This week's regularly scheduled discussion will focus on this article by Michael Maniates.
Maniates offers a unique perspective on consumption, appropriate for the day it was printed: Thanksgiving 2007. We will sharing our opinions on Maniates' argument, particularly focusing on the way his views compare and contrast to the mainstream environmental movement. This is way more exciting than whatever is on your TV, so go ahead and click "comments" to see the discussion!
Quote of the week:
"We never know the worth of water till the well is dry."
- Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
hey guys. Does anyone know if we're in group 1 or 2 and exactly what we need to do to prepare for Friday? I know it's pretty informal, but do we have to meet beforehand or can we just communicate through email or the blog?
ReplyDeleteManiates is pretty ralled up about the environmental havoc we're reeking on the planet. As he should be. However, I believe the cold hard truth of the matter is that the effects are not quite palpable enough for mainstream America to change their lifestyles. Politicians are not brave enough to risk their positions and propose new environmental initiatives. Maniates' arguments are valid and it's true that American's have proven resilient in tough times. But I'm willing to bet that the average American doesn't quite grasp the severity of the environmental crisis. Therefore, great leaps and bounds in an American’s lifestyle is very unlikely to happen unless mass education and acceptance of the problem and possible solutions are embraced or the effects become so tangible (and in all likelihood too late) that we're forced to change the way we live.
ReplyDeleteManiates certainly has great points. His main critique is how politicians' individualistic stance on the solutions to environmental problems skews the severity of the issue. I agree. By saying "all you have to do to save the environment is X" people may get the wrong idea that environmental solutions are simple and straightforward. However, by arguing that going green is easy, more people jump on the bandwagon to make these easy changes, like recycling scrap paper. What if politicians did urge citizens to make drastic changes to their lives in order to save the environment? I feel like a smaller number of people would follow their advice, although their individual impact would be much greater. Unfortunately, I think the people who are willing to do easy things, but not the more difficult things to help the environment would tune out these politicians and keep their lives as is. I wonder if the cumulative effect would be any better then if fewer people were making greater positive impacts on the environment? Either way, the individualistic, consumer-based solutions are simply not going to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteI think politicians need to urge people to make more drastic changes. However, simply saying that doing so is important will not convince most people to do so. I believe economic incentives are the most realistic way that politicians can urge people to change their behavior. One example is giving families and businesses hefty tax breaks for investing in alternative energy sources. In this economy particularly, most people are simply unwilling to spend money on these "big changes" that Maniates calls for. Hopefully, economic incentives would cause more people to take action.
I found Maniates’ article to be uplifting – it felt like a rousing speech that a coach would give his team before the last quarter of a losing game to get his players out of the rut they were in and go on to win. I liked it because I felt like he was being critical of politicians (for only expecting so much of the mainstream) and of the American people (for only expecting so much of ourselves), but it captured the attitude of hope that I think is important to maintain when discussing the distressing state of our planet. Yes, environmentalists challenge us, but they obviously have some hope because if they didn’t they would have already thrown the towel in and given up. Yes, these issues are depressing, but only when the last flicker of hope is extinguished will we really be doomed.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important for people to keep on doing the little things (because they do add up even if the final sum is not that great), but should remember that these little things do NOT serve as a substitute for larger, harder, more fundamental changes. They are an “in-the-mean-time” solution, but we cannot afford to be biding our time until things get really urgent to act. This is exactly the mentality is one that plagues the mainstream environmental movement and one that we can’t that we cannot continue. The public needs to be taught about the dire situation we are in and reminded that it is much easier (not to mention more cost-effective) to conserve the environment than to rebuild it – money-wise and time-wise.
The article this week reminded me of the first week reading "I Am, Therefore I Pollute," by Fish. I find them similar in message and reassuring. I completely agree that all the pro environmental ads and agencies portray the transformation to a green lifestyle as a one, two, skip three process. And to read pieces that agree it is not easy makes me think to myself, oh good I am not just doing something wrong, this really just isn't that easy. I agree that fundamental change is necessary and at the same time I think the smaller things like recycling should not be discounted. The smaller things are a stepping stone and now we need to take the leap.
ReplyDeletePersonally working for my Congressman I see the bills and resolutions other representative propose and the ones my representative co sponsors and such. And I believe that most people see doing something green as being viewed as something morally right and so they would sign on, if someone just proposes it. I believe there is no problem in trying to propose larger pieces of legislation and failing, as opposed to assuming you have to limit what people can handle information wise. I know for myself if a larger force was telling me I had to change my lifestyle and how I could go about doing so it would be easier then trying to remember all these little things. We need to confront factors of environemtnal change, most importantly consumption and realize that isolated acts made by the individual are no longer enough. We are on a time schedule and a little risk and pushing of the envelope is neseccary.
p.s. I wrote a different, but similar blog first which I liked better, but thanks to my MAC I pressed the wrong key and failed in the copying and pasting process, so needless to say I was not as enthused to write this second one, but I tried to re create the magic =)
sorry also that i put it on the main page- i will delete that one haha
ReplyDeleteManiates’ piece is harsh, but rightly so. He does not lightly tiptoe over the idea of taking real environmental action. He does not gloss over the seriousness of the issue. He looks the 800 lb. gorilla straight in the face, so to speak, and firmly asks it to leave. As I stated before in my response to Dr. Fish’s article two weeks ago, merely reducing our individual environmental impact does not have the conglomerate effects we so optimistically hope for.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Dr. Fish, however, Maniates’ argues for environmental awareness. While Fish laments that environmental action is a responsibility we as a nation are too preoccupied to bear, Maniates rebukes us for expressing such laziness. Not just us, but our leaders, for being too cautious to provoke us. He recognizes that we face a climate disaster more devastating than any famine, war, or other reason to join together as a nation and accept permanent and sometimes inconveniencing changes to our lifestyles.
I completely agree with the article on all fronts. To achieve any kind of long-term success, we need to do more than recycle, take shorter showers, turn the lights off, unplug appliances, purchase local food, and drive efficient cars. We must lobby our elected leaders to push through change in the very infrastructure that supports our lifestyles. Additionally, we need to have the moral gumption to assert our nation’s power in a way that will be beneficial in the long-run – coercion of gigantic, growing economies (economies still relegated to “Annex II” status in the Kyoto Protocol), to undertake the same measures we are while still developing. This will not be easy, and likely for the most part not entirely pleasant.
Maniates sums it up extremely well, “We need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins.” This fundamental change will allow us to completely bypass small individual efforts to reduce climate change. If the way products are created and services are provided completely change, then our lifestyles will have to as well. Without the ability of individual choice, the issue of laziness does not come up. The issue with this is clear, though – how do we remove individual choice without infringing upon personal liberty?
The answer is simple, as Franziska mentioned. Improving environmental education, beginning at the elementary school level, will garner support for infrastructure and lifestyle improvements at all strata of society. When this occurs, changes are seen as improvements, not inconveniences. Then individuals such as Dr. Fish will have little to complain about. Getting food locally won’t cost extra, it will be a fact of life. Deriving our electricity from wind power captured in the Midwest and transported to population centers on the coast will be the norm.
These changes MUST come from the top. Small individual action is only effective at soothing individual guilt. The leaders of this nation must be willing to enact sweeping change, and to think in a greater context than their relatively short-term limits. They must be willing to flex their political muscle to encourage other nations to do the same. Then, and only then, will lifestyle changes percolate down through society and the necessary cultural paradigm shift occur that will help to mitigate the adverse effects of global climate change.