Session 9: New Directions for Conservation

Tidwell seems to support the claim that collective action is more powerful than individual action. That being said, do you thing he sees value in individual “green” actions? Do you see value in them?

In “To Really Save the Planet, Stop Going Green,” Mike Tidwell generates a call to action for all of his readers. He says “don’t spend an hour changing your light bulbs…Instead, pick up a phone, open a laptop or travel to a U.S. Senate office near you.”

In the environmental field, it is stressed that individual action does not create substantial change. We hear over and over that people in positions of power are the only ones who can generate this change we need, and it is our burden to convince them to take positive action. Individual action, however, is valued when it’s a part of a larger collective action.

Tidwell, however, argues that both are valuable. He urges the reader to both call your congressman, AND get solar panels.  Tidwell highlights the fact that individual action is not meaningless, it’s just that we can do more! Use your reusable water bottle, and support a ban on bottled water in your city. Using a reusable bottle won’t have a huge impact on the environment today, but an entire city banning plastic bottles will save a ton of water, energy and resources going into making bottles that bottle.

But, don’t forget that using a reusable water bottle throughout your life, rather than plastic bottles does add up.  If no one say the value in individual action, then collective action could not occur. If everyone thought that their opinion, water bottle, their vote, their signature didn’t matter, then where would our society be right now? How about our environment? Collective action also relies on people in power (which we like to stress) but it is also founded on the actions of individuals.

In my opinion, even if your action is not a part of some collective action, it is still impactful because it has the power to create drastic change in your life.  Throughout the semester, we have analyzed the way in which we view and interact with nature. So, if these individual actions help to bring your closer to mother earth, or to change your perception that is noteworthy. Maybe being vegetarian won’t decrease the demand for meat, but it sure as hell will take you out of the equation. One principle of eco-feminism is recognition of the emotions involved in the environmental movement. It argues that we need an avenue to express our emotions, including anger, fear, and disappointment. For me, making changes in my life helps to mitigate these emotions. I may not re-shape the meat industry, but I no longer feel that I contribute to that problem.

Session 8: Otherworldly Religions

According to Donald Worster, how is the role of science in the environmental movement currently and how is related to Christianity?

Worster states “from our vantage today it might seem all those past people of history failed to achieve some enduring method of getting a living from the earth because they were ignorant of how the natural world works.” He adds that the current mentality is that our advancing science and technology only help us to better understand the world, when in reality it often creates a greater disconnect and damages environmental health. For example, the Native Americans discovered Three Sisters Agriculture without labs to identify which plants were nitrogen fixing, which lack amino acids, etc. They simply were connected with the natural world, therefore understand how to utilize it for human use, but still maintain it’s health.  When settlers arrived in the US, they requested the agricultural assistance of the Native Americans because they understood the natural world. This understanding is rooted in their perception of the natural world, not as a resource or a commodity, but as a living entity, with as much value as them.

But for some reason we believe, science will save us. If science won’t, then god will.  In fact, his piece argues that in the Middle Ages, the destruction of paganism, and the transgression toward Christianity made it possible to further damage mother earth. These western religions claimed that humans were the only species on earth with any moral significant value, dismissing intrinsic value of the natural world. Science adopted this anthropocentric ideology from Christianity and claims that any environmental issues are due to a shortage of science and technology around it. In both science and western religion, the world is a resource for humans and therefore degradation is acceptable to better our lives.  In order to have substantial environmental change, we must work backwards and understand the interconnections between science and religion and recognize that neither are our savior.

Session 7: Sharing the Earth

Why do marginalized groups often fall victim to Environmental Injustice and how can we fight it?

As Eric Freyfogle mentions in his “Notes on Environmental Justice” we need to focus on the way costs and benefits are allocated amongst people, specifically noting how these are allocated in respect to race, ethnicity and economic characteristics. It is important to note that the negative environmental effects, or costs, are often distributed disproportionally to specific demographics, often marginalized communities. A direct example of this can be seen in the TEDtalk “The Economic Injustice of Plastic” which highlights that the negative impacts of the plastic industry, specifically pollution, are effecting poor people more than any other demographic. A similar TEDtalk, “Greening the Ghetto” discusses how urban areas suffer most from environmental policy and planning. Environmental justice, however, is not always just as straightforward as “who gets this pollution” or “what community gets a park.” It is the discrimination of people in the decision making progress behind these actions as well.

Why are these people targeted? Because it’s easy. A factory might dump pollution in a low income community because it is well known that these people have other concerns to worry about. If this were to be dumped in a rich community, it is more likely to stir a political uproar. These privileged people can more effectively navigate the system to their advantage, while these marginalized communities may not.

We must take steps to combat this environmental injustice, in order to fight for equity, which is one leg of the sustainability stool.  As Peter Burdon points out in “Environmental Protection and the Limits of Rights Talk” this cannot just be in the hands of legislators. Legal rights are “empty signifiers” and we need to fill the right with meaning.  I argue that the real answer is education and empowerment. By encouraging community members in urban areas, or other marginalized people to advocate for their rights to be a part of these decision making processes as well as their rights to equality. Utilizing these rights, or calling attention the lack of rights they have will draw attention to the inaccuracies in our system and fight environmental injustices.

Session 6

In “The Sand County Alamanac” Aldo Leopold discussed how nature portrays the details of history better than any history book could ever recount them. Leopold discusses the evolution of Illinois’ landscape into prairies which were prone to (and dependent on fires,) where no trees could survive, he states “he who owns a veteran bur oak owns more than a tree. He owns a historical library, and a reserved seat in the theater of evolution. “I began to think of instances where I was able to use some aspect of the natural world to look back into our history.

On a hot August afternoon, my neck, atop my sunburned shoulders, was strained from hours of looking up in awe. In Glacier National Park, surrounded by the Rocky Mountains, I realized that these natural skyscrapers had been around for over 50 million years as the result of tectonic plates playing a game of tag like children on the playground.  The mountains surround U-shaped valleys and became sprinkled with glaciers which came to be about 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. Tantalized by the sheer beauty of these mountains, whose peaks penetrate perfectly low sitting clouds, I laugh at the juxtaposition of these snow kissed mountains and mature glaciers sitting so close to the sun. Well, closer to the sun than I could imagine, as sweat dripped down my face. It was then that I realized the true power of the forces of nature and how small humanity is in this anthropocentric world. No matter how hard we try, man could never create this beauty with such grace.

It was then that I realized, such a moving day in my life was just the blink of an eye in the life of this mountain. In fact, this was way less than a blink of an eye. People had lived on the same planet as these mountains for less than a second in the life of these mountains. The glaciers which made home squeezing between the peaks and been around for less than a millisecond. Aldo Leopold was right, these natural formations helped to take a glimpse into millions of years of history. These were more than just big hills to hike up, lakes to swim in, bears to observe, but a feature which has been sculpted by, and now sculpts the earth.

 

 

 

Session 5: Climate Change and the Role of Science

What does McKibben (and McKay) argue is the reason individual actions can not/will not make a noteworthy difference in the atmospheric concentration of CO2?

 

In his article “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math” McKibben outlines all the strategies to fight global warming which have not worked. Both navigating the political system and changing individualized lifestyles have had minimal success. He points out that we have a warped perception of what it means to go green. We are willing to install energy efficient lightbulbs, but not willing to unplug our energy sucking TV’s.  This works to support McKay’s claim “if everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little.” Well, why are people only do a little? McKibben argues its because we do not have an enemy. Similar to the Tragedy of the Commons, everyone plays a tiny role in climate change, therefore no one is ultimately to blame. But, as McKibben states, because we all play a role, so essentially the movement against climate change in a movement against ourselves, and our lifestyles. But if our individual actions make no change, why would rage war upon ourselves? Climate change falls victim to this vicious cycle. No individual is to blame, so no one has incentive to change their own actions.  As Tragedy of the Commons states, we will look out for our own self interest, so why would we change the way we live if this won’t have an impact?

Session 4: Other Forms of Life

In Michael Pollan’s article “An Animals Place” what is the disconnect between humans and animals, and how does it contribute to our food industry?

According to Pollan, the way we treat animals in order to generate food for ourselves is not only inhumane, but the result of a much deeper disconnect between human beings and animals. He states that in our factory farms today, we are inflicting more pain and suffering on animals than at any point in history. Many people are unaware of the cruelty animals face through the food industry and those who are aware do not emphasize with the animals. Why? Because of this disconnect. If cats and dogs were being slaughtered in this manner, Americans would be in uproar. So how do we morally justify pumping chickens with so many hormones their breasts become so large that they can’t stand for more than a few seconds? In order to allow this, we have separated ourselves from the issue. In Pollan’s view “the life of the pig has moved out of view” so there is no “reality check” on the brutality these animals face. Not only do we promote this disconnect socially, but we have laws in place to keep this disconnect. The highly debated “Ag Gag Laws” restrict any form of photography inside factory farms and work to keep Americans in the dark about where their food come from. To combat this issue, we need to first  identify that there is a disconnect in place, and work to disassemble it.  In order to do this, we must take a step back and analyze our relationship with animals: do we see them as part of nature or simply food?

In “Human Ignorance and the Limited Use of History” at two forms of nature are discussed and how history be more helpful in understanding one than the other?

In Richard Lamm’s piece titled “Human Ignorance and the Limited Use of History” Lam makes the claim that “history has become of significantly reduced usefulness for human wisdom and for guidance of the future.” Lamm works to dissect this further by expressing that we can learn about human nature from history, but not a lot about Mother Nature.  History is limited because it cannot help us to understand the problems of today which have not been faced in the past, such as: growing populations, environmental degradation, global warming, etc. Although limited in this way, Lamm makes a strong point in identifying that history can help us to understand human nature, including power, temptation, ambition and other factors which play a role in the environmental issues we face today.

In this class, while interviewing people about their outlook on the environment and the most pressing environmental issues we face, we made the claim that people need to be educated more. Across the board in the environmental sector, many people lay blame to the lack of education around the issues and claim that ‘if people only knew how they are contributing to these issues, they would change their ways.’ Lamm brings up a deeper issue in understanding human nature within these issues. In my opinion, the lack of education which is hindering environmental progress is not the only blockade, but the lack of knowledge about human nature. As environmentalists, we can use history to understand the incentives which drive human action in order to understand why we act the way we do, and in turn, how to change our ways in order to better the future.

Assignment 1

Dear Denise,

On January 25th I spoke with you about your outlook on our environmental future. To reiterate, your view was pessimistic, as you stated environmental problems are being passed down to the next generation, rather than being solved. Additionally, you stated that your top three environmental concerns were: littering, agricultural practices, and waste. You mentioned that your religion is a substantial factor in crafting your environmental outlook.  You stated that you treat your religion as your compass to guide how you should live your life, and it is therefore a factor in your outlook on all parts of life.  However, because religion is considered irrelevant in environmental debate, you often feel frustrated and excluded from the conversation. Furthermore, you explained that the political nature of environmental discussion often leads to polarized views, and the neglect of those whose stance is between. Finally, you mentioned a human disconnect from nature, and a special interest in human nutrition, both which play into your outlook.

Overall, your pessimistic view is shared by 43% of the sample, while 38% had optimistic views, predicting that the environmental future would be better than the present. The role of religion in your outlook made you a minority in the study, as only 16% of the people in the study shared this with you. Among fellow conservatives, your views resided with 23% of the interviewees. Among your age  group (51-60) 36% and of those who completed college only 14%.

What is most appealing to me, is how religion, across the board did not see to impact peoples outlooks, as it had shaped yours. As aforementioned, in many environmental debates religious input in considered irrelevant. In my opinion, this may be why many people don’t allow religion to impact their outlook. It is possible that people have learned to separate their environmental view from their religious view because, as you mentioned, the media tends to bash religious input. Additionally, I would have predicted that a large percentage of conservatives would consider religion to be a part of their outlook. This assumption is rooted the way the media portrays conservatives on issues that are often associated with religion (gay marriage, abortion, etc.)  The data, however, contradicts this.

Thank you for your time,

Katie Wiseheart

 

 

Dear Maren,

On January 27th I spoke with you about your outlook on our environmental future. To reiterate, your view was pessimistic, as you stated that in thirty years things will be a lot worse off than they are now. Additionally, you stated that your top three environmental concerns were: overpopulation, global warming, and deforestation. You mentioned that you are religious, but that does not influence your environmental view. You did share, however, that your medical profession deeply impacts your outlook on the environment. You stated how you see the value of all living things, how they benefit medicine and how these worsening conditions have increased the spread of disease and are having grave effects on human health.

Overall, your pessimistic view is shared by 43% of the sample, while 38% had optimistic views, predicting that the environmental future would be better than he present. In your age group, you were also a part of the majority, as 50% of the 31-40 year old applicants had a pessimistic outlook for our environmental future. As a conservative, you were once again a part of the majority, as 46% of conservatives also had a pessimistic outlook. In contrast, in the group of post graduates, you were the minority, as both pessimistic views (25%) and optimistic views (25%), fell behind the 50% of post graduates who had neutral views about the environment.

Both the majority of post graduates and those in the 41-50 year old range exhibit a neutral point of view. I am curious if this has ties to environmental history and environmental awareness. Assuming that 40-50 year olds attended college in their twenties, they would have been studying in the 1980s and 1990s. In environmental history, this seems to be a dull point, as environmental awareness and action plateaued. In the 1960s and 1970s, lots of environmental action such as advances in environmental legislation and vast conservation and preservation movements, made environmental issues headlining news. In the 80s and 90s, however, these advances slowed down, until they picked back up over the last two decades.  Many people claim that this recent spike in environmental awareness in recent years is due to the extreme nature of the issues we face, which were not yet pressing the 80s and 90s. This trend would explain why age groups who were in college in the 60,70s, 00s and 10s exhibited a pessimistic point of view. The high neutrality rates in your education level could be due to the decade in which they were in college and/or developing their environmental perspectives. This decade may not have stressed the importance of environmental action and awareness, which could have played a role in these neutral outlooks.   Of course, more data would be needed to support this claim. Although you currently have a pessimistic point of view, you expressed frustration in the neutral outlook of your peers. Perhaps this is because the 1980s and 1990s seemed to be a lowered state of environmental awareness, in comparison to the generation before and after? What do you think of this claim? Perhaps you can inquire your peers, what environmental events, movements, or lack thereof crafted their perception.

 

I look forward to hearing from you,

Katie

 

Session 2

Compare and contrast how Fred Magdoff and John Ballemy Foster in “Can Capatlism Go Green?” , and Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrusel in “Stumbling Into Bad Behavior”  work to convince the reader that a social reform is necessary to solve our environmental problems, rather than technologic or economic based solutions.

 

In both “Can Capatlism Go Green?” and ‘Stumbling Into Bad Behavior” the authors make arguments that our environmental issues today are social issues which need to be addressed through social change. Magdoff and Foster make the argument that social change is in order to cause environmental change by proving the inadequacies of the proposed/attempted technologic and economic solutions.  Their piece lists the high tech/high risk solutions which include: enhanced sunlight schemes, carbon absorption methods, geoengineering etc, and states that because the outcome of these suggestions are unknown, they will never serve as our solution. He adds that low tech solutions can help to some extent, but will not solve the problem due to our ever expanding economic system. Ultimately, in terms of technological solutions, the proposed actions are either too high risk in order to be accepted/used and the smaller scale solutions do not have the means capacity to create the change that is necessary today.  Similarly, the text provides and in depth critique of the economic tactics to generate environmental change which argues that these solutions either have ineffective (too small/too large) scope or are hindered by social mechanisms. In the closing remarks, the authors explicitly state that our problems “cannot be solved using technological and market based solutions with our current social relations intact. “ He adds that a shift in these social system or an ecological revolution, is needed first and foremost. Additionally, Bazerman and Tenbrusel would agree with these claims as their piece goes more in depth into why this social reform is necessary, rather than just proving the inadequacies of technological and economic solutions.  “Stumbling into Bad Behavior” works to inform the reader about the behavioral tendencies of human beings, and why, on an individual level (either as the President, or a homemaker), we make decisions which are damaging to the environment. Both pieces bring the social aspect of these issues to the frontline, although it is executed in a very different way. Magdoff and Foster portray the need for social change by proving the inadequacies of the technologic and economic blanket systems in place, and argue that as global citizens we need to change the way we interact. Bazermand and Tenbrusel, on the other hand, also highlight the social component on environmental issues, but on a much more individualized scale. They work to highlight the need to understand our own behaviors and how they promote harmful behaviors. Ultimately, on a large scale or broad scale, we need to look at these issues as human issues.  We must address the root of the problem, the people that are causing it, in order to create change.

Session 1 Reading

According to the first reading what are the three kinds of conservation and why are they referred to as “inadequate, both separately and together?”
The tree kinds of conservation, according to the text are:
1. The preservation of places that are considered scenic or wild, which are valued for their aesthetic benefits.

2. The conservation of natural resources; Safekeeping parts of nature in which we intend to/currently use. This may include: soil, water, timber, minerals, etc.

3. Industrial troubleshooting, or the attempt to limit, stop or remedy the most flagrant abuses of the industrial system. This is often associated with sustainability.

All three of these methods are inadequate because they do not impact the deeper issue, which is our human disconnection from the environment which fuels environmental degradation. Today, everything on earth is at risk of human destruction. This issue of destruction, these problems we are worried about, are not caused just by people other than ourselves. Because this point has failed to be realized, it is currently the duty of environmental agencies and organizations to solve these problems, rather than for individuals, families and communities. The realization that we ourselves, in our daily life are causing the problems we are trying to solve ought to show us the inadequacy of the language we are using. These are not “environmental issues” but rather, human issues. The term “environment” is a term used to describe our surrounding. It removes us from the picture and therefore works to justify damage towards it.