Hey guys,
I thought I would start this blog off by posting the first blog question. That way we can all read and respond to it on here :-)
For your initial blog posts, I'd like you to consider one or both of the following questions:
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
2. Have a look at this piece that NY Times columnist Stanley Fish wrote a summer or two back. What do you make of his struggling to be a "good environmentalist?" What do you think it means to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?
1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe most pressing issue is income disparity. There are many different levels through which one can view environmental issues—international, national, and local, for instance—all of which have problems that connect to income disparity. While I am tempted to use the term "resource," I feel that it is too vague, covering both tangible and intangible things. To keep this post focused, I chose income because, let's face it, that's how the big guys measure it. Sure, it's easy for people at the World Bank making comfy salaries to dictate that, but seeing as I am writing this on my laptop in an air-conditioned apartment, I feel it is fitting.
Despite noteworthy concessions made for the betterment of the planet, most international environmental cooperation has been hindered by the income gap. There are agreements among certain groups, like how in Johannesburg 2002 groups of countries found common ground in negotiations, however once these groups confronted each other, the previously found common ground (most of it based on income) almost didn't matter. Binding agreements are thus a rarity, and international cooperation has become almost hopeless. The most recurrent theme in international environmental politics is the hypocrisy of developed nations telling less wealthy nations to do what they didn't. The big polluters need to reduce consumption/waste, and the little guys (or up-and-coming guys) need to get rich/developed without destroying the environment. But with the income gap so big, and with power coming hand in hand with income, we can usually anticipate which gets the priority.
Just as income disparity is a cause of global environmental problems, it is just as much an effect. As the world continues to heat up, sea levels continue to rise, growing seasons get shorter, and dangerous weather/natural disasters become more of a threat, it is the poor people of this world that are affected the most. For instance, if we compare the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, the latter was much stronger (4th strongest in recorded history). However, Chile is the second most affluent country in Latin America, whereas Haiti is the poorest. For that reason, what might be considered similar disasters have a considerably greater effect on poorer populations, thus amplifying the income gap on the global scale.
Income disparity correlates with the consumption and waste of a people. There are statistics out there that say that the average US citizen consumes X times as much as the average African. There is no doubt as to the negative effect consumption has on the environment (global warming, waste disposal, energy extraction, pollution, etc). Then how can it be that the people who contribute the least to Earth's environmental problems are the ones who suffer the most? And there in lies the beauty: Money=Power; power controls politics.
Personally, I think the challenge facing us today is climate change. There are so many different facets to the problem that it almost seems like the solutions are intangible. However, the most immediate threats are going to be agricultural. For example, where our food comes from, which countries will be exporting or importing what, and crop yield. Part of climate change is a change in precipitation patterns, which leads to varying unpredictability for farmers and subsistence dwellers. Already, areas that should be getting seasonal rains are finding themselves in either a flood or a drought. Also, changes in traditional amounts of rainfall and increased temperatures has led to an increase of forest fires around the world, pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. Russian forest fires this summer have been out of control. Whose ever heard of forest fires in Russia? It's so rare that it's almost unbelievable. The other component that I find immediate and actually really scary, is the increase of natural disasters. I touched on that to some degree regarding the fires and floods/drought, but natural disasters are really frightening and destructive. Higher category hurricanes, increased flooding, monsoons, stronger tornados..needless to say, however inaccurate or exaggerated, was for me cause for alarm.
ReplyDeleteBefore I respond to this second portion, can I just point out how funny some of the comments on the NYT article are?
Stanley Fish's article is so candid and honest. I thought most everything he was saying is how a lot of people feel about environmentalism, or "being green," as it's know today. It is certainly very difficult to live the life you wish to or even preach about living. I find it particularly difficult living in the U.S. and living with another person who is not quite as environmentally focused as I am. Ultimately, I feel that I know my small choices aren't making THAT big of a difference. And how can they? The patterns and cycles of life here in the U.S. are just not conducive to being sustainable. In the city I have to take the metro, or the bus, I pay rent to an apartment building that decides from which company I get my electricity, and that spends money heating a pool and hot tub year-round for the residents. (A bit much, but I guess I can't complain). Although there are a variety of personal decisions you can make to have less of an impact on natural resources, I still find that my lifestyle is very wasteful, and often leaves me feeling really upset and frankly, guilty about the waste I produce. Now I don't share the same contempt for recycling as Mr. Fish does, but my boyfriend (whom I now live with) most definitely does. I'm always reminding him and taking things out of the trash to recycle them, and although he knows that it's important, I can tell that he secretly wishes he didn't have to care about it. I think that's how a lot of people feel in regard to the changes in their lifestyles that being more environmentally friendly will bring.
I honestly don't know that there IS a way to live in a truly environmentally friendly way in the U.S. (most certainly not in a city environment) Sure you can use recycled paper products, buy food locally, reuse every bag and wrapper you ever buy, and never throw out anything that be recycled or composted. But most of the products and processes we rely on in this country are already part of an unsustainable framework. Most people who consider themselves relatively "green" (without trying to make this a stereotype), generally ride their bikes, buy food at their farmers market, use a minimal amount of personal care products, take shorter showers, use "green" cleaning products, etc. But even those lifestyles probably contribute more of a carbon footprint than if someone in Brazil were living almost the same way. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure, as an Environmental Studies major, how to really make my way of life more sustainable.
In my opinion, the most pressing issues facing the global environment is what Ken Donca and Geoffrey Dabelko call the current “structure” or the “relatively permanent features of the world system [which] give shape and definition to the interactions among governments, international organizations, multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, and other agents of world politics” (57 Conca & Dabelko). I honestly belief that as long as we cling to the currently dominant ideas of sovereignty, balance of powers, and deregulated capitalist economies, the chance of successfully protecting the global environment is minimal or maybe even inexistent. Or even more so, exactly this prevailing paradigm has largely contributed to the destruction of the world around us and will continue to do so with even greater power, if we don’t realize the horrific effects it possesses.
ReplyDeleteTo start, the political dogma of sovereignty and balance of powers as part of the system of nation-states leads to a very self-centered and almost selfish perspective for countries as it defines them in opposition to others and makes their individuality and independence a basic pillar for their success as nations and ultimately for the success of the political structure of our world. As this Western concept seems to have worked well for the developed nations, it has come to be understood to be crucial for an underdeveloped country to adopt this political organization in order to improve its situation. However, what seems to get forgotten is that the idea of the sovereign nation-state has been developed in the era of Enlightenment, a time in which the environment seemed indestructible and globalization was not even coined as a term yet. Thus, the background in front of which this structure was envisioned was completely different from today’s and the current situation of a damaged global environment demands a political organization of the world that takes it into account. Furthermore, I would even argue that this self-centeredness that sovereignty suggests contributed and still does so to the destruction of the global environment as it allows a country to focus only on its immediate surroundings and in no way demands the inclusion of a wider area, as that territory falls into the jurisdiction of another country. Consequently, it is little surprising that California, as illustrated by Tom Knudson, once confronted with environmental degradation in their direct environment, adapts its actions in such a way that its own environment is protected but in no way considers the effects of its continued consumption on other parts of the world from where they import resources and thus indirectly export their waste. However, this focus on the own nation is very limited, maybe as limited as the knowledge about our world of the scholars and politicians of 18th century Europe, who envisioned this world order. Nevertheless, living in the 21st century, this limited perspective can no longer be tolerated as we today possess the technology and skills to know the full extent to which our actions influence others. However, by accepting this often uncomfortable reality of being an ecological driver for the whole planet, it is also necessary to overcome this limiting political focus on the own sovereignty and accept our belonging to an interconnected world of people and natures.
Additionally, also the idea of a deregulated capitalist economy as the mean to achieve development is counterproductive to the protection of the global environment. When looking at the evolution of environmental degradation, it becomes apparent that the industrial revolution sparked the dynamic that is mostly responsible for the threatening situation we are currently in. Industrialization allowed the human population to grow at an extreme speed, its more efficient production allowed for higher consumption, etc. At the same time, the technologies used to produce more efficiently release toxins and harmful substances that pollute the environment, higher consumption means more waste, etc. Nevertheless, the living standard that has come to be understood the most desirable depends on this harmful deregulated capitalist economy. Susan J. Buck explains in her article “No Tragedy on the Commons” that the commons in themselves were actually no tragedy but instead a well-functioning system of land-management used by rural communities. However, in light of the industrial revolution, agrarian reform, and changing farming practices, the commons-system no longer fit with its modernized surroundings. Thus, due to the desire of development, the commons became a tragedy, although it worked well for many, many years. Similarly, Stanley Fish claims “I hate cloth napkins; you always have to worry about soiling them; paper napkins you just throw away which is of course the problem.” Both examples demonstrate that the modern economic system, although making life more comfortable, is creating large problems for the environment, be it the destruction of the commons due to more efficient farming or wasteful behaviors due to increased production and consumption. In this sense, in order to be able to protect the global environment the values that are placed in the economic system have to be adapted. With a system that stresses constant technological improvement, more efficiency, higher output, and consumption as a sign of wealth, the preservation of the environment will be difficult. However, at the same time, we can identify practices such as the commons system before the industrialization or cloth napkins that could help protect the world we live in; the question to ask is whether human beings are ready to trade their idea of a good life in the developed world for a different version of a good life in a thriving natural habitat?
ReplyDeleteWhile it seems difficult to convince people to adopt a more inclusive and thus more complex perspective of the political structure of our world and a, at first, less comfortable existence due to economic changes, it is important to remember that the this system we are currently living in is considerably young in comparison with the history of humanity and the values and norms we consider important are social construction. In this sense, it is not impossible to change the reality and with that create a structure for our world that, instead of degrading the global environment, cherishes and nurtures it; however, it will require to step away from what we belief is a “good” life today and to make some groundbreaking changes. I’m convinced that this is possible. But the question that remains is: do we want it?
I believe the greatest environmental challenge we face today is global ignorance and the “not my problem” attitude that so many Americans have. Let’s face it; any issues concerning climate change or resource depletion are problems for future generations that most people leave for someone else to deal with. Besides some strange weather patterns and thinning forests, our generation will not really experience the extreme brunt of our actions that are forecasted to wreak havoc on the lives of our children and grandchildren. Because we do not seem directly affected, we do not care. I know that for me personally, until I started taking an interest in environmental sustainability, reducing my carbon footprint was not a large concern in my life. I recycled, conserved water when I could and drove a small, fuel-efficient car but all in all was not too concerned with how my actions affected the planet around us. The recent “green movement” spreading across the country has definitely spread awareness about becoming ecologically conscious, condemning the use of plastic bags and water bottles and the like; but I have to wonder how long this will last. Do people genuinely care about the environment or are our habits too hard to break and we are just experiencing a passing fad? Its almost as if our society is designed to fail because the use of environmentally harmful products is so much more accessible and convenient than those that are greener, and our society cannot break its habit of using them.
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely difficult to be environmentally cautious- it involves giving up certain luxuries that we as Americans have become too accustomed to, such as driving whenever, whatever and wherever we please, flying everywhere we go, and taking long showers, to name just a few. We have reeled too far forward technologically and now reducing our lifestyle is like stepping back in time and downgrading, if you will. Many Americans are similar to Stanley Fish where being ecologically friendly has become a chore that does not seem worth the effort. As demonstrated by our enormous ecological footprints calculated in class, even if we reduce our lifestyles enormously it still will only help a limited amount, and we are still harming the planet. It seems hopeless to even try to promote and practice environmentally friendly activities when the impact that they make is so minimal. However, looking into the future we owe it to our children to try and make their world a better place.
I think the most pressing challenge facing the global environment today is compassion fatigue. In this day and age, everyone is aware of the shaky situation we have found ourselves in environmentally. There is no way to avoid the environment issue; discussions focus on how to be green, who is considered an environmentalist, and what the effects of our environmental indifference are on the developing world, just to name a few. Ultimately, there are countless arguments which prove humans are destroying their world. Worst still, we as Americans are leading this destruction frenzy.
ReplyDeleteWhen people become aware of a particular environmental issue, it is typical to express horror and become wracked with guilt about contributing to such a problem. We hear about stories of the effects of global warming on poor communities in Pakistan or India, and the American public begins to go into a tailspin about it. We are told (rightly so) that our first world lifestyles have led to detrimental issues that plague the third world, and we are suddenly instilled with emotions of guilt. So we make personal and collective pledges to do more, to slow this destruction of the environment. People may even turn this guilt into action, declaring that they will reduce their consumption of something or begin doing something else in order to foster change. They try out vegetarianism, look into buying bikes, turn the lights out, buy reusable bags and better light bulbs. This decision to turn inaction into action is exactly what we need right now, even if it is fueled by guilt. However, the issue with this occurs when people’s motivation wane, when compassion fatigue sets in. There is a plethora of reasons as to why this may occur. Time passes and daily interests may trump this motivation; or the effects of such change may be too long term to really care, particularly when the short term things like our economic situation engulf us. Or the victims of our environmental mistakes are out of sight and thus out of mind. Or perhaps people don’t feel like they can personally make change enough so that things like climate change will be reversed. Or maybe it is just that people don’t want to make these changes, that they don’t care about their relationship to the environment.
Whichever reason, the fact remains that eventually people lose interest as the guilt subsides, and stop making these changes they initially pledged themselves to. Maybe we still tell our friends that we have “gone green”, we are considering that Prius, we frequent farmers markets and use disposable bags, we recycle daily. Yet do we? Or are just trying to convince the rest of the world, and ourselves, that we are doing our part?
In my opinion, this comes back to compassion fatigue. We care, but not enough. And our interest fades when images of our dying environment aren’t being flashed up on the television every day, or when the debate changes to something such as the economy or healthcare. These ups and downs of caring and not caring are dangerous, for they are making us more numb each day to the atrocities occurring as a direct result of our negligence.