I enjoyed the piece, especially Professor Maniates's paragraph on American revolutionary figures. The clever and most powerful section made me wonder about how revolutionary the current green movement is. I tried to do some quick research on the the "green revolution," a term I had heard multiple times before, but got lost in a sea of information involving early agrarian reform, Obama's job plan, algae in Canada, and rice in the Philippines. Thoroughly confused, I decided to return to the article at hand. Maniates wasn't debating semantics, as academics so often want to do, but questioning initiative. Nonetheless, he brought Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr into the mix for a reason. How revolutionary is the the current green movement?
My first thought was that environmentalism is not revolutionary at all, given that the ideas behind the movement have existed since the dawn of the human race. But then again, so have the ideas utilized in most well recognized revolutions: equality, fraternity, liberty, freedoms. To say that Paul Revere and his contemporaries were the originators of those ideas would be incorrect, though they did utilize them with significant results. For that aspect, I suppose the current green movement fits right into place—it applies well acknowledged and established ideals to as large a population as possible.
Another point to be considered relates to time—must a revolution be sudden, and, if so, does the current environmental movement fit the criteria? As Maniates points out, "environmentalism" (as a loose term) has become a recent fad, with celebrities telling their fans to turn off light switches and recycle. The popularity has snuck up many people, and I would use the word sudden for it. Internationally and politically, the movement started in the early '70s with Stockholm. In that facet, the environmental movement has somewhat slow, with many speed bumps and disappointments.
Regardless of how revolutionary the current environmental situation is, Maniates is calling for a Paul Revere, an FDR, or an MLK Jr. The climate is ripe with most people signed on board for recycling and easy water conservation. Now we need the real challenge. Bring on consumerism!
I definitely enjoyed reading this piece by Michael Maniates. I completely agree with his argument that Americans have been taking the easy way out of being green. Becoming environmentally friendly is a new trend over the last few years, where colorful reusable bags and aluminum water bottles are hot new accessories and we are all urged to conserve energy and recycle. However as time goes on, it has become increasingly obvious that this is not enough.
ReplyDeleteThis is where Americans get trapped. I loved Maniates comparisons of “The Lazy Environmentalist” to such revolutionary characters and movements as Paul Revere’s Revolution. It’s comical to think that being green and saving the planet is easy. You could write a “Being Green: For Dummies” and the planet would be saved. It’s almost as Americans like being green without actually being green. It is extremely clear now that if we want the planet to be anything like it is now for generations to come, we need to cut back and completely alter our lifestyles.
Another point in the Maniates piece that I agree with is that revolutions do not start without a revolutionary leading the cause. We need a figure to lead the green movement, and promote more than just the easy things. Just as Paul Revere promoted drastic change, the green movement needs a spokesperson to encourage new ways of living. Most Americans seem ignorant to the peril that the planet is in because the enormity of the situation is hardly wide spread knowledge. We need a MLK Jr. of our time to inform the masses exactly what we need to cut down and change to save the planet from complete destruction. Al Gore sparked interest with his “An Inconvenient Truth” but another figure needs to continue what he started and inform those who do not understand just how destructive we are.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Maniates in that the assumption that we can resolve our environmental issues through the simple choices of individuals is too idealistic and does not take into account the actual damages we have already caused through our lifestyles. Recycling, switching to better light bulbs, buying reusable bags, and eating less meat may make small changes, yet this is only if everyone were to actually partake in these changes. Even still, we have engaged in too many damaging activities over the centuries since the Industrial Revolution that cannot be reversed from simple changes like these. One just has to look at the nitrogen gas and carbon dioxide pollution being produced by overpopulation, something which cannot be miraculously fixed by individuals “going green”. Yet there is an abundance of books, politicians, and campaigns that advocate these small changes, attempting to reach the public in the most effective way possible. If people are taught to make simple, effortless changes, it is believed they will listen. This is, of course, just assuming that we are incapable of making big changes, which is a major flaw to the environmentalism movement.
ReplyDeleteMy two points are thus. First, easy is better than nothing. These small changes are setting the stage for later change. What is most important with these changes is not necessarily the impact they create, but the mindset they instill within individuals. When an individual hears about environmental degradation and subsequently about small changes he or she can make that will benefit the earth, then the individual becomes aware, optimistic, and proactive. These qualities within one person provide the opportunity for knowledge of various issues to spread; therefore increasing the amount of people attempting to go green. Even if these transformations to be green on the individual level are hardly palpable, ultimately they are beneficial in the way that they contribute to a growing groundswell of educated individuals truly concerned about the direction we are going and the implications of our actions. Today, we take individual steps to help the environment because this conforms to the structure of our society, that being an individualistic and capitalistic one. Tomorrow, we can begin searching for ways to combine these individual efforts and spread them to the rest of the world. We must of course take into consideration the fact that there may not be a tomorrow given the way we are destroying our surroundings. Additionally, such a mentality of “making big changes later” can be damaging if it perpetuates without any change ever actually occurring.
Second, I agree with Maniates’ argument that a large part of individual failure to make any substantial change can be attributed to the lack of faith environmentalists and policy makers have in the general public. However, this lack of faith is not grounded in nothing. Rather, it stems from a consistent lack of concern toward understanding these issues and being moved enough to make change. It is not the sole responsibility of the elites to dictate what we should do in layman’s terms. Instead, it is also the responsibility of the public to seek out what needs to be done. After all, we live in a country where we take pride in individuality, and rely on ourselves to make change. Throughout American history, people have strived to reduce the power of the government, rather arguing that they want to rely on themselves. This sentiment should not stop short of climate change; we need to take the time to become educated on the subject and determine what needs to be done, rather than lazily waiting for elites to shell out what they think we should do. Perhaps, through this self-education we will find our inner Martin Luther King Jr. or Paul Revere in order to finally spearhead the environmentalist movement our earth has been waiting for.