example taking cooler faster showers and "disciplining" the sustainable mindset people usually turn a blind eye because it is just too much effort to most. Although once we come to the energy and resource crisis that is near approaching it will no longer be a choice and become a forced lifestyle. The government needs to get involved and our view spread through mass media and not scattered in small pockets around the globe.
Delete“Environmental actions may serve as green means for relieving our guilty ecological consciences without actually or genuinely reducing impacts.”- World Watch (page 245, paragraph 4)
ReplyDeleteOut of the entire passage, this phrase made me think the most. Based on the research, individuals only contribute a fraction of the waste that is produced. Much of the actions we hear occurring focuses on the individual level, but the wastes reduced is small when compared to how much is produced by other sources. The positive is that we are getting more people to recognize and act on a problem. However, this does very little and some people may feel that what they are doing is enough and may choose to stop there. In “doing their part”, they may feel they have done enough and disregard any attempts to do more or hear that it’s not enough. In these situations, how can we bring further awareness and get those people to go above and beyond what they previously thought to make a difference?
I think the solution to bringing more awareness to those people who feel like they do enough for the environment is through education. Like the article explained with the “Free Produce” movement to boycott goods produced by slave labor, many people became so entrenched in their attempts to avoid certain goods that they neglected to really attack the foundations of slavery. I think this is the same case with our environmental situation today. People can feel satisfied with their reusable bags and recycling that they don’t go further to affect real change. To solve this, we need to educate these people and make them realize that their efforts are only a drop in the bucket for the whole problem. I think many of these “caring middle” people would do more if they really knew. Although others will not make changes so easily, and this is why it is really going to take a massive, transformative movement in our politics and economy to improve our situation.
DeleteI agree with your post about how the way people think they are being green and helping the environment is not really supporting much to the Earth. The quote also makes me believe that countless of individuals feel guilty and are only providing care because they feel as if it is paying back to the damaged cause, not really portraying to saving our home. So not only are we providing little care to the damage at hand, but many are not particularly caring. In order to successfully keep the planet green, we must all be in this together. Not one person can change their habit into being green and change the world where everyone else is still continuing what they have always done. Together, we can change our habits and create a more sustainable world.
Delete"The result, in Csutora’s words, is that 'environmental actions may serve as green means for relieving our guilty ecological consciences without actually or genuinely reducing impacts.'" (Worldwatch, pg. 245)
ReplyDeleteThere has been a recent movement, no doubt, where people are slowly starting to pay attention to what products are "green" and "eco-friendly". What does any of this mean though? Few consumers could tell you. In reality, these labels often mean nothing, as the FDA does not regulate the use of words like "natural". People who buy these "natural" products usually just don't do their research, but feel like they're doing something fantastic for the environment anyways. Many consumers' efforts to be environmentally-aware go to waste.
What do you do in your attempts to be a conscientious consumer, and are you guilty of this yourself?
This article has opened up my awareness about what "green" or "eco-friendly" really mean. I can say that I am guilty of this sometimes and buy into the false hopes that these labels portray. Although companies are allowed to use these terms to advertise their products, it is not fair to the consumer. Therefore, I think it is important that the public is educated on what products are genuine and when labels are misused. It is also important that when a consumer buys a product that is actually eco-friendly they should feel a sense of good and accomplishment because this contributes to their sense of the greater good and leads them to continue to make good choices towards the environment.
DeleteUnfortunately, I am guilty of purchasing products that are labelled "natural" and "green" without really thinking twice about whether they are correctly labeled or not. Prior to the reading, I never actually thought about companies being able to simply label their products with these terms without actually meeting any standards/regulations. As Alyse mentioned, I believe that citizens should be made aware of products that are properly labeled so that they are able to support those products. This would put pressure on the companies to stop using the labels falsely and perhaps switch to actually making “green” products. This makes me wonder just how many of the "eco-friendly" products I purchase are actually eco-friendly because I have never done any research on them.
DeleteI think that I am partially guilty of this action. Sometimes I feel that buying products that claim to be green or environmentally friendly is a step in the right direction for me and the Earth, but I realize that much more must be done to reach the goals of sustainability that we set. The resources of Earth are diminishing and this is the time to do more than buy things that say they are green. However, if everybody needs to do their part, big or small, to get the Earth back to sustaining its resources properly. For people to do more than buy these simple products that may not even be helpful for the environment, I believe that they need to be more educated about the topic. There is not enough time to go around educating everybody on the situation. It is up to the people to step up and do their part to help the environment.
Delete“The practice of sustainability weds the self-reliance of empowered citizens and communities with the skillful utilization f existing political and legal mechanisms.” Thiele 141
ReplyDeleteEach of us as individuals whether we are students or not can go back to our little dorm and be sustainable in our way and that’s great. Although to have an impact there needs to me a movement as a collective. Large groups and corporations are only swayed by large audiences, it’s just how it is. I see sustainably measures happening all over my campus but when was the last time Obama even mentioned sustainability? If anyone needs to be swayed of out sustainable lifestyle it isn’t the hippies, it’s the men in suits that control our nation.
Although it can become frustrating that politicians may not actively move forward on sustainable efforts on their own will, the problem is not an unmovable wall. To think that only our governmental leaders hold the power to make significant changes is where society falters. Like you said, if people sit back and wait for political leaders to make the first step, we become discouraged. However, if enough people create a demand for sustainable practices and products, we can shift the dynamics. Simply put, the industries do not control us. We can control an industry. It just takes a little bit of cooperation from a large enough group of people to force change.
DeleteThe quote you showed expresses the interdependence of "the self-reliance of empowered citizens and communities" and "the skillful utilization of existing political and legal mechanisms." This means that we rely on each other to create change. Most times political powers won't make a policy until it is expressed as important by the people, we drive their action. Still sometimes people won't act in a way to better the environment unless it is expressed as necessary by the government. While one person living a sustainable lifestyle doesn't seem significant, it is the ripples they create by showing others how it is important and achievable. The spreading of knowledge is an important force that initiates a movement as a collective. This then grabs the attention of corporations, which have the power to sway politicians. I agree with the above comment that there can be a shift of dynamics. The powers at be will give us the sustainability we want if we express our want for it and in turn we give them what they want whether it is votes or money.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"This debate has existed as long as campaigners have been extolling individuals
ReplyDeleteto get involved in working for change. In the early nineteenth century
abolitionist movement, for example, “Free Produce” activists called
on people to go out of their way to avoid purchasing goods made with slave
labor. While the Free Produce approach was initially welcome in the broader
campaign to end slavery, a growing number of abolitionists began questioning
it as ineffective and distracting from the political work, which promised
greater results"-world watch pg.249 I feel that this excerpt was able to put my thoughts regarding the idea that a culture shift can only happen if we make changes on a local level into perfect words. I feel that while making simple changes such as recycling and changing the way you commute on a daily basis is good for ones physce, It will never elude to the grande finale of ending or reversing the damage that has already occurred. In class we have heard that the movement will start from "the ground up", while I do not necessarily think that the issue will be solved totally by politicians, I feel the issue may be more on the "top heavy" side (ground referring to change locally, top referring to political intervention). The basis of my thinking towards the issue is rooted in the exploitation that we as consumers are placed under via corporations; the idea of being two steps behind, unable to catch up. As pointed out in this article as well as the readings from last week, corporations will push to the boundaries of the laws in order to turn the biggest profit with only the interest of the corporation itself in mind. Our current way of determining success, with the GDP as the measuring stick, is not conducive to lowering consumption of any resource. This is why I feel if big business is held more accountable, with new laws and regulations being put in place through government, we as a race will finally be able to make a real change in the effort towards a sustainable society. As for a question, do you think that there is somewhat of a stranglehold on the people of the world enabling them to realistically be the foundation of this movement, or is there a way to bypass new laws and regulations, and move directly into change?
"Right now, high percentages of people - in most cases a significant majority - support a cleaner environment, safer products, and a better functioning democracy, but these people are not yet actively working for change." (Worldwatch page 251)
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this chapter, this quote grabbed my attention because it caused me to reflect on what I have done to work towards these changes. I believe in working towards becoming a more sustainable society and pushing for better environmental regulations; yet, I find myself not really doing anything to achieve these goals. To me, this quote is the perfect representation of how our society tends to claim that it is supportive of environmental causes but only a small percentage are actually working to accomplish the end goals. What are some possible ways to get more people involved in working towards making changes related to the environment and sustainability? What are some specific things that you are doing or can do in the future to actively work towards this change?
First, I would recruit people to a local community. Make them feel empowered with neighborly togetherness. A community is inherently inclusive. I would say that the community of the small percentage must do more than convince the community of the majority that the ability to spur change is possible; the small percentage must demonstrate that one step in the right direction is still a step toward a goal; however, I would limit the demonstration to step in the local realm. The majority must experience the changes of their civic participation. This experience is lost on national scales.
Delete“Self-governing community of citizens who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and participatory institutions rather than their altruism or their good nature.”- Benjamin Barber
Additionally, I appreciate that you restrict the domain of change to the environment and sustainability, because, whilst achieving those goals, the vast majority of other concerns for change will resolve in effect.
Specific things: Teaching others about art. Looking forward to events with the Civic Media Center in Gainesville. Assisting with the upkeep of the student garden. Educating myself in systems ecology and sustainability. Continuing to search for more knowledge and wisdom, because there's never too much. Not holding myself in contempt when I can't change my behaviors immediately.
DeleteHali McKinley Lester
DeleteI definitely agree with what you’re saying here. I grew up with parents who emphasized the importance of caring for and respecting our environment. I believe we need to enact measures to save our environment, whether it is conserving water, planting more trees, reducing carbon emission, etc. I am a big supporter of limiting our environmental footprint. However, I still like to take a long hot shower once and a while, and with a family who lives in four different states, I make a huge carbon footprint with all the times I fly places. Sometimes I feel pretty hopeless that I am destroying our environment because I can’t stop flying places if I want to see my family. Yet, this article reminds us that while we should work to be as individually eco-friendly as possible, we are not the sole problem. I think we need to inform the public more about big businesses that are negating our attempt to be environmentally friendly. Also, because individuals drive the consumer society, people should try to support businesses that have a lower environmental impact. This can be a very contentious and complicated issue, but it is important to remember that individuals alone cannot solve the problems that face our global environment.
Yasmin, I think that quote truly describes 70 percent of Americans. Most people want to do good, they want to support moral practices, but only at their convenience. They won't give up their free-time to advocate for sustainable products, but they will purchase them if there sold alongside there conventional alternative. Assuming of course there's not a large premium in price. To get these people involved in the sustainable movement we need to convince people that sustainability actually matters. That sustainability is an issue of morality, and that it's the issue of our time. I think the problem is that people can't quite grasp the severity of the issue without also feeling overwhelmed and powerless by it. So education is of the utmost importance, but it must also have an emphasis on solutions. People need to know that they are not powerless and they need to know the most efficient ways they can bring about change.
DeleteHonestly I think that being in this class and in the sustainability program in general you are already doing something. You are finding a community of like individuals and thinking about some answers to the world's most complex questions. So you should give yourself some credit!
DeleteSome things that I think we all can do right now as college students is educate ourselves and live by example. By learning about ways to be more sustainable actually putting some of them into use I think is a great first step. We just learned about water. I had no idea how much water it took to produce a cotton shirt. I will definitly think twice about ordering cotton shirts for every event I take part in. By acting on this information I am not only helping the environment, I am teaching and showing others sustainability and more sustainable ways to live their lives.
“The Happy Planet Index measures the well-being of people and their environmental impact by integrating indicators of life satisfaction, life expectancy, and the per capita environmental impact of citizens.” (Thiele, Sustainability p. 126). This approach to measuring a country’s development is definitely a prominent step in promoting sustainability. Completely different from the traditional measure of annual GDP, the Happy Planet Index offers alternative insight into which countries set examples of viable lifestyles for the rest of the world to follow.
ReplyDeleteHali McKinley Lester
ReplyDelete“This personal and collective responsibility can only be fostered through empowerment” (Thiele 122).
I found this quote really important because it emphasizes the fact that we can empower all people to be invested in sustainability. Often when we look at sustainability issues, we assume we need governmental regulation and laws to control the problem. However, we need to realize that citizens are the ones who can enact change by electing officials and voting for policies that protect the environment. We must empower people to have the knowledge to make informed decisions, so they have the ability to be responsible. As college students, we can sometimes feel removed from the “real world.” How do you think we can empower students to understand sustainability so they can contribute to this collective responsibility for our environment?
I like your point about feeling removed from the "real world" because that really accurate. However, we do play a part in that world and have the potential to make a difference. I think that we can empower students by presenting sustainability to them in ways that are easy to be a part of. For example, events that give out reusable water bottles that reduce waste from plastic bottles, or even putting stickers on the paper towel holders in the bathroom that say "These come from trees!" (this seems weird, but I saw this exact sticker somewhere and it also said that that reminder cuts down on paper towel waste and saves 100 lbs of paper a year). I also agree that we need to make informed decisions because as consumers we have the power to hold the places we buy from accountable for their impact on the environment.
DeleteThis is definitely a good point. In the World Watch section it talked about disempowerment of the public due to falsely accusing individuals of causing major environmental problems. Big business use this approach to distract voters from realizing that better policies should be in place to better regulate the sale and disposal of said product. Empowerment can come through realizing this and voting for better policies. In response to your question, I believe education is definitely the biggest answer as of right now. Similiar to how The Good Life is a freshman required course, a required course on environmental science could be set and thus opening up student's eyes so they can and feel comfortable with taking action for themselves. This would help to diminish the political bias of environmental affairs that people have based on their political affiliation and allow them to contribute to the collective responsibility.
DeleteHali,
DeleteI have also sensed that many students "feel removed from the real world" and that leads them to take a deliberate disinterest in politics as they feel their input insignificant. Empowerment is an important tool to make students and minorities realize that their voice also matters. I think that Emily’s sticker idea on paper towel dispensers are examples of simple, but powerful solutions toward a sustainable future, a life-hack if you may toward conservation. Another idea that I can think of to make students aware of sustainable practices is by posting visuals of how much water it takes to make a cotton T-Shirt (as was shown to us by Cynthia Barnett) for it is a widespread practice to hand them out without giving much importance to them.
"This year’s State of the World aims to expand and deepen discussion of the overused and misunderstood adjective sustainable, which in recent years has morphed from its original meaning into something like 'a little better for the environment than the alternative.'" (World Watch pg.251) With this quote the author seems to be making a bold statement criticizing those who claim they are sustainable. But I think that by this statement, the author is bringing up a concern that sustainability, in the sense, has not been taken as seriously as it needs to be. I agree that simply doing “better” environmentally will not stop the unraveling of ecological relationships we depend on for food and health. Much of the damage has already been done. Glaciers have melted and rainforests have been destroyed. It is no longer enough to simply recycle your plastic water bottles and call it sustainability. This is a call for action because it is stressed that the time is now. Do you agree that the term sustainability has a tendency to be misunderstood? What can be done to reform the way society perceives sustainability?
ReplyDeleteMany people understand sustainability is being closely linked to saving the environment. However, this is definitely not the case. Building a sustainable society has to do with our own well-being and economic functions just as much as it has to do with keeping the Earth green. True sustainability is to be able to run civilization in the long run without causing detrimental effects to the environment that will bring about its collapse. Obviously, we are very far away from realizing this bold dream. The public's efforts of reducing, recycling, planting trees, etc. is merely a clean-up stage of the ill-effects that we have already caused. It'll take quite a few more years in order to reverse the damages, but after that, we will finally be able to implement some of the systems to provide a sustainable society.
Delete“Environmental actions may serve as green means for relieving our guilty ecological consciences without actually or genuinely reducing impacts” (Maria Csutora, Worldwatch 245). This quote opened my eyes to an aspect of sustainability that I never really think about and it’s one that, I have been challenged to realize, has one of the greatest impacts on this entire movement. When we think about trying to make our world more sustainable, we can immediately pinpoint where the world is flawed and what we believe needs to be done. However, it seems as though many of us give up our ability and power to do something about it when we choose to only take small “green” initiatives that may individually satisfy a small portion of the responsibility we share as sustainable citizens, rather than using our voices and trying to make a difference on a collective level. And it’s this individualistic view of sustainable change that lessens the potential success that this movement could have. If people with these same values worked together to actually make a difference where it is needed, places where major decisions can truly be made, that is when change can occur. To solve a problem so big, we need to think big. We need to approach large businesses and corporations, places like the government and the law which hold the power to make change happen. I really like what Alice Walker said. “The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any (Worldwatch 252). This is so true. I know sometimes I personally don’t think I have it in me to make a difference, even though I care so much about sustainability, and I think that is exactly what holds me back from truly making one. This week’s readings really changed my perspective on my own journey in my sustainability studies!
ReplyDeleteHey another Laura! Haha alright well I completely agree with you on all the points. This quote also makes me think about how small the things we do really are. “Small but impactful”, we tell ourselves, but not impactful enough. I mean the statistics shocked me when I read “the garbage coming out of U.S. households accounts for less than 3 percent of the country’s total waste” (Worldwatch pg. 246). We think that buying something that says “green” or “eco-friendly” on it will be making a difference. I mean I became a vegetarian, I recycle as much as possible, and try to buy foods locally grown. And although we learned that these are all great steps toward sustainability, they aren’t strides. Because it’s not just about what I can do, but what we as a community must do to make a change politically, socially, and culturally. The quote also makes me think about how sometimes we give some change to a homeless person and we feel better about ourselves but we’re not making much of a difference, really. The person would still be on the streets with no job. Maybe he got enough change for food for the day but the problem is still there, unsolved. You didn’t take him off the streets. You just fed him once. It’s like that phrase “Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” So I think this phrase can be applied similarly to the way we relieve our guilty consciences of the environmental issues. We’re still stuck in the “I think I’m making a difference,” when we buy a “green” product or decide to recycle a bottle of water, but in reality the impact is not enough.
Delete"KAB effectively shifted attention away from those who design, produce, market, and profit from all those single-use disposable bottles and cans that were ending up in rivers and on roadsides." page 244, World Watch.
ReplyDeleteWhat stuck out to me about this is that this is a reflection of reality that we may not even realize. We all do our best to recycle and find ways to cut down on our environmental impact as individuals, but we do not demand that of the companies that provide goods and products to us. While having a sense of individual responsibility for the environment is an important thing to have so that we will make efforts to preserve it, we could do so much more by requiring the same sense of responsibility from large companies or industries. We need to make it clear that, as consumers, we hold the power and want to support green initiatives beyond recycling our water bottle from lunch and shift some of this responsibility to large contributors to the problem that often attempt to evade blame or responsibility by keeping the issues out of sight (not in our communities, but somewhere else).
"Describing today's environmental problems and solutions as individual issues also has a disempowering effect, leaving people to feel that their greatest power lies in perfecting their daily choices." -World Watch, pg. 247
ReplyDeletePeople often feel hopeless by the actions they are blamed for and feel like there aren't any viable solutions to solve the problems (ex. it's impossible to get everyone on the planet to stop littering). However, if better policies were in place, do you think people would just totally leave environmental issues up to the government and forget about them if the individualistic approach to environmental issues was gone?
I don't think people would leave environmental issues up to the government if they had better polices. In fact, I think the opposite would occur. The government has such a strong influence in our lives that if it decided to put its full weight behind something, say environmental responsibility and ethics, America would be either convinced or forced (through laws) to act accordingly. That’s because the government is our indicator of what issues are currently important, for example, if many laws pertaining to counter terrorism are passed, that tells us citizens that national defense is at the forefront of our concerns, and surely enough, the rest of America followed suit.
DeleteFor the most part I agree with the article we read this week, I feel that the "green" movement that our generation is currently attempting to create is not going to happen without strong government intervention. I do not think that individuals will dismiss their own responsibilities needed in order to protect the environment if the government put in place new laws and regulations because the history behind similar movements show the opposite. The article speaks on several instances in the past where change did not significantly occur until government intervened, for example the "free produce" movement. I think government regulation would create a tidal wave similar to the model that Jacob Cravey utilizes with his "we are neutral" organization. By requiring large businesses and well-known people to make changes, other organizations will see that these changes are ultimately a positive decision, causes them to follow suit. The portion of the population that was already contesting for change will become ecstatic that
Deletethe change they requested is occurring and will only become more involved .
Naim Conrad Vilabrera,
ReplyDeleteState of Our World 2013. Page 247 Paragraph 1.
"Environmental decline is framed as the result of an epidemic of
bad individual choices rather than of an economic, regulatory, and physical
infrastructure that facilitates environmentally destructive activities over environmentally restorative ones."
State of Our World 2013. Page 284. Paragraph 2.
Benjamin Barber proposes that we take some of the power back by revitalizing society as a “strong democracy,” by which he means a “self-governing community of citizens who are united less by homogeneous interests than by civic education and who are made capable of common purpose and mutual action by virtue of their civic attitudes and participatory institutions rather than their altruism or their good nature.”
Combining the two paragraphs, I believe over the past century the United States built an infrastructure, physically, civically, and constitutionally, that coerces individuals AND communities, which would spur the social movement, towards a misconception of properly allocated duties.
I feel that this culture, which this infrastructure silently nurses, creates weak individuals who are too prideful to be wrong, too stubborn to compromise, or too high-handed or underhanded to recruit themselves or others into a active civic community. HOWEVER, the weakness is an illusion spell cast by the culture. We all are strong. We all are participants of the local. Participation is only one decision away, because those who have come before you worked to bring back the power of local civic participation. Do not feel excluded. A community is inherently inclusive.
"Sustainability cannot effectively be pursued, certainly not at national or global levels, without governments. It requires their use- and their transformation- to ensure greater transparency and citizen empowerment (Sustainability, Thiele pg.141)."
ReplyDeleteGood morning everyone! Hope you are all having an excellent week with all of the great weather we are having. This quotation from the reading really stuck out to me. It reminded me of all the reasons Dr. Chandler has us doing so many group projects, because a single being cannot achieve their sustainability goals for the world without a team. It takes a whole community to make a difference. On a much larger scale, such as in the United States, government is an important collaborator in solving environmental issues. With the government it is possible to make a change for better regarding sustainability efforts.
It is our obligation to the world we live in to get the message across that our planet needs help. As Cynthia Barnett spoke, it is a challenge to make everyone aware of the problems our environment faces. Most people feel that the environment is thriving and the problems are non-existent. One of the best ways to make people aware of the growing issues the world has is to involve the government so they can spread the word to everyday people. What are the most effective ways to educate the population on the need for increasing sustainability efforts because of the many challenges our planet undergoes?
This is a really touchy question—because as we talked about in class, it’s hard to reach people once you tap in to their fear of mortality. In my opinion, it has to be from a standpoint of understanding and empathy when it comes to educating others about the impact of their actions. It has to be concrete things that they can do to help reduce their impact on this world. No one is going to make a lot of changes if you say ‘stop driving’ or ‘stop eating meat’. These are things that seem inconceivable to many average Americans’ way of lives. Instead, small efforts (IE. Meatless Monday’s) and gradual changes are needed to change society’s outlook on sustainability and environmental consciousness.
Delete"Clearly, much needs to change beyond the level of our individual actions. Society-wide, we need to implement new technologies, cultural norms, infrastructure, policies, and laws. Many of these already exist, so the problem is less about inventing new ways to do things than about building the political power to demand them." (World Watch Institute, Pg.248)
ReplyDeleteI think this paragraph (and the whole section) does a good job of reminding us of another side to environmentalism that we need to keep in mind. So far in class, we've seen examples of how individual and collective action can affect positive change, such as nonprofit organizations like GatorNeutral,or a coalition of scientists like AgMIP. But despite how encouraging and positive these actions are, we can't leave out the institutions that have the greatest impact on us, and the environment: the government and businesses. We need to also push change with them, because if not all our actions are well-meaning but essentially useless to broach the bigger, global problem of environmentalism; and in terms of results affecting change in the government or businesses has a lot bigger effect than just recycling and buying a hybrid car.
"Csutora explains that the “BIG problem means that even when consumers
ReplyDeleteact in an environmentally aware manner, their carbon footprint or ecological
footprint may improve only slightly, if at all. Wishful thinking about
prospective gains from pro-environmental behavior is common, which is
actually more a policy-making problem than a consumer behavior problem.”
The result, in Csutora’s words, is that “environmental actions may
serve as green means for relieving our guilty ecological consciences without
actually or genuinely reducing impacts.” WorldWatch, p.245
This really struck a chord with me, as it told a really blunt truth when it came to individuals' small actions not quite adding up to an impressive whole impact. But is there a way we can change policy regarding environmental impact (from industries, etc.) without a total upheaval of legislation and creating economic disparity in a lot working class Americans' lives?
I agree with what Csutora is saying. Our little actions can only mean so much when our society today is so far from where it needs to be in terms of sustainability. The truth is, most of us are very wasteful and little efforts like recycling or turning off the lights before leaving home is not going to make much of an impact. We are facing such a large, collective problem. Our own individual actions in one area can only do so much when we need to be more sustainable in all areas of life. We really need to work on changing the entire mindset of our society. The issue can be helped by bringing about awareness. People feel safe because their conditions seem fine now. We should better educate people about how badly change is needed and about how their actions are contributing the problem. If more people cared they could make a genuine effort, and I think that the world could change. As consumers, we need to demand better quality products that promote a healthy environment out of businesses even if it means paying more money. People who truly care about the state of the world can’t just sit around and wait for someone else to fix the issues. Anything impacting the environment in a positive way, no matter how big or small, is worth something. While we should keep making small changes, we need to really get out there and demand the change also be made on a large scale in order to see effective change.
Delete“We have entered a ‘long emergency’ in which a myriad of worsening ecological, social, and economic problems and dilemmas at different geographic and temporal scales are converging as a crisis of crises”
ReplyDeleteThis quote really stuck out to me because of its sense of urgency and accusation. It is easy to think about each of these as separate problems in the world but in fact they are all interconnected. Personally, I feel as though a lot of problems are heading towards a climax but will they all converge to a crisis of crises? Of course our society has its problems, but will the social and economic problems spiral into a massive crisis or is the author just trying to play our emotions?
World Watch Pg 279
Delete"Nonetheless, we administer, organize, and analyze in parts, not wholes. But in the real world there are tipping points, surprises, step-level changes, time delays, and unpredictable, high-impact events. To fathom such things requires a mind-set capable of seeing connections, systems, and patterns as well as a perspective far longer than next year’s election or an annual balance sheet" (World Watch, pg 290)
ReplyDeleteThis quote touches on people's tendency to be quite shortsighted when it comes to solving the world's problems. This way of thinking has been prevalent since pretty much the dawn of civilization, "what can I do to benefit NOW?" Business run on quarterly statistics to bring up profits for the next quarter. Politicians run on campaigns that will get them elected in to office in the next election. But we need to completely change the way we think, apart from the patterns in history. We need to think about what our decisions can affect ourselves and our children's lives 20, 50, 100, or even 200 years from now.
There is a false misconception that the human species has evolved to the point that we are superior and harvest the power and knowledge to control the delicate balances of nature. This notion easily begins to fall apart when you realize how truly limited our perspective is. We approach global issues through personalized lenses, failing to see that everything is interconnected-- what effects one, affects all. We also have the tendency to limit our concern to the current issue, despite later implications. This quote draws on the idea that humans tend to think very egocentrically, with little to no regard of other species and ecosystems. We are so busy concerned with our own individual picture that we fail to see we are apart of a much grander one.
Delete"Society-wide, we need to implement new technologies, cultural norms, infrastructure, policies, and laws" (Is Sustainability Possible, pg 248). This week in class we have changed our attendance method to instead of wasting paper for each group, sending an email. This is a good example of how we have changed our classroom policy to be more sustainable and less wasteful, and how technology has made this easier. I am interested in hearing some ways you all have seen a sustainable way of life being implemented in our cultural norms, and if you have any ideas of how to further this progress beyond individual behavior.
ReplyDeleteHi Alaina,
DeleteAfter this weeks guest speaker it is hard to deny that cultural norms play a huge role in our sustainable future. Professor Barnett’s example of Mad Man had a lot of truth behind it, different generations see things through a different lens, and I personally am thankful to be living in a generation that is continuously learning about the effects of pollution, and climate change, and not contributing as much to the problem. Education brings awareness, and the more we can influence people the more they will become conscious in making sustainable decisions on their own. Also your idea about emailing the attendance roster is a great idea! As for other ideas, I think more companies like Starbucks should give discounts or at least free refills for those that buy the reusable cups. I think advertising this as the new ‘norm’ could possibly further progress.
Hi Alaina,
DeleteI think there are many ways that we can slowly reduce and switch to a more sustainable lifestyle. For example, Meatless Mondays is something that can contribute tremendously towards sustainability. Not only would it allow for overall less meat consumption, which is the largest greenhouse contributor to climate change, it would also allow people to slowly reduce their consumption and take first steps towards a more sustainable lifestyle. Furthermore, doing things like carpooling, using reusable bottles, and turning off lights when not in the room can assist tremendously in sustainability. The smallest changes can help shift the cultural zeitgeist towards one that is more sustainable.
I think there are several ways that our societal and cultural norms are changing to become more sustainable. However, in keeping with a more relatable and local topic I will use Rinker Hall as an example. Rinker Hall is one of the University's own buildings. From the outside, one may not realize its environmental significance. I did not realize the efficiency aspect of this building until I had a class in Rinker last spring. I learned that Rinker has achieved the LEED gold ranking for its efficient water use. The building has several cisterns that catch rainwater. The gathered rain water is then used in the building's bathrooms. Rinker also has waterless urinals and a rooftop garden. I merely summed up the sustainable aspects of Rinker Hall but when I found out that UF had implemented such a project I was not only pleased but quite proud.
Delete“In this regard the U.S. Constitution is typical of others in giving no ‘clear, unambiguous textual foundation for federal environmental protection law,’ notes legal scholar Richard Lazarus. It privileges ‘decentralized, fragmented, and incremental lawmaking . . . which makes it difficult to address issues in a comprehensive, holistic fashion.’” (pg. 286, paragraph 2, WorldWatch 2013)
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest issues we face with the environment today is that a sustainable ecosystem it is not treated like a human right and it is not protected under the U.S. Constitution. The environment is often neglected and sacrificed for the sake of other things like infrastructure or commerce. We continue to neglect and abuse our surroundings without thinking about the effects in the future, and there is no constitutional law to protect the environment in the future. The system itself is not treated holistically and we need to change that. Everything is cause and effect, and I think people and businesses need to consider their actions more because poor actions will have poor outcomes. I think environmental sustainability should be treated as a human right because we cannot hope to experience life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without an environment that is in good condition. It is unfair that some people can abuse the environment more than others and cause harm to everybody. We deserve to be protected from the destruction of our world. The structure of the government as it is does not support a holistic or sustainable system. I think that our government would have to change a lot in order to create a truly sustainable country, especially because sustainability is related to and influenced by all industries and fields of work.
"There is no good outcome that does not require some-thing like a second democratic revolution in which we must master the art and science of governance for a new era—creating and maintaining govern-ments that are ecologically competent, effective at managing complex sys-tems, agile, capable of foresight, and sturdy over an extraordinary time span." (World Watch Institute, 288)
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking of this quote in the context it is given, it is understandably known that there is a call for action in the public policies being made towards sustainability. Of course, when thinking of sustainability, it is easy to say "how can I help?" or "how can I make a difference?", however, when reading through this article, it is asking "what can my government do?" Moreover, when thinking of this quote, what struck me as odd is that this quote calls for a 'revolution' rather than reforms to the government. One question I would like to ask, in a democratic society, does our government need reformation in policies towards sustainability or, does our government need change completely; a revolution? When reading this article, I completely related to the statements which were being provided. I agreed with the statements that in order to push for economic stability, we must first push for government stability, i.e. ecological reforms. In order for our environment to flourish, we must first as individuals, make our voices heard in order to push for a stronger democracy. However, to me, a revolution in democracy isn't needed, an environmental revolution is needed. But for our democracy however, government reforms would push for a more balanced environment socially and economically. A societal and economic revolution is needed because when reading the facts that the author presents about the bottom 185,000,000 people having as much wealth as the top 400 individuals, it is clear to me that this inequality has diminished human rights.
In conclusion, I agree with this quote- to a certain degree. I believe we need economic, environmental, and social reforms in our government. However, we do not need governmental revolutions.
In one of the most iconic ads of the twentieth century, a Native American
ReplyDelete(actually, it was an Italian dressed up as a Native American) canoes through
a river strewn with trash. He disembarks and walks along the shore as the
passenger in a car driving past throws a bag of litter out the window. As the
camera zooms in to a single tear rolling down his cheek, the narrator announces,
“People start pollution. People can stop it.”(Worldwatch p. 244)
This quote depicts a famous television ad from the 1970s that helped awaken society to human made environmental issues. The viewers felt the indian's sense of sadness as their own and found the ad to be emotionally moving. After some thought, I realized how advertisements like these can still play a large role in both educating the minds of the world and making them realize our impact. Can you think of any other ways to communicate environmental ethics to society on such a large scale? Do you think this method works?
I do think this is a very effective method in raising awareness for issues. Appealing to a person’s sense of emotion is one of the best ways to start a change. Branding like this is probably the most large scale way to get a point across to populations; in today’s society it is so hard to get people to sit down and read an article, but much more likely that they’ll sit down and watch a commercial. Even if they do not actively watch it, seeing the emotional toll taken will feed into their subconscious. Educating people about the issues that they are causing, other than people personally experiencing an environmental disaster, is the only way people can learn about what is going on in the world around them. Although this ad was effective in raising awareness, I feel that its biggest lack was providing a solution. There is no sense in having knowledge about something if it is simply going to leave you feeling doomed. Like Cynthia Barnett addressed in class on Tuesday, it is important to raise awareness, but even more important to teach people how they can help. It’s the concept of teaching a man to fish: teach someone about environmental issues and they’ll be aware of it, teach someone how to fix environmental issues and they can save the world.
Delete“To move people beyond the easy green actions, we need to put forward an inspiring, morally compelling, powerful, and inviting vision comparable to that in transformative social movements of the past,” (Worldwatch, p. 250)
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the Moving from Individual change to Societal Change passage from the Worldwatch document. In the article, the rebound effect, our tendency to increase our use of more-efficient goods, was a very fascinating concept. For instance, now that I have a hybrid car, I can drive it more often. Overall, I found the article very compelling, and it validated for me some of the thoughts I had been having about individual “green” actions. I think the article hits the nail on the head when it suggests that individual changes in action, such as to recycle, use reusable bags, or bike to work are not enough to achieve a sustainable society. The change needs to take place in our policies and industry. Some people argue that these small actions encourage people to care more about their impact on the environment, while others believe that these small actions will make people complacent and think less about their role in environmental degradation. I was wondering what everyone thinks, have little individual changes helped or hindered the movement toward sustainability?
In many ways, I feel the same way overall about the article. As one of the other readings point that people “who decreases meat consumption out of environmental concern, only to then increase consumption of imported nuts that may have a greater carbon footprint than local meat."
DeleteThat’s why I believe in having all communities to come together to work on making changes, just the same way we did in the civil rights movement to get the political power to demand what we believe to be “human dignity,” we have to continue to come together to bring the social changes that’s necessary to live in a better world. As the Dr. Chandler and the guest speakers try to teach us that knowledge is the first step, then we can spread the word so everyone can implement new cultural norms, technologies and also to make changes in our policies and laws to bring about a better way of living for everyone to enjoy for years to come.
We all know that education is the most important action we can take to inform everyone of whats going on. Yet getting the information and ideas to them is the hardest part. Getting the word out about small individual things we can do does change the individual view point on sustainability. In our current situation people are speaking up more in their workplace, or even around our college campus to ensure that everything is done sustainability. There is no doubt its helping but were at a standing point until big business and industries realize their contribution to the problem and take responsibility. Personally although my contribution may be small I hope to always look for the sustainable option in everything I do.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Rational corporate behavior responding to markets and prices, they believe, can
ReplyDeletestabilize climate faster at lower costs and without hair-shirt sacrifice, moral
posturing, and slow, clumsy, overbearing bureaucracies.” – Worldwatch (281)
I was interested in the way this article posed different viewpoints on how the climate crisis can be addressed. Earlier in the article, the author described economist Robert Heilbroner’s theory that a centralization of power would be the only effective way for our “threatened and dangerous civilization” to survive. However, the viewpoint above proposes a pro-business approach to sustainability. Is there a model of capitalism that can support a sustainable society? Must we resort to centralized government to heal our planet? Or is there an economic system somewhere in between that supports individual freedoms as well as environmental and social responsibility?
Being a business major like yourself, this particular subject of sustainability interests me the most. I personally believe that because corporations are the ones who actually harvest the resources from the earth before they convert them to consumable items for us, they are going to have to take the lead in assuring that they have sustainable practices. It is the balance between the profits needed to grow the company and the resources that they use to do this. centralized government is not absolutely required to make this change but instead a joint effort between business, government and the people is the only way we will really turn the train around so to speak. I would personally like to see corporations make the first big step and work with government instead of fighting against the regulations and so forth. Personal freedoms to me means that our actions should not negatively impact the lives of other therefore we can generally do what we want to do assuming that it is for the greater good. America has fostered a culture of selfishness and greed and our survival doesn't depend on this, just the amount of "stuff" that we have.
Delete"...But these individual actions are puny when compared
ReplyDeleteto the challenges before us, and can’t achieve the kind of change we desperately
need today.”. (world watch page 245)
This statement comments on what i believe to be the single biggest issue among the sustainability movement. The hardest part about the sustainable movement or really any movement is getting people involved. However,there's a lot of misleading ideas and information going around suggesting that just changing a few of your day to day activities is going to solve our problems of resource scarcity and climate change. Realistically speaking this is just insane. We need systematic changes, an energy revolution, and an economic revolution. We need our corporations to reduce consumption more than focusing on us as individuals, and this can only be brought about through an organized grassroots movements. All of the other stuff, the reusable grocery bags, the led light bulbs, etc., its nice, but it really just serves as a distraction from the problems at large.
Mack, I agree with you, for the most part. I believe you are correct in your statements that changing a few day to day activities will most definitely not solve the world's problems, realistically. I also think you are correct in saying that we need a type of revolution and make drastic changes in order to solve the problems. However, I do not think that the idea that changing little things about our daily lives should be viewed as irrelevant, or pointless. Like you said, they are nice ideas. I would pose this question to you: How are we going to start this grassroots movement, when, as you said, it is so difficult to get people involved? I believe that you already have the answer. These little changes in our lives, using tap water, reusable grocery bags, recycling, etc., are the start to this grassroots revolution. People are reluctant to change because they are comfortable; they don't want to change their lives, even if it's at the expense of someone else's. When we convince people to make small changes, we are introducing them to holistic sustainability. It may not make a big difference, but it gives us the opportunity to talk to people about the big issues, while convincing them that a small change for the betterment of the world is not that big of a sacrifice or inconvenience. Among other things, using the little things helps us prepare for the inevitable large-scale change that will have to occur in order to maintain life on Earth. I really enjoyed your post!
Delete"For the foreseeable future, however, hard-fought battles with opponents are inevitable." Thiele. Sustainability. pg 115, paragraph 2, last sentence.
ReplyDeleteThis quotation, in context, is referring to the persuasion of those in total opposition to holistic sustainability, for whatever their reasons. People are not in agreement with the data, predictions, and necessary changes, because, for the most part, they are too comfortable with their lives and the way their wants are being met. According to Thiele, the result is that they ignore the truth for their luxurious lives, at the expense of others' needs. When I read this, I thought about this week's lecture, provided by Cynthia Barnett, and some of the discussion that took place after the lecture. There are impending battles, that we must endure, in the effort to convince the world of what needs to be done. In the lecture, and in Thiele's writing, it was mentioned that often times, disasters must occur before people realize the severity of the issue. I do believe that people on the very lowest level of the totem pole must change their mind, before anything else will happen, as mentioned in the lecture. Also, after reading what Thiele had to say, I think that "nudging" people, in respect to the architecture of choice, will help to promote a change in thinking before we are victims of disaster.
What precautions do you believe are necessary? What ways can we convince people of the truth and necessity of holistic sustainability? Will we all have to wait until we are struck by tragedy and hardship before we make a change?
I wish I could say that changing people's minds in today's day and age with regards to sustainability is an easy task, but by no means is it. I want to have faith in my country but I do think that the only way the mass population of people in the United States will ever make a true drastic change is if something like what happened in Perth, Australia happened here. So many Americans have their "motivated reasoning" as Professor Chandler called it. I believe that a lot of people may think they are doing good, but as in this week's Worldwatch reading, probably not nearly as much good as our society needs. I believe that we must lead by example, and I agree that "nudging" people is a good way to convince people for the need for holistic sustainability.
Delete“In turn, there is no shortage of people who actively oppose the social, economic, cultural, political, and legal changes that the practice of sustainability demands.” (Thiele, page 115)
ReplyDeleteThis quote stood out to me especially after Ms. Barnett’s lecture yesterday where she spoke about the “caring middle”. So while there are so many people in the world that are in opposition of sustainability practices, I feel like there are even more people in the world who are just not aware of the impact their actions are causing. Before a large-scale political change can be made the general public must become educated and aware of the need for sustainability. Without the desire of citizens to live sustainably, any legislation passed will not be able to meet its full potential.
I'm glad you made that connection with Ms.Barnett's lecture. I agree that education about holistic sustainability is the way to go to effect change. We need a paradigm shift to occur. I see this happening through the use of aggressive campaigns backed by legislation and financially reprimanding. I believe the efforts should target the younger generation and work in a similar fashion to that of the non-smoking campaigns. this will effect change in the long run.
Delete"...the German Green Party endorsed the non-violence pursuit of ecological values, social justice, and participatory democracy." (Thiele, p 117, paragraph 4)
ReplyDeleteGermany has been very active in the push for more eco-friendly lifestyles. I always thought this was a newer concept, seeing that it began back in the 1970's was an eye-opener. Regardless, the focus goals of Germany's green party were adopted by other Green parties throughout the world. Do you think their goals of non-violence, social justice, and participatory democracy are practical ways to go about pursuing politics, or do you think they are being too idealistic? Do you think these approaches would be effective? Do you think these goals would be possible to attain in today's world?
I think non-violence is always the best approach in promoting social change. While non-violent practices like civil disobedience, boycotts, and peaceful protesting might not look as dramatic or striking when compared to aggressive rioting, gradually these non-violent actions can encourage society to adopt evolving beliefs.
DeleteMany European countries are ahead of the U.S. in terms of environmental activism and sustainability programs; however, that does not mean we cannot take note of their efforts and strive to create some of our own eco-friendly practices. In my opinion, democracy and non-violent political movements can effectively bring about political and social change, even if that change is gradual.
“Many of these already exist, so the problem is less about inventing new ways to do things than about building the political power to demand them” (Worldwatch pg. 248).
ReplyDeleteThe quotation was describing the fact that our society has created a variety of new products that are considered ‘green’ yet, as a society; we do not know how to use them efficiently. This also ties in with the fact that, in the United States, is the top politicians are not quite focused on the idea of saving the environment. So with that, they are not setting strict regulations are improving the earth’s state. If our country had more environmental based laws, there would be an improvement seen. Many European countries are great about their strict laws on protecting the only Earth we have. Discussed throughout this section, it is about taking action as a whole in order to improve. Yes, it is nice to have ideas and all this new technology, but nothing will change unless we actually act upon the new concepts being presented.
I really liked this quote as well as the ones I have mentioned this week. This shows us that technology and other inventions do not serve as excuses as to why we are not progressing in a sustainable manner. In addition, with these inventions already present, it demonstrates that human participation is extremely vital in order for us to display improvement. I do believe that through our individual actions we can inspire others to do the same, and ultimately we can strive to save the environment, as you mentioned, as a society. I think that this quote did a nice job clarifying the key element to progress and enhancement.
Delete“Even the most militarily, technologically, and economically developed nations cannot insulate themselves from climate change and many other forms of environmental degradations.” (Thiele Page 134)
ReplyDeleteI think that this point strikes home specifically in Florida. Relating back to Tuesdays lecturer, we all to often think that our technologically advance process and ideas are the best. We dredged and drained hundreds of thousands of gallons of water only to realize what a mistake it was. At the time we thought what we were doing was amazing and just apart of progression. At what rate do we stop blindly “progressing” and actually look at how we’re affecting the world around us?
I agree with your point, Michael. Moreover, when thinking back to this past class, I remember what our lecturer said about the South Florida crises and I remember one thing that struck me: people in South Florida realize that there is a crises around them because they are aware. I think in order for us as people to stop "progressing," we must first be aware of the ecological problems we are creating around us. Unfortunately however, we realize the woes of our ways too late and the damage is done. Hopefully, we will all gain a sense of awareness in order to progress ecologically, socially, and economically.
DeleteMichael,
DeleteI think your question here is quite valid. As Dr. Barnett illustrated to us on Tuesday, the technological advances, which allowed us to tap into the Florida Aquifer, has led to the destruction of 39 springs to date. Meanwhile, in parts of Africa today, tribes have to carry water from the source to their village, if they even have access to potable water. This only goes to show that the same technological advances, which have helped our country develop and which have made our personal lives more convenient are the same ones which are increasing the rate at which our resources are being depleted. Additionally, as Nada stated, we tend not to see the harm we do until it is too late and we are trying to undo the damage that's already been done. Rather, in order to achieve true progress, we must begin to look into the future and see the potential effects of our actions BEFORE the effects result in serious damage, such as the entire depletion of a resource or a war begun over the right to a diminishing resource.
For this week, I'd like to share two quotes from Worldwatch: "...KAB has worked diligently to ensure that waste was seen as a problem solved by improved individual responsibility, not stricter regulations or bottle bills" (p. 244) and "Environmental decline is framed as the result of an epidemic of bad individual choices rather than of an economic, regulatory, and physical infrastrcture..." (p. 247)
ReplyDeleteThese quotes reminded me of this week's guest speaker. Throughout class, she stressed the importance of individual actions being done to make a gradual progress rather than depending on the political system to make the change for us. She and Dr. Chandler demonstrated the bottom-up effect, where individual actions can create a bigger and more impact on sustainability. Whether it is to enhance our water ethic or to reduce our use on something, I believe that it will be immensely difficult to create a drastic change without individual participation. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Barnett and Dr. Chandler on this topic, as well with everything else she covered this week. In consideration for the future generations a well, we should all take in thought how we can unitedly cooperate in our daily lives to create a better living and sustainable conditions.
These quotes also stuck out to me, as I was reminded of what Dr. Barnett said in her lecture. In the Worldwatch report, the blame was shifted to the large industries rather than the individuals. However, I agree with your view that the only way a change will come about is by each individual doing his or her part. I think a great example of this is the meat industry, specifically cattle. Animal agriculture is one of the largest causes of pollution today, yet a majority of Americans continue to support this industry by purchasing meat at supermarkets and restaurants (mainly fast food). Every purchase made to support commercial animal agriculture is a vote to continue pollution and destruction of our environment. Individuals can have an impact on this industry simply by deciding not to purchase meat and in turn not supplying these companies more money to destroy our environment.
DeleteI completely agree with you, Kristy. The excerpt from Worldwatch focuses heavily on changing the view of the politicians. The article seems to suggest that worrying to much about individual actions can take away from the biggest problem of all: industries. But how can we change policies and businesses if the people literally demand the products they sell? The meat industry is horrid in all aspects, but the demand for meat is simply too high for the industry to effectively change their policies. Instead of people recognizing the meat INDUSTRY as the problem, meat CONSUMPTION must be recognized as the root of all evil. Maybe not all evil, but that would be a good start. Ha
Delete“Socioeconomic costs are reason enough to question our fossil fuel economy. Today’s economies are vulnerable to energy commodity market volatility; price spikes reduce economic output and cause layoffs. Some countries, among them the poorest on the planet, spend more than 10 percent of their gross domestic product importing fossil fuels. U.S. taxpayers spend $345 billion annually just to pick up the pollution and health bills related to coal use.3” (World Watch Institute 84)
ReplyDeleteI found this to be pretty interesting, and socioeconomics is a good way to look at how we use our natural resources, and the effects over usage has on society. Do you guys think socioeconomics is reason enough to question our fossil fuel economy? Or do you think there is much more to it then economic issues?
Of course there's more to it than economic issues. There's the idea of preserving the state of the Earth for our children's children. There's also a national security threat associated with not having a diverse energy market, because if for some reason our chief energy source (coal) were to be put in jeopardy somehow (and there's the fact that within 150 years at the same consumption rate, it won't be economically feasible to even mine coal anymore), then that would rock our entire economy which makes the US vulnerable to outside threat. Plus, it is always better for the sake of energy security to rely on energy sources that are renewable (and therefore won't run out) and also that don't have to be imported (due to potential volatility in the energy markets of other countries and costs associated with imports).
Delete“What is new and significant is an increasing awareness that environmental emergencies, especially those caused by rapid climate change, are fundamentally moral issues that call for a moral response. The call for a response based on justice, compassion, and respect for human rights comes from scientists as well as activists and moral and religious leaders. “Worldwatch, Pg. 246
ReplyDeleteI found this quote very interesting because it addressed something that I had never thought of. We tend to think of environmental issues as an entirely different subject not related to our own social wellbeing. However, I agree with James Hansen when he stated that climate change is an “injustice of one generation to others.” We are the ones affected by the environment and we are the ones that depend on its resources to survive, yet we exploit the planet without imagining what it will be like for the people of tomorrow. This makes it easy for us to postpone our actions. Although, once you relate the scientific evidence to our morals people feel more compassion to solve the issues. My question to you all is: if we instantly feel a need to change our ways when we are told that it will harm our children, why don’t we react to the countless amounts of evidence proving that we are being impacted right now?
I think you are absolutely right when you say that people create an artificial distinction between issues pertaining humans and their activity in the world, especially economics, and issues that deal with our somewhat closed environment. On the point of intergenerational injustice, that has been the case throughout our modern history. I think someone during the industrial revolution, for example, had no way of knowing burning coal would have the deep side effects it would have on Earth, but we do. Yet, it is easy to detach ourselves from the problem and the consequences, if they don't directly affect us, much like we distantiate ourselves from injustices occurring today, and that is why we don't react.
Delete" First, there is a big idea of how things could be better. To move people
ReplyDeletebeyond the easy green actions, we need to put forward an inspiring, morally
compelling, powerful, and inviting vision comparable to that in transformative
social movements of the past—compelling enough that people
are eager to work long and hard to achieve it, because that is what it is going
to take. Fortunately, we have that: Let’s build a new economy that puts
people and the planet first. " Moving from Individual Change
to Societal Change- Annie Leonard
I feel like the main hurdle to this idea though is this common "truth" the a greener economy is ultra expensive, and that fiscal and environmental responsibility are two quite mutually exclusive goals. I think we need a campaign that outlines the cost benefit of making the planet more survivable and how nicely holistic sustainability complements human dignity.
Sydney,
DeleteI completely agree with you. One of the main reasons that politicians are so eager to disregard environmental concerns is because they feel as though these issues are contrary to their economic concerns. They fear the viable solutions that have been proposed because their main concern is not the environment, but is instead money. A means of solving this issue would be to have a group of people who are not only experts in the field of sustainability but also those who are learned in regards to fiscal issues to team up and think of more solutions that are not only viable and sustainable, but cost effective as well.
“The BIG problem occurs when green-oriented behavior change is adopted with the expectation of making change, but little or no positive environmental impact follows.”
ReplyDelete(Worldwatch, Pg. 245)
I think this quote is important because it addresses a problem that many of us are faced with and can be disheartening at times. This idea portrayed in the reading is that individuals do not hold the power to make a difference, but the major corporations and large businesses are the ones that must change in order to have any affect on the environment. I am on the fence about this statement because it partially agrees and partially disagrees with my views. There are many people who think they are being “green” by recycling their plastic water bottles and filling their reusable grocery bags with plastic-packaged foods and yes, I would agree that these people are not making much of an overall difference in the environment. However, I believe that the only way we can get the major polluting businesses to change their ways is by consumer actions. We as individuals hold the power to decide what we purchase and in turn can influence the market value of goods, causing companies to adapt accordingly. If consumers shift their gears to purchasing locally grown fruits and vegetables as well as other product, demand for the environmentally damaging goods will decrease and produce a change.
Very interesting, I agree with many of your points. I agree that this idea that by purchasing "green" products we can buy our way out of of our problems is ridiculous. Our issues are caused by consumption and they will certainly not be solved by consumption of a slightly different sort. As we saw in the reading, most of our waste comes from industry. While many people's slight changes in behavior are admirable, they are really not doing much other than stroking their own egos. I agree with you again that consumers as a whole wield a magnificent amount of power with their spending habits. Unfortunately, as you know, "the consumer" is a disparate group ranging from the filthy rich to the very poor. Many simply do not have the time or money to care about climate change and human waste, and who can blame them? Sure it's nice to know you are doing good by only buying local, but many people simply do not have the luxury. An apple from across the planet that will keep for weeks and is sold out of a store opened 24 hours a day is often just cheaper and more accessible than anything someone can buy at a farmer's market that's only open 3 hours a week. And as long as these consumers exist, there is little that can be done to a multinational corporations bottom line.
Delete"The result, in Csutora’s words, is that “environmental actions may
ReplyDeleteserve as green means for relieving our guilty ecological consciences without
actually or genuinely reducing impacts.” ... individuals
may think they are engaging in pro-environment behavior ... when in reality the products they buy do not differ in environmental impacts from conventional products."(Worldwatch p.245-246). This quote stuck out to me especially in respect to Prefessor Barnett's talk on Tuesday. She made a very important point regarding why change does not often come about or comes about very slowly. There exists a blindness and ignorance amongst the general public and climate change, specifically when we talk about water. Professor Barnett stressed the idea of this "illusion of water abundance". To me, this quote from Worldwatch is a similar idea. People simply are not educated in many aspects of climate change. Therefore, we tend to make poor decisions, or completely uninformed decisions which more often than not end up being detrimental.
A vigorous debate is currently under way about whether greening our
ReplyDeletedaily individual acts leads people to the kind of deeper civic engagement
that makes meaningful change or instead lulls them into a false sense of
security and accomplishment. In other words, are these individual acts “on-ramps”
to greater engagement, or are they “dead ends”? World Watch Pg. 249
This quote really highlights a point I find very interesting. The book suggests that these activities really are a "dead ends" because people become complacent. I tend to agree. A lot of people do engage in small "green" activities and suddenly become very self-important.
“we know that real solutions to waste can’t be achieved at the individual level alone. Ultimately we need stronger standards and laws, as well as shifts in societal and cultural norms, to achieve the solutions we know are possible.”
ReplyDelete(Worldwatch 252)
This quote stood out to me because it made me think about what it means to be a sustainable individual. I recycle, bike when I can and eat local but is that enough? I am not part of any sustainable groups or a protester? I feel as though my contribution to the movement is through my individual actions, but is that enough? Does being in this class or being a sustainability studies minor count as being a part of the movement?
My question is: What is an individual’s role in the sustainability? Is it recycling and making sustainable choices at home and in their daily lives or is it ultimately being a part of a larger movement?
“What is new and significant is an increasing awareness that environmental emergencies, especially those caused by rapid climate change, are fundamentally moral issues that call for a moral response. The call for a response based on justice, compassion, and respect for human rights comes from scientists as well as activists and moral and religious leaders" Worldwatch, Pg. 246
ReplyDeleteI found this quote particularly impactful because environmental emergencies are typically not perceived as a social issue, even though they often times tend to be multifaceted problems that affect many different aspects of our society. Addressing issues such as climate change as moral issues taps into peoples’ sense of human dignity and draws out empathy and compassion that can be used to make viable strides in combating the different environmental issues at hand. Looking at environmental issues holistically and acknowledging how they can upset not just our physical infrastructure but our social atmosphere, cultural norms and economic well-being as well can facilitate our progression towards solving these pervading issues.
Hi Julia,
DeleteI completely agree with your statements. I think that environmental emergencies are not taken seriously till they detrimentally impactful. I feel that this also relates to the lecture from Tuesday where Cynthia Barnett talked about the impact of the drought on Florida and the way in which we have an "illusion of abundance" because we assume that since there is so much rain and freshwater sources, we will not be impacted by wasteful usage of water. As Cynthia Barnett mentioned, Australia is a good example of how a country using too much water can all of a sudden turn around their habits to become nationally less wasteful. However, even with the example of Australia, which holds a strong resemblance to present day America, we still do not strive to create a stronger national water ethic. As the quote states, it is important to call for a response based on respect for human rights from everyone in order to change our wasteful ways.
"Winning over the hearts and minds of many of those who oppose sustainability may be achieved by good scholarships, patient arguments, and convincing appeals to common values" (Thiele, 115).
ReplyDeleteI found this quote especially significant due to the fact that sustainability has been an ongoing battle in terms of facing opposition. Something that is really admirable about the speakers that have come to speak to our class thus far is they all have a unique philosophy to the correct way to introduce topics of sustainability to the public and how to gently combat opposition; however, they can all be generally summarized by this quote. Each guest lecturer has highlighted the importance of patience, understanding, and compassion when educating others. As Thiele has mentioned previously in her book, it is best to not approach the idea of sustainability with cynicism, but instead with hope and patience. There is too much at stake to make the road to a more sustainable society even more twisted with the weight of cynicism.
I really like the quote you used, and in a way it answers the question I posed at the end of my post. Like you said, all of the speakers have sought to find solutions to issues by bringing together many groups across many interdisciplinary fields. Without trying to be cynical, however, it often seems that those who are against finding solutions to climate change are even anti-environmental, meaning they hold a total lack of regard for their surroundings. This usually draws from their confirmation bias—in other words, they seek information that proves them right, even if it is very clearly incorrect. Still, like you said, the guest speakers seem to be creating a better collective ethic the right way. They’re enlightening those they speak to not by telling them they are wrong, but instead offering them a better solution.
Delete“Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to carpool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline.” (Worldwatch pg. 247)
ReplyDeleteThis quote especially stuck out to me because it differs so much from what our culture tends to promote. When we are taught how to be “green”, we are usually told how limiting our showers to five minutes every day can save x amount of gallons of water each year, or something along those lines. Of course we individually can make small impacts, and collectively making small decisions does help to create a better global environmental ethic, but as Professor Chandler said in class, this newfound ethic needs to lead to a grassroots, bottoms-up effort that actually challenges the infrastructure of our society; the author later compares this to the civil rights movement, and how protestors would boycott segregated businesses. This leads to a difficult problem. It seems that in our country, at least, the majority don’t seem to care about making our society more sustainable. How can we make a difference if everyone is not on board together?
"Environmental decline is framed as the result of an epidemic of bad individual choices rather than of an economic, regulatory, and physical infrastructure that facilitates environmentally destructive activities over environmentally restorative ones."
ReplyDelete(WorldWatch, 247)
This statement rings truth on a number of levels. Cooperations have redirected the blame from the industry to the individual, creating a misconception about where the problem truly lies. Although collectively we are shifting towards more eco-conscious behavior, the destructive systems are still in place and wreaking havoc. It makes me question how we have gotten to this point. Implementing systems that value imaginary wealth over the well-being of others and our planet. It seems quite obviously illogical to destroy our only life source as a means to satisfy personal greed, but yet day-by-day things are left unchanged. How do we continue to carry out actions that could ultimately lead to our extinction?
I agree with you that as long as environmentally degrading societal structures remain in place, individual attempts at eco- consciousness will not solve the problem. The complexity of the issues at hand make me feel like what we need is a total restructuring of society. The systems we have in place perpetuate a money driven, materialistic society. We need to dramatically change our political, economic, social and agricultural systems if we hope to avoid total environmental destruction.
DeleteI think people carry out actions that are extremely harmful to the earth because they were raised in a society that teaches that the earth was made for human use exclusively and that the objective of life is to make and spend money. We need to change how people perceive happiness. We need to demonstrate that a society that lives in harmony with the environment is ultimately the best, happiest, most successful type of society.
“…the government and corporations, foundations, and nonprofit organizations still work mostly by breaking issues and problems into their parts and dealing with each in isolation. Separate agencies, departments, and organizations specialize in energy, land, food, air, water, wildlife, economy, finance, building regulations, urban policy, technology, health, and transportation as if each were unrelated to the others. Reducing wholes to parts is the core of the modern worldview…” (World Watch Institute, pg. 290)
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting declaration and straightforward statement regarding the large perspective shift we need in order to make greater change—especially if we want to do so holistically. We perceive delegation and efficiency to be the best method, but is it really more efficient when we don’t take advantage of the knowledge from combining multiple perspectives and disciplines? Does this seem counterproductive when we take into account the interconnectedness of all systems?
ReplyDelete“Increases in connectivity, speed, and scale are by no means only bad news; they may enhance the capacity of societies to adapt and transform with changing circumstances. If globalization operates as if disconnected from the biosphere, however, it may undermine the capacity of the lifesupporting ecosystems to sustain such adaptations and provide the essential ecosystem services that human well-being ultimately depends on.” (Is Sustainability Still Possible?)
This except was interesting to me because I like that Carl Folke acknowledges that technology and increased globalization can be a positive. The last couple of years have shown what profound social change can come due to technological advancements. Social media and internet access catapulted social upheaval in places such as Ferguson, Missouri and Libya. In these cases many would argue that technology positively impacted society by bringing important issues to light. I wonder, if the same can be said for using technology to incite an environmental revolution? Is it hypocritical to use phones or computers as mediums to help the environment when these products in themselves contain chemicals that harm the environment? For example, computers are composed of dangerous chemicals and metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium. Knowing this, it seems to me that it wouldn’t make sense to use a computer to fight for environmental change. However, I am still forced to acknowledge that computers are essential for transmitting information to large amounts of people.
I really like your question Marcela, because I think it's something we all think about when we start questioning our technological use. Here's where I think I stand on this. At this point in our societal/human development, modern technology is integral to the way we live. We've reached a point that I don't think we can turn back from. We can’t just return to hunter gather societies – and I don’t know that would even be the best option. If technology is here to stay then, the only question is if we as people who care about the environment can use to further our goals. Social media allows us to connect and organize people in a way that was not possible even twenty years ago. Last spring in one of my classes we were able to stream a talk given by the author of one of the books we were reading (and members of an organization she is leading); everyone in the class gained something from being able to hear her directly speak to the issues at hand and answer questions people around the world had for her. I won’t get into the possibilities of technology to help us deal with climate change for instance, but the point is that to reject these pieces of technology out of mere principle does us a disservice. We should take advantage of the tools we have.
Delete“Reducing wholes to parts is the core of the mod- ern worldview we inherited from Galileo, Bacon, and Descartes. And for a time it worked economic, scien- tific, and technological miracles.” Page 290 of the Worldwatch reading.
ReplyDeleteThis part of the text really caught my attention. Coming from an engineering perspective to sustainability studies, that was, in a sense, the thought that made me switch. Exact science was and still is incredibly important for human advancement. However, the future is an inexact science and I think Dr. Chandler’s emphasis on holism makes a lot of sense, not only for sustainability, but also for many of the other spheres of human society. The future is uncertain so we need as many points of view and types of knowledge to make the best-informed decision as we possibly can.
"Just prior to the collapse of the Wall Street stock market in 2008...the finance industry had over 2,900 lobbyists working for them in the halls of power. During the previous decade, it had paid out $5 billion dollars in lobbying fees and campaign contributions, mostly to ensure lax regulation." (Thiele, 123-124)
ReplyDeleteThis excerpt emphasizes the importance of transparency in government. Transparency is essential to democracy as it keeps citizens informed about what goes into representatives' decision making and whether those decisions are for the constituents they represent or the companies that lobby them. As long as there are corporations that have products reliant on environmental degradation lobbying politicians, we will never be able to build the sustainable society we need. Transparency reveals who is making decisions for short term gains rather than decisions for future generations.
In what ways do you think transparency affects democracy and a society built for sustainability?
Transparency greatly affects democracy and would be a major factor in building societies for sustainability's. Transparency allows citizens to be more aware of what's going on so that they can collectively decide on what actions would be best based on their community's circumstances, and they can make collective efforts to solve issues. It allows for more informed voting in a democratic system that may be used to benefit the individual as well as society. In terms of a sustainable society, having a collective informed discussion is a good way of incorporating all aspects of sustainability into the solution, such as social inequality and economics as well as planning projects.
Delete”Significant reductions in the emissions of toxics, up to 40 percent, followed the passage of the Right to Know legislation in the United States. This occurred not because the law required reductions but simply because the public was now informed of who the responsible parties were (Thiele, 124).”
ReplyDeleteWe see ourselves as others see us and vice versa; in a never-ending cycle of observation. This quote reminded me of how socially dependent we really are, for it is only until fingers are pointed that behavior is changed. Thiele emphasizes the importance of transparency in legislation to create healthy atmospheres of sustainable practices, and I couldn’t agree more. The reason we are so eager to please and to profit is because it is not only for ourselves, but for the illusion we have of ourselves. The image a person or business portrays to the public is of utmost importance, because it is only through others that we can succeed.
"Saving civilization is not a spectator sport." (Sustainability, Thiele. Pg. 140)
ReplyDeleteThis quote has struck me the most in that it really summed up the whole reading in its simplest form. The key to sustainability, as pointed out countless times by Dr. Chandler and many of our guest speakers, is to work together, to work with a holistic mindset and to take action amongst the common people. Dr. Chandler, with good reason, greatly stresses the urgency of decision and action today. A key factor that I noted in the reading is the actions of the countless NGOs and their initiatives on conservation, sustainability focuses, and social justices and their interaction with each other. These NGOs take action and tend to lead people and communities toward a sustainable culture by working with the people who the policies will affect, as opposed to those who are in power. Many of the NGOs seem to have a great deal of interconnectedness with each other as well, highlighting the holistic approach and its effectiveness; it was mentioned that thousands of NGOs and leaders attend various summits and council to cooperate and discuss the state of the world. In my opinion, I believe we can build upon that by being even more cooperative with world government leaders and NGO leaders. By this, I mean working cohesively on global projects and building from the bottom up, in the sense that people of all nations and organizations have an awareness of the issues and have access to information so that they may choose leaders enact policy with themselves and other leaders and organizations. I was taught that while a boss simply sits above people and barks orders, or tells people what needs to be done, a true leader is out with their group and with their community doing what needs to be done. I feel that this needs to happen more frequently and more emphasized; and I feel that it could be done with a global coalition, comprised of leaders from all types of organizations. Political leaders, religious leaders, leaders of NGOs, leaders in the scientific community, humanitarian and civil rights leaders coming together at one time to discuss global issues and the state of the world, and then having this information international broadcasted and communicated to as much of the world as is possible and really making a global effort. But more than just discussions, leaders should be required to partake in such action. This is what I got from the reading, I just want to know if anyone else feels the same way or got the same message form it.
"Or people may decrease one environmentally destructive behavior with good intentions,only to offset the gains by increasing a different and more destructive
ReplyDeleteactivity. An example of this is the individual who decreases meat consumption
out of environmental concern, only to then increase consumption of
imported nuts that may have a greater carbon footprint than local meat." WorldWatch pg. 246.
I think these actions derive from being misinformed or ignorant. Truthfully, I think this sustainability class should be implemented as a common core class, because I learn something new, or ponder something that I didn't in the past, every week. If environmentally destructive behaviors are a result of ignorance, then that's great. That can be fixed.
A real problem could be that people are acting with an "Earth Conscience" to overcome feelings of personal inadequacy.Since many of us see these problems and know that something needs to be done, making the smallest changes at a personal level may relieve some guilt in some individuals and overall feed their "selfish obsession with personal morality." pg. 249. When people detach from their ego and reputations, even within themselves, is when they will see the bigger problem and start acting with compassion for their friends, neighbors, and future children, as if we are all in unison.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, people are looking more from an individualistic standpoint rather than acting in unison. I really like the quote you provided; before I read Worldwatch, I hadn't known that the actions you take to remove one sort of wasteful act in your life can be replaced by another if not careful. I found this section of the book very interesting, and it really opened my eyes to what we are doing destructively, probably without even realizing it. So you're right, being misinformed is only a minor issue, it can be fixed. Maybe this class should be provided as a common core class, as you said, because maybe then more people would realize their need to take action.
DeleteJaneshly Algarin
"Clearly, much needs to change beyond the level of our individual actions. Society-wide, we need to implement new technologies, cultural norms, infrastructure, policies, and laws. Many of these already exist, so the problem is less about inventing new ways to do things than about building the political power to demand them." (Worldwatch 248)
ReplyDeleteThis quote is important to me because it stresses the importance of overhauling the political limitations that have been set on sustainability. While it is true that individuals reducing their carbon footprint and living a more sustainable lifestyle contribute positively to the cause, there is only so much that can be done without addressing the systematic practices. It is of utmost importance that individuals who believe in the sustainability cause make a political difference through activism and support, or it will be difficult to effect change. That being said, do you think it is possible for Americans to overhaul the political institutions that lead to unsustainable practices, or will it be too late before we fix the issues?
I believe people have the power to spark change. In fact, I believe the faster way to achieve change is to start with people, rather than government. Once enough people are educated about sustainable practices and what they should or should not do, a cultural shift will likely occur. Once society’s demands change, business will have to adjust to their wants. If people now want ecofriendly and sustainable products and practices, businesses will have to supply them. Since business and government are tied so closely, government will then follow the businesses, who are now sustainable, and enact more sustainable changes, whether or not it be for the right reasons.
DeleteAs the camera zooms in to a single tear rolling down his cheek, the narrator announces, “People start pollution. People can stop it.” WorldWatch pg. 244
ReplyDeleteThis quote directly addresses the idea that society needs to make a cultural change before government and industry follow, rather than people simply doing whatever is considered legal. Cynthia Barnett touched on this idea when she talked about the societal shift that effectively changed the way we think about littering. Most people are under the impression that government and big companies have the power to change the way we do things, but citizens are the ones who create demand and culture, so citizens need to make the change. The more ambiguous part, however, is how to get people to change their perceptions and perspectives. What do you think is the most effective way to spark a societal change?
I appreciated Ms. Barnett mentioning how important it is to get the "caring middle" involved in these type of issues. There are a lot more people who care about these issues, they just need to be properly educated. Unfortunately, big corporations have created this incredibly weird political debate about climate change and pollution to the point that this is a liberal issue. I honestly can't fathom how anyone nationalizes this in their head, but it has become a massive hindrance to progress and it's time for us to get the majority of americans, the caring middle, to get involved in environmental actions but also political actions. We need to get away from establishment politics and push forward, vote Bernie Sanders lol.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement; us citizens have a direct voice we must use to speak for our rights and our beliefs. I believe that powerful demonstrations through the media and rallies can spark a societal change. Even though other events have concentrated our current issues, like the Ferguson riots of last year, they were presented in an unhealthy and violent way. However, if a group of citizens were to peacefully stand for their rights in an appropriate way, the public will absorb the information and the message more thoroughly. Martin Luther King did this exact action for his 'I Have A Dream' speech; so then, this action will surely make a difference.
DeleteI actually had a conversation about this with some friends recently. When you ask someone why they aren’t recycling or why they aren’t saving water, a lot of people will answer that they feel that their individual efforts are rather insignificant. I feel this has become a general feeling since in the news, you can see that politicians and corporations have the means to move large groups of people or money very easily, therefore how can a teeny tiny person bring about significant change? I think the question rather than how to spark societal change, should be how we can make people band together and mobilize. I think a good way to do this would be to have some archive so that groups of people can contact relevant organizations in order to help in their mobilization. Not only this but also to encourage everyone to be involved in politics, at least in its environmental aspect. That way, people are always engaged in the discussion of how their environment is being used, giving a sense of responsibility on the choices that are being made.
Delete“People may decrease one environmentally destructive behavior with good intentions, only to offset the gains by increasing a different and more destructive activity. An example of this is the individual who decreases meat consumption out of environmental concern, only to then increase consumption of imported nuts that may have a greater carbon footprint than local meat.” (Worldwatch pg. 246)
ReplyDeleteThis quote really shocked me. Since I became a vegetarian, I thought I was really making a difference. Maybe not much because I am only one person, but all this time I thought that this was such an easy thing to do and how it was so great for the environment. I would even get into a few heated discussions about it whenever people asked me why I decided to start this whole vegetarian lifestyle. However, I didn’t think for one second about how it could possibly have a negative effect. I never thought about the downside like the importation of nuts which leaves an even worse effect on the environment than meat consumption. I just felt like all this I thought I was doing right, isn’t making much of an impact at all. It’s disheartening to be honest, and it makes me think about everything else I think I’m doing right by the environment that may have another downside I don’t know about. I think a solution would be to just make sure you know where your food comes from and to try to buy locally grown foods. What are some things you do for the environment? Have you considered possible consequences of those actions? And how would you solve them?
“An example of this is the individual who decreases meat consumption out of environmental concern, only to then increase consumption of imported nuts that may have a greater carbon footprint than local meat.” (World Watch, 246)
ReplyDeleteThis quote sums up my biggest issue with current views of sustainability and my own growth while learning about sustainable issues. When I took my first sustainable course freshmen year I became vegan for 10 months. I did it because I learned that meat is very wasteful in its production due to high water requirements, releasing of methane gas, and its overall energy efficiency. I was duped into thinking that being vegan was the best impact I could personally make. However, after a year of researching I discovered that it’s actually more “sustainable” for me to eat local and grass-fed meat, pasture-raised eggs from local farms, and to not buy anything processed. In hindsight, my carbon footprint certainly did not shrink by cutting out meat/ dairy because everything I bought was shipped in from around the world and everything that wasn’t organic was genetically modified which created more pesticide/ammonia run-off and polluted more than I care to admit. My point with this is that there’s too much promotion of self-sacrifice that doesn’t really impact the overall system without actually attacking the main cause, our industries. Much like how household trash only accounts for 3% of our municipal waste in our country, switching to something such as being vegan has the effects counteracted by needing to have everything imported. We need to focus more on fundamental, systemic changes. Much like what Ms. Cynthia Barnett discussed in her water presentation, there needs to be fundamental change such as stopping the use of sprinkler systems for green grass and funding massive preservation/ reconstruction projects. Little changes are great, but sustainability should not be about sacrifice or pain, it should be a holistic approach that compliments all systems and organisms in the environment.
Theile writes: “The politics of sustainability is not simply a matter of voting, joining parties, issuing regulations, or promulgating laws that mandate or restrict certain practices. It also concerns the informing of choice, the cultivation of preferences, and the development of good habits” (121). I like this quote for showing that sustainability (and the politics related to it especially) are not something that can be won; it’s an ongoing battle that will require effort for a long time. Thiele is right to point out that to engage in politics of sustainability requires more than voting for president once every four years. It necessitates shifting our values as a society. I think that plan is well and good, but how do we as citizens who recognize the problem show people how important these issues are? In the face off all the evidence from 99% of climate scientists who say climate change is real and anthropogenic, what can we do to show the people listening to the Heritage Foundation that this is real? In the face of Florida’s ever increasing water issues that we learned about on Tuesday, how do we encourage change of people’s values systems?
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing David. I totally agree with the premise that the politics behind sustainability are far more than just a few votes, some party rallies and passing a mandate here and there. Sustainability requires a change in thinking and habits, just as Theile points out repeatedly in his book. I think the first step in changing people's value systems is making people aware that their current values may be damaging to the idea of sustainability and thus damaging to their children and their children's children. Once this is realized the next step is a more complete education on the idea of sustainability. People won't change their values unless they fully understand the problem at hand and see a few possible solutions.
Delete“There needs to be a commitment to move beyond individual actions. Once we have a compelling vision, we need to join with others to build the power necessary to make it real. Building a mass movement strong enough to achieve the level of change needed is an inherently collective endeavor.”
ReplyDelete(Worldwatch, p. 250)
I very well believe this to be truly the only way to change our world. Once we understand that we all are sharing the same fate and impacts from our actions we have previously made, we come to realize that if we don’t all work together to make this change, then we will all fall together. In all communities, our best hope is to combine our concerns about the environment, social justice, democracy and sustainability together to go beyond anything we have done, things like social media are the great tools we have in this technology age to connect with other and get people together to make bigger and better changes for all of us.
"Sustainability requires that individuals to do their share to protect and conserve the natural world and contribute to social welfare. But individual effort is not enough. Political effort and legal effort are required."
ReplyDelete(Theile, p.116)
I believe that we tend to forget about the political inclination to advocating sustainability. In our era, politics and laws rule over sudden action. This passage also reiterates the need to work together as a whole to contribute to this unhealthy Earth, and we must do so in the most proper and legal way: through petitions and legal rallies.
“The good news is that we have everything we need to make big change in the years ahead. We have model policies and laws. We have innovative green technologies to help with the transition. We have an informed and concerned public; millions and millions of people know there is a problem and want a better future. The only thing we are missing is widespread citizen action on the issues we already care about.”
ReplyDeleteWorldwatch, pg 252.
To me this quote is rather reassuring— especially after a rather dreary and pessimistic first 10 pages or so. This quote is saying we have the tools and the ability, we just need the action. Even more powerful is that most people already care about fixing the problems we face, but that still doesn’t correlate to action. So my question to you would be what are some of the first steps to creating widespread citizen action? Be aware that the question is pertaining to action specifically, not awareness.
“day-to-day individual actions do not contribute the bulk of today’s environmental harm.”
ReplyDeleteThe hardest part out saving the planet is that not one person or thing can save it! This article brings to light the serious problem we are facing when it comes to educating and teaching people. Especially with environmental awareness we seem to have a disconnect between recognizing the problem and making a movement. Yes our everyday lives can be very wasteful we need to realize that is not where we need the improvements. So how is it that we get thing rolling to make the big industrial change along with our efforts individually? The Author gives input that we need 3 things: a Big idea, commitment from everybody, and a large percentage of action to get things rolling. But If this is all it takes why hasn’t it already happened?
I personally strongly disagree with this quote. I feel that day-to-day individual and small community actions are some of the main the driving forces in today’s environmental harm. It is through changing the opinions and small daily actions of individuals that change is made in society. A perfect example of this was brought up in Tuesday’s lecture when Dr. Barnett spoke about the shift in opinion on littering in simply one generation. In the 50’s and 60’s, littering was so common that it was even exhibited in a family picnic, as seen in the clip shown of the TV show Mad Men. But in a few years, littering was shameful. I believe that it is by changing the mindset of the people that can really harm or help the environment. Another example would be how corporations do not change their practices until the demand from consumers changes first. This can be seen in the shift of restaurants and fast food establishments from Styrofoam cups to paper, because people began to realize that Styrofoam was bad for the environment and not biodegradable.
DeleteI'm sure industries do contribute an immense percentage to environmental degradation that outweighs the individual. But that certainly does not mean that we as individuals should not care about what toxic things we might be contributing to as well. Both are important, and we cannot achieve sustainability without the other. Like I said in my blog post, individual actions will not suffice, we must push for a broader change that reaches the people in office. Companies and industries that are thriving in the wake of their own environmental harm will never change without stricter laws. This is where campaigns, advocacy, and policy come in. But it is the same is reversed situations. We cannot count on the government to make these changes on it's own to protect us, we as individuals need to demand the change in the first place. It's a delicate balance, but one that definitely is in our reach.
DeleteI think the reason this has not happened yet is because it needs to take a big idea and have everyone in this society be informed about this idea. This would require society to be on the same page, and for there to be a centralized way of informing everyone effectively and genuinely, so that each person understood their responsibilities and were able to perform them. On today's societies, there are so many channels and outlets and ways of communication, that no one way is used by every single person effectively so that we are able to inform everyone at once.
DeleteIn addition, having everyone join this cause and fight for ultimate environmental reduction would require each and every person to be inspired and passionate about saving the Earth, which is very far from the current state of many people's mindset about ecological responsibility and reduction.
“Sustainability is challenging not simply because the technical problems are significant. It is challenging because there is no shortage of uncertainties. In turn, there is no shortage of people who actively oppose the social, economic, cultural, political, and legal changes that he practice of sustainability demands.” Thiele, pg 115
ReplyDeleteThis quote jumped out at me personally because up until this semester, I was a mechanical engineering major for 2 years. So much of what the engineering discipline makes you focus on almost purely technical problems: the way a beam shears or stresses, the maximum angle a structure can be at before it fails, etc. Unless you are taking courses outside of the college of engineering, one is not really stopped and made to think about the implications of what you are building or designing. However, the real world is much ‘messier’ than calculations. I feel sustainability makes me look at the bigger picture, and I can especially appreciate that as a person who previously looked almost purely at the details.
Lauren,
DeleteI love your application of the reading into your field of study! I agree with (and struggle with how to make more prevalent) your idea for the need to look at the bigger picture. I am in a concentrated science major and I find that often time professors and students specialize so intensely in one niche that they are unable to relate their work to others (which decreases the value of their work because their knowledge is unusable on a broader scale such as in sustainability as a whole). Lastly, I think that we need to overcome looking for the "right solution' and do what we can today (but still keep in mind tomorrow). I think sustainability needs a driving force (which has to be action; not indecision).
“[The voiceless] are plants and animals and ecosystems, destroyed wholesale to support the lifestyles of the present” (World Watch, p 248)
ReplyDeleteImmediate returns have become the primary goal of the current modern lifestyle. Long term consequences are not just hard to see, but are hardly ever taught to look for at a young age. Taking away this lack of future thinking means to basically bring about a major cultural change and while it is not easy, education can solve the problem. I feel strongly about cultivating a sense of stewardship for not only the future generations but also for the ecosystem which will support them. Instilling a stewardship worldview I think will develop in children a sense of responsibility and connection to the natural world.
"First, there is a big idea of how things could be better...Second, there needs to be a commitment to move beyond individual actions...And third, action must follow." WORLDWATCH pgs.250-251
ReplyDeleteI have found that a common theme in this class is the concept of community and cooperative effort making an impact. The main idea within this reading is to distance yourself from the thought that you can make the world a better place just by following the “Lazy Environmentalist” and just changing your daily lifestyle choices. I admit, I was a believer. But what I realized from this text is that this only makes a small ripple in in the Earth’s well-being. This doesn’t address the real, dire issues. It’s disappointing how mislead we are. We must look beyond changing just ourselves and take part in changing the real issues, such as the groups who took part in trying to change governmental policy, because industry is what currently produces the most waste. They are the largest contributor to pollution. We cannot stop this unless we collectively take part in moving toward sustainable efficiency.
Janeshly Algarin
"Clearly, much needs to change beyond the level of our individual actions. Society-wide, we need to implement new tech- nologies, cultural norms, infrastructure, policies, and laws. Many of these already exist, so the problem is less about inventing new ways to do things than about building the political power to demand them (State of the world p.248)." One of the major points of this reading is that while education and small lifestyle adjustments are important for having an impact on climate change, they are simply not enough. It is just too difficult to inspire mass amounts of people to adjust their lifestyles and reduce consumption without them making up for that consumption elsewhere. In order to truly make an impact organized action must me taken by our leaders and government, working from the top down. By adjusting laws, implementing large scale green energy projects, and changing the way companies produce disposable containers we could have a serious impact on global pollution and climate change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you for the most part. I believe that the government does need to help implement policies and enforce greener living, but I believe that it needs to start with the people being informed and caring. I feel that it needs to start some people caring before the government in order to get them to actually care as well. In California there is the water drought, and although government is making people pay fines and etc, some of them rather just pay the fine and keep their green grass instead of giving a damn about the actual effects and the reasoning behind the fines. Government could definitely help by implementing green projects and making companies change, but until the population cares, all the changes the government would make would just be thought of mindlessly.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context." (World Watch, 247) When our society views global warming and environmental decline, we focus too often on individual impacts rather than collective. We think of the lack of recycling, the carbon emissions from our cars, and the waste water we use on a daily basis. However, the largest issue remains within the businesses and the industrial realm. This further proves that it is a collective issues rather than and individual; and that it can only be solved by the collective. One protestor will not change anything. Views, such as political views about the environment within the government, must change in order to prevent further environmental deterioration. The solution in my opinion is a collective mindset rather than individualistic.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must move away from our society's tendency to be individualistic. It will require a joint effort to recover from the adverse situation we have placed ourselves in, just as it took a united mindset to bring us to this spot. The tendency to approach our global problem has driven us away from finding our full force under the influence of our government. It is definitely important to advocate to the CEO and shareholders who hold influence over these companies and compel these people to make the changes that need to be done.
DeleteJennifer Franklin
ReplyDelete"The obstacles are not technical, practical or financial but political, intellectual and ideological." Pg. 116 Sustainability
I read these words and think of all the changes we must make in order to successfully alter our way of living to that which may be supported by one earth. As discussed in World Watch, we know that at this present time the global population needs approximately 1.5 earths and clearly we cannot procure another half of an earth so we need to put our thinking caps on. As I've been investigating the materials required for this class, I have found that my passion for informing others about the daunting task before us. However, this quote mentioned in Thiele's Sustainability by Susan George accurately puts pressure on our political systems as the main channel requiring the most change. Without the support of political leaders we may never truly see our nation turn its ecological footprint around enough to prevent almost certain catastrophe. Paradoxically, as seen with the societal change on the outlook of litter, it is absolutely necessary that this initiative comes from the people and not just a handful of over zealous citizens preaching to those in power. We must try and find our own Green Party, and let the reality of the problems we face sink in so that we may unite for the good of the planet. But where do we start?
The begining pages of the WorldWatch Paper shocked me. I had hear of the Keep Earth Clean movement but never knew that it was indeed funded by the industry producing wastes itself as a mechanism to negate government policy. To me this signaled a need to educate the public on where environmental propaganda originates and the science behind environmental messages. For example I believe people would turn their efforts to industry waste instead of personal wastes if they knew that industry wastes account for 76% for Gross National Trash (verses personal garbage accounting for a slim 3%) (WorldWatch p.247). We need to instill a sense of human dignity in our nations powerful industry leaders and politicians so that we can effectively tackle the issues that can have the largest positive outcomes. Also not only do we need to educate the masses, but we need to give citizens resources to be effective communicators to the law sector and industry sectors (so that the "caring middle" [taken from Cynthia Barnett] can voice their concerns).
ReplyDeleteThis "greenwashing" movement has been so hidden! I knew that labeling products as environmentally friendly was often just a marketing ploy, but the manipulation and deceit is absolutely disturbing. Its effectiveness truly shows how naive the public can be, at the whims of the media and industries, but will education truly solve the problem? Many people don't trust politicians or business, yet they feel that corruption will never change. Many people also don't have the time or energy to dedicate to exposing truths to the community. How could environmentalists alleviate this tension? The more I read about this problem, the more I began to see the complexity of the obstacles blocking productiveness. It's not just Republicans vs. Democrats, or government vs. the citizens; it's about basic human greed, and that's a lot harder to fight.
DeleteI think effective communicators is a wonderful idea in helping people who cannot voice their opinions because of the distance between them and those in power. It also helps take the burden from the individual.
"Framing environmental deterioration as the result of poor individual choices—littering, leaving the lights on when we leave a room, failing to car- pool—not only distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline. It also removes these issues from the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our per- sonal choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural context." (Worldwatch, pg 247)
ReplyDeleteThis manipulative distraction seems really obvious, but I know I'm guilty of spending money on "eco-friendly" products and then not making any true change, in my daily life or in the community. It's a way of pacifying our inner guilt, while still getting to shop. I disagree a little with this quote, however, as supporting ethical companies is important in a world ruled by industries. Framing environmental degradation on the individual has halted real change in politics. It's time to think outside ourselves.
I completely agree with you, Rebecca. I loved this quote when I was reading the Worldwatch article as well. It is crazy to me to think that people in positions of power like the politicians are avoiding policies that help and heal our Earth. I love eco-friendly movements, and am guilty of spending money on them as well. However, it makes sense that these things don't necessarily make a large impact on our society. Our speaker from class actually used a good analogy... It is just a drop in the bucket. If we want true change, the higher powers than us need to start making changes like we do. If a couple college students can change their lifestyle a little, so can these people who HAVE to.
DeleteColette Spieler
“You can’t shop your way around the problem and you shouldn’t have to. There is no app for the kind of change we need. The problem is large and pervasive enough that we need broad changes in policy and by companies themselves. Consumer action can be a tool in that process—to send a message to a particular company for example—but it is not a substitute.” Pg. 252 Worldwatch
ReplyDeleteOut of all the profound statements in this reading, this particular quote jumped out at me. We all know we must stress the importance of individual responsibility, especially pertaining to the topic of sustainability. As much as we would like to solve the problem by changing our weekly shopping trips by purchasing more sustainable and eco-friendly items, we know that’s not going to cut it. No matter how many of us make the effort to contribute our dollars to the right companies, there are always going to be (a lot) people who love going to Walmart and won’t think twice about the products they’re buying. This is why we must take action in other ways. Even Dr. Chandler said we must work from the ground up, until the people in politics cannot ignore us any longer. Striving for better advocacy campaigns that will result in stronger policies and laws, and market campaigns to affect broader shifts in the industry. “First change your politicians, then worry about changing your light bulbs.”
“Since the beginning, KAB has worked diligently to ensure that waste was seen as a problem solved by improved individual responsibility, not stricter regulations or bottle bills.” (pg 244, World Watch, Is Sustainability Possible?)
ReplyDeleteThis quote specifically hit me from this specific reading. The reading overall hit on many points that I think about daily, centering around the question, is sustainability possible? The article talked about human behavior and questioned if we are capable of making such a dramatic change in our lifestyle. This quote specifically resonated with me. Nowadays, I find it almost impossible to move forward with a clean environmental movement without the help of politicians. Whether we like it or not, politicians hold more power than they should. However, this article gave me hope that there are efforts around the world with the goal to change the environment without government. At the end of the day, we need to fix the problems we started. I suppose my question this week is, can we make an impact on helping the environment without government intervention? Or, do we need the government in order to see the changes that we want?
Colette Spieler
Considering how there is a chart three pages down that shows that industrial waste is by far the largest amount of waste created per year, the government will most likely need to step in to make any serious impact on the environment by cutting down total waste. Most industries are just worried about making money, and not about the negative impacts they have on the world around them. As long as they are within EPA regulations, they do not care about what happens to the environment. The only way to get them to care is if the government steps in and creates some sort of law that forces industry to reduce waste. Cutting down waste could just mean recycling or reducing packaging on products they use, but industry will not do this alone. The government focusing on any other group that makes waste is not worth it until it gets industry under control, especially since household waste and construction waste only make up around 6 percent of the total waste and special waste is only 18 percent of the total waste. Government intervention is key to reducing waste and lessening the large carbon footprint us human beings have on the world.
DeleteI chose this quote because I was astonished that reducing each consumer’s impact and having an environmentally aware society does not actually or significantly reduce humanities’ carbon footprint. I actually thought that all we had to do to save the environment was to have each and every human reduce their ecological footprints in a small way, so that collectively and on a larger scale, it would amount to a huge and massive reduction. Now, this quote obliterates this thought and makes me realize that it would just cover up the issue, as if people reduce their harmful environmental behaviors by just a little, they feel less guilty and may lose the need to continue to help the environment and make actual change when it compromises their pleasure seeking and harmful ecological lifestyle. I ask; “What sort of measures and changes will need to actually take place for us to genuinely reduce our negative environmental impact?”
ReplyDelete"People may decrease one environmentally destructive behavior with good inten- tions, only to offset the gains by increasing a different and more destructive activity. An example of this is the individual who decreases meat consump- tion out of environmental concern, only to then increase consumption of imported nuts that may have a greater carbon footprint than local meat." Worldwatch pg 246).
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I was completely shocked as to how true this is, and how much I didn't realize it before. Everyone does try to reduce their carbon footprint in one way or another, but to what extent does it help before something else replaces it? I truly wonder how many times I've actually helped the environment versus the times I've done virtually nothing or actually worsened my carbon footprint. The thing with our environment and reducing a carbon footprint is that it can come from so many different directions and aspects, it becomes difficult to track and figure out. One could easily keep tracing his or her carbon footprint back until its origin if he or she wanted. In a sense it is very frustrating to have read this only because I almost feel like everything I've been trying to do to reduce my carbon footprint hasn't been as successful as I had imagined. Does anyone else feel the same way that I do in regards to this realization?
Leanna, I also was shocked when I read this and was hit with the realization that so many things factor into reducing our carbon footprint and we just don't think about how many areas of our daily lives and of the world depends on carbon. The simple act of buying something like FIJI water means so much, ultimately carbon, was used to bring that water all the way from FIJI to the United States. And this is done for no real good reason at all; it is not like we need their water. I think it is important though to not lose resolution and remember that we must just continue to be more conscious of the carbon use out there and that why we cannot stop and an individual level but get politicians and corporations to realize this is not sustainable and importing things like water from FIJI when we don’t even need the water is only hurting the environment.
DeleteI completely agree with the two of you, I was incredibly shocked to read that. I know so many people that pride themselves on doing small things to help out the environment but in reality it doesn’t reduce your carbon footprint at all. Most of us are guilty of being unsustainable in one way or another and even if we remember to recycle or take shorter showers, it basically cancels out. I did a lot of traveling this summer and even though it was wonder to get to see some of the world that came at a cost. Airplanes leave an immense carbon footprint and between me and my friend this summer we easily had over 50 hours of airplane travel. That’s a large amount for just two people, and there are now over 7 billion (even though not everyone travels as much).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"In a world of scarce resources, where everyone cannot have everything he or she wants, conflicting interests will emerge. Politics helps us mitigate conflict in a world of scarce resources. It allows us to solve our differences through persuasion and law rather than brute force and violence. In turn, Politics helps foster cooperation." (Thiele 117)
ReplyDeleteThis quote has much truth to it however I believe that it brushes aside the history of international politics. When countries often used brute force to overtake another for resources among other motives. But Politics does help mediate the distribution of resources within a country. The problem is that politicians are too influenced by money. I would imagine that a large oil company has a much greater influence through lobbying and other tactics than any environmental organizations. This brings me to these questions. Will there ever be a time where politics is actually working to find the best solutions for all parties involved without being influenced by their money? As society comes to realize the importance of sustainability, will the movement be able to be led by politicians or will we have to make those changes in our ethics system? In a world of conflicting interests, wouldn't we all win if the collective interest was in the preservation of our future instead of selfish needs?
Bill McKibben, “First change your politicians, then
ReplyDeleteworry about your lightbulbs.” Pg. 252
What I loved about the first reading from Worldwatch was of how much a slap to the face it was. It really is putting everything into a realistic view and showing that individual mindset is great and the first step to making our planet better but it is not the last step and is certainly not the most important step. We as individuals can do a lot but if we do not stop the environment damage at the source (which is large corporations and companies that produce the most waste and carbon) then we are not doing the best we can. We need true legislation that is behind stopping large carbon output and we need true leaders behind it too. Many of our environmental committees in Congress are run by legislators that do not even feel there is any climate change or strong environmental impact even happening. We as a full nation on every level must be behind changing the way we handle things, not just our homes but our businesses and commerce. Another thing that struck me was when the whole idea of the rebound effect was introduced and how someone who feels they are helping reduce carbon by eating less mea can be in fact creating more carbon by buying nuts imported from some other country. We are facing something that changing our light bulbs cannot solve alone. Changing the way you live is a great first step and everyone should do it but if we do not change how our world operates then it will really be for nothing. Is there really any other way to protect our environment then a radical change in the way we handle ourselves and business?
I agree with your comments about stopping environmental damage at the source. Large corporations contribute so much to environmental degradation and all of their profits are concentrated on a very few members. I think the only way to convince everyone to adopt sustainable living practices is by putting them in a scenario where sustainability matters. During Fall 2014, I did an internship in the Chagres National Rainforest in Panamá with a sustainable community in development called Kalu Yala. It was an excellent experience but more importantly helped me understand the importance of sustainability first hand. We learned to use only the water we needed as the filtration systems took some time to replenish safe drinking water. We used outhouses to harvest humanure for the 5 acre permaculture farm from which 70% of our produce was harvested. It was a full out immersive experience that truly taught me the benefits of living sustainably. I think if everyone had an experience like that, they would be inclined to live more sustainable lives, rather than one driven by capital.
Delete"The catch is that the garbage coming out of U.S. households accounts for less than 3 percent of the country’s total waste." (WorldWatch, 246)
ReplyDeleteThis sentence, along with the chart on the next page, really caught my attention. I never realized how little household waste us Americans create compared to industry. The worst part is that the household waste we do create seems like way too much to sustain the world for too much longer. Since the household waste is such a small percent of the total waste per year, is it even worth promoting zero waste on such a small scale? Since industry creates about 76 percent of the total waste per year, shouldn't Americans focus on creating less waste in industry? Would this plan work, or is industry too stubborn to worry about something like carbon footprint?
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
DeleteWhat interesting questions, Jordan! I don't think it's the amount of waste produced by households that matters as much as it is the perspective change needed by people on the individual scale, that can eventually open the doors for industry-wide changes like what you're questioning. Having said that, I do want to mention how inherently evil late capitalism is in that it values profit over everything else; whether it's the welfare of it's employees, the satisfaction of the consumer, or its effects on the environment. Because of this, we're going to have to make a LOT of individual changes to be true agents of sustainability.
Creating a sustainable environment for the Earth is one of societies biggest tasks. Over the past decade there has been many different attempts to create such a place. One of the more recent attempts is referred to as the Big History. “The discipline of Big History offers a complementary approach to teaching a student to think globally. The student assimilates a breadth of knowledge that by its very nature requires him or her to think from a global/cosmic perspective. A course in Big History—with its broad opportunity for use of both cognitive and affective learning modalities—could augment a student’s knowledge of systems thinking, providing the student with an even stronger sense of the interconnectedness of all things in space and time” (224, State of the World). A connection between the student and the Earth is a goal trying to be accomplished. The greater the connection between the two, the more likely the student is to act and try to sustain it, as well as a greater sustainability success rate. The Big History is trying to move people from a state of adolescence and recklessness towards the Earth, to a state of high sustainability and maturity.
ReplyDelete"It (EU emissions trading system) employs the "cap and trade" principle, whereby the total amount of major greenhouse gases that can be emitted by factories and power plants is capped and emission allowanced allotted." (Thiele, pg 120)
ReplyDeleteBusinessmen and industry leaders are quick to judge environmental efforts by the government as being controlling and commanding. I believe this "cap and trade" principle can be extremely effective throughout the world. Companies with relatively low carbon output can be rewarded and those with high emissions would be penalized. I believe this system will help advance technology and increase efforts towards becoming carbon neutral. How can we implement a system similar to this in areas with little to no regulation on green house emissions?
“In their 2011 book, Reinventing Fire, Amory Lovins and his coauthors, for example, ask whether ‘the United States could realistically stop using oil and coal by 2050? And could such a vast transition toward efficient use and renewable energy be led by business for durable advantage?’” Worldwatch pg 281
ReplyDeleteThis question really stuck out to me because I have thought and discussed the same thing. Is it realistic at all? It would be a massive shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy that would cost immense amounts of money and infrastructure change. For example, UPS changing from gas powered trucks to electric powered. That would require slowly replacing every UPS truck with a new one while also creating the infrastructure to recharge quickly and efficiently. Is it possible that is done by 2050? Personally I don’t think so; maybe some companies will become entirely sustainable, but 2050 is closer than we think. And even if a lot of them do become sustainable is that going to be enough to halt the effects of climate change?
"It also concerns the informing of choice, the cultivation of preferences, and the development of good habits. People can be encouraged, stimulated, and persuaded to act in ways that improve the quality and sustainability of their personal and collective lives." (Thiele 121)
ReplyDeleteI found Thiele's idea on using human psychology to affect change in politics concerning sustainability intriguing. With reference to a book by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, Thiele argues that by constructing the way choices are presented to people, they may be more likely to vote for the more sustainable option. This, in turn, eliminates the need to restrict freedoms. However, with this idea, it becomes imperative that government agencies are educating and informing voters in ways that affect the people's choice and benefit the environment. Additionally, it requires that the government put environmental issues as a primary issue on the docket-something, which I have yet to see happen in our system. Even in the GOP debate last night did the topic of climate change come up only once, and still did not seem to be as imperative as issues such as foreign policy or the economy at home. I believe that in order for our society to truly start caring enough to change their thoughts and habits toward environmental policy, our government has to place a greater emphasis on it.
"Once we have a compelling vision, we need to join with others to build the power necessary to make it real." Worldwatch pg 250
ReplyDeleteOne person can start a movement, but it takes many to join in order to actually make a major difference. I always believed that one voice could make a change, and it can, but it needs the help of others to join in to make it very effective. Martin Luther King started a huge movement, but if no one joined along, there wouldn't have been any change. Same thing with going into sustainable living, it takes just you to start the practice, but getting your friends involved and to care is what is going to inform them and help create the movement.
"Is sustainability still possible?" The State of the World 2013 sought out to answer this article by defining practical sustainability, sustainable methods that can be achieved and benefit the world, and providing steps for achieving those methods. Page 5 of the article states, "In order to alter these trends, vastly larger changes are needed than we have seen so far. It is essential that we take stock, soberly and in scientifically measurable ways, of where we are headed. We desperately need—and are running out of time—to learn how to shift direction toward safety for ourselves, our descendants, and the other species that are our only known companions in the universe. And while we take on these hard tasks, we also need to prepare the social sphere for a future that may well offer hardships
ReplyDeleteand challenges unlike any that human beings have previously experienced (Engleman, 2013)." Sustainability is about making serious obligatory decisions in interest of future generations and other species that share the planet. Certainly, recycling cardboard is a sustainable practice but not enough people are recycling to offset the unsustainable cardboard usage. This idea can be applied everywhere, for every single fisherman abiding to catch laws and limitations, 5 of them are not. In order for everyone to get on the "sustainability bus," the entire global populations needs to understand the implications caused by unsustainable practices.
According to the article's timeline, a report from May 2012 stated that "Two planet Earths will be needed by 2030 to provide for human society (Living Planet)." In order for the global population to live peacefully - without worrying about severe drought or freezes, whether or not the water is safe to drink, and knowing that crops can be productive without harm from weather or pests; we need to find a new planet to populate or globally adopt sustainable living practices within the next 15 years.
How do you think people's ethics play into their decisions to adapt sustainable living practices?
Elizabeth "Rosy" Roberts
ReplyDelete"It also removes these issues from
the political realm to the personal, implying that the solution is in our personal
choices rather than in better policies, business practices, and structural
context" (Worldwatch, 247)
I tend to harp on about the impact of political systems on the opportunities given for sustainable policymaking, and this quote highlights my point. While it does take the individual's deliberate actions and sense of responsibility to -do- anything, the small-scale effects are nearly negligible. It takes policy, it takes enforcement of that policy to make broad-scale changes. Our individual efforts are extremely important, but at what point can we continue to evolve as agents of sustainability without the help of our government? It should be included in the philosophy of every agent of sustainability to be politically active, and to support candidates who will actually make help make a difference in the long haul toward more sustainable practice.
"The only thing we are missing is widespread citizen action on the issues we already care about. As American author and activist Alice Walker says, 'The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.'"
ReplyDeleteThis quote, taken from page 252 of Worldwatch, illustrates one of the main obstacles in promoting a sustainable society: We lack action from common people on these issues of sustainability. The article proposes that we already have the necessities (political policies, laws, technologies, awareness, etc.) to reach this sustainability if only we take initiative. My question for any potential discussion is as follows: Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not?
I definitely agree with the statement, but I think along with initiative, we are also missing motivation. People are too caught up in the here and now, and it is hard for most to put effort into promoting a sustainable planet for people that will be living on it in the distant future. Also, even though widespread citizen action would help, I feel that the main problem does not come from individuals, but more from businesses and industries. These institutions are not likely to change their ways of pollution and massive energy use because of the issue of money. Such a change must be subsidized in order for industries to have the motivation to change. Grassroots activism is good, but it's just not enough.
DeleteBill McKibben, “First change your politicians, then
ReplyDeleteworry about your lightbulbs.” Pg. 252. I think this quote illustrates something that many young activists fail to realize. Changing our habits alone isn't going to create enough change to save this planet for our children. It is very important to work from the ground level with people, but it is crucial that there are people at the top working toward the common goal as well. The reason this particular quote stood out too me was because of the presidential elections coming up. I did the readings right after watching the debates last night. I could count on one hand how many times the candidates mentioned things that proved them to be a player working to the common goal of holistic sustainability. Political leaders are at the center of influence with regards to what this nation does in domestic efforts toward sustainability as well as in foreign policy. This coming election could mark the a paradigm shift for this nation. Whether that shift is one toward sustainability or toward destroying our planet, only time will tell.
"Picking up litter, carrying reusable bags to the store, biking instead of
ReplyDeletedriving—all these are good things to do and there are many reasons to do
them. They demonstrate our concern to those around us, hopefully providing
inspiration and social proof for friends and neighbors to follow our
lead. " (Worldwatch, 245).
Comparing today's environmental culture with that of a few decades ago, it is now more frowned upon to litter or to throw something away that could have been recycled. Now that environmental awareness is considered "cool", more and more people participate in green actions. I find it fascinating that going green is something that can become trendy. It makes me wonder is people actually care about the planet and people living on it, or if more so they only care about fitting in and following the status quo. And does such a difference in motivations even matter if its all helping the cause of sustainability?