No silver bullets

Technology is often seen as a silver bullet to the environmental crisis in many political and media circles. Even business circles seem to capitalize on the next “environmentally friendly” products. This kind of over-simplified outlook fails to dig deeper into the issues at hand. We overlook our overwhelmed recycling infrastructure and pass our old outdated technology oversees to ill equipped salvage yards where they have a detrimental impact on local societies and economies. We must create a new industry capable of recycling our outmoded goods here at home, where we can trust that our good can be remade into efficient products that do no harm to the environment. We must reevaluate our waste management system and critically evaluate how much of our technology is simply being thrown away as soon as possible once a replacement comes along. This reevaluation must also go hand-in-hand with a new commitment to rebuild our economy into a green one. We must build new infrastructure with the goal of creating a carbon neutral society in mind.

Beyond I=PAT's T

To start, I'd like to agree with Brittany's post over Chan's (sorry Chan...)

The historical trends of technology and their detriment on the environment loudly speak against the Cornucopian ideal of holding out for the next big spike in ecological engagement. We can't simply wait for an ecological industrial revolution. historically it needs to be addressed that increase in technology has steadily negatively impacted the environment due in part to the human element of attitude.

To counter the argument of technological restoration of the environment I'd like to pose a new equation (an subset of I=PAT) T(+)=(ΔA1x I2)/C.I.. Positive Technology equals a primary change in attitude then multiplied by implementation all divided by creative innovation. The historic trend of more and more can no longer be sustained, we can no longer contribute more timber, more coal, more oil to feed a growing technological monster. T(+) means in some regards a simpler kind of innovation. A simplification of sorts to counter the ever-decreasing fuel supply of Earth. ΔA speaks to the core of our class; dramatic and drastic change in attitude (see previous blog post.) A societal implementation following the change in attitude would be the wide-spreading factor. Finally the second part of the equation is divided by creative innovation, the human ingenuity and resilience factor ignored by I=PAT.

Technology alone cannot and will not save us.

This might just make the problem more complicated but I hope it addresses the things fundamentally flawed in I=PAT's vague capital T.

The issue of how technology can/will save us from the problems of climate change and environmental disaster has always been interesting to me. The reason for this is that my father (a smart man with normally semi-reasonable positions) has a hard-line technology will save us stance on the issue. So whenever the issue comes up, and it often comes up due to having a family friend who works on climate change issues for Nasa, he spends several minutes ranting about human ingenuity and how technology has always saved us before.

I don't take his hard-line view on the issue, however I think that we have passed the point where a non-technological answer can really solve the problem. Yes reducing consumption can help but I do not believe that we can realistically reduce consumption in a way that can seriously fix any of the issues we are currently facing.

Technology isn't always going to be something that can save us from ourselves, it simply can't be a good thing for us all the time. However when it comes to climate change it can't be anything but a good thing, because we have simply gotten to large for any other solution to be able to fix the problem except technology.

Fail Cornucopians. Fail.

In my opinion, the evolution of technology is a means to an end. We no longer wanted to sew by hand... bam!! Someone invents a sewing machine. We don't want to have to use animals to plow our land... bam!! A large piece of machinery can do it for us. The point of this is that the original intent of technology was to make things better not worse. I've seen numerous graph that show the usage of resources. As a society progresses that usage grows and grows and grows until one day it begins to fall. Those graphs aren't representing a new piece of technology that solves all of our problems. It's all about attitude.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do not think that technology is going to be our saving grace. Sure- someone may invent some kind of car that doesn't use gas and doesn't pollute like the ones we're currently using do. But it will take time for everyone to start to use those cars and, really, the damage has already been done. Unless someone invents a machine that sucks up all of the pollution in the air, puts all of the fish back in the sea and all of the oil back in ground and then just magically disappears... we may be out of luck. I'm definitely not with the Cornucopians on this one.

I might think that because inventing technology is not something that is on my radar. I'm all about politics. So for me this issue comes down to the people. There needs to be massive policy and attitude changes if we're going to control our consumption and try to limit the damage we're doing to the environment. For me the I=PAT equation makes sense. It's easy, it's simple and it inherently tells us where to reduce our impact. Technology is definitely part of this. But I don't think that a new technology is going to solve all of our problems. I would argue that we didn't know what effects the technologies we're currently using would have on the environment when they were invented. So how can we trust that something new won't make environmental degradation worse? Sorry, Cornucopians...

Praying to the God of Technology

Technology is a wonderful thing; it simplifies our daily lives, lets us communicate across borders and seas, and elongates our once short lives. So it is no wonder that so many people assume that technology is will save us from ourselves and this ecological mess we have created. People and governments have been putting all of their faith in technology, worshiping the idea that if we ask a computer to reduce carbon emissions, eventually it will magically get rid of the greenhouse gas threat. Cornucopians would be priests in this new technology based religion, they firmly believe that mankind and can use technology to save the Earth now and a million times over.

While, I am all for using technology for to help combat the effects of global warming, I am fully against relying purely on technology to get us out of this mess. Bill McKibben and several other writers we have read in class have warned against putting all our eggs in the basket of technology. They say we can use technology but they point out that if we use technology to solve our problems today, the same technology will simply cause new problems tomorrow.

As I have said in previous blog posts, we need to change our lifestyles and our consumer culture in order to really combat climate change. And depending on technology will only encourage our consumer culture and may actually prevent change in the long run, rather then save us.

The Nation that Greens Together...

The future of the green movement lies in the production and innovation of green technology and the creation of an organized industry around it. Branching from last weeks post of "too little" action on the American side of the movement, our minimized effort of bag taxes and reusable mugs isn't going to spark the great job stimulus that China is gearing up for.

While I don't think that climate change is best addressed in the round-a-bout manner of creating more jobs, it is a convincing argument for those politicians and legislators more focused on the potential short-term economic recession than the long-term environmental degradation. Our economy is never going to turn 180degrees into a green manufacturing state, but the greening of industry already in place could occur so much more easily, take the 1971 clean air act for example.

Viewing the environmental progression on a global scale is, in my opinion, a positive result of this race-like attitude. Noting the space-race (one of the only international races I'm aware of) a nationalized initiative and positively driven collective attitude toward the environment as an industry could lead to an improved folk-image of green American dreams. Maybe this competition will "whip us in shape," and soon we'll be faced with cheesy low-fi posters of biking to work or slogans of family unity through recycling. It's not a stretch from the math and science drive of the 60's and 70's; unfortunately the hardest sell is that reaching a cleaner Earth is as important and walking on the moon.

China on the way to a sustainable future?

Friedman’s article is surprising in that it highlights China’s attempt to modify its heavily industrial economy. The world’s most populous country wants a green revolution of its own. The apparent ease through which the Chinese leadership has started this movement may well reflect some of the more pressing climate issues they face. The more cynical among us may even interpret this as a simple means of saving face after years of severe environmental degradation in the country. After all, the Chinese government has pumped huge amounts of capital into the development of its heavy industrial sectors, often turning a blind eye to regulating any environmental concerns.

The technocrats within the Chinese bureaucracy have discovered that perhaps the nation’s road to a better future cannot come through continual haphazard production. Their wish now is to step away from more damaging and even dangerous means of production and pick us such methods as recycling. In the case of this article, it’s as simple as reclaiming plastic bottles, something America has been slow to do.

To me, China’s interest in cleaning up their economy seems genuine. Already they have had some labor protests as a result of poor working and living conditions. They fear such poor conditions will lead to unrest in the long run. It would seem as though they want more moral authority over the United States, now that they have actually taken action; American continues to twiddle its thumbs, at least on a federal level. Already, China is investing in wind power on a new level. According to NPR’s Foreign Dispatch, the Chinese are already putting up wind turbines in the Gobi Desert. When completed in 2020, the plants will provide 13.6 kilowatts of power, enough energy to power all of Chile.

A race may be just what we need.

Whether its the Space Race, an arms Race, or just Nascar, American's love a competition. Whether we are racing with our worst enemies or just trying to put up more Christmas decorations than our neighbors down the block we do things competitively. So it comes as no surprise when I read Thomas Friedman's article that he is trying to push climate change policy as a matter of keeping up with China. That may just be what we need to do something about it.

American's seem to do our best work when our back is against the wall. When we were faced with the possibility of Russia making it to the moon before us we managed to get there multiple times. Now with no competition we haven't made a moon landing in over 30 years. For some people life will always be us versus them and that unfortunate but I would rather have them competing to be greener than China than competing to see if they can disprove climate change.

I understand that making climate change into an us versus them is not a perfect solution and could lead to problems down the road as it certainly has in the past. And I certainly think that emulating the Cold War can only lead to bad things. However making it a competition between us and China does beat doing nothing ten times out of ten.

China vs. The United States

As usual, an author was able to describe an instance in which America is behind. Surprise, surprise. One part of Friedman's article that I did find surprising was his comment that China was making positive strides in terms of green technology and limiting carbon emissions. I'm used to hearing that the consequences of China's gigantic population are slowing killing the planet.

But... I guess that when a country has one thing that is drastically impacting the environment it is important to look for solutions and other ways to reduce the overall impact.

I have no problem with action on climate change being a race between China and the United States. The United States is still stuck on whether or not the environment is actually being impacted by human activity. Something needs to propel the United States to action- whether it be a competition or some type of catastrophe.

I agree with the article that green manufacturing and new technologies are a step in the right direction- especially for Americans who pollute more than anyone else on Earth. Recycling of used plastic is a great idea and is becoming increasingly popular. Even plates are being made from previously used plastics. Personally, though, I believe that limiting population growth could have an incredibly large impact on reducing human impact on the environment.

From the Space Race to the Green Race

In his article Thomas Friedman says that China will soon surpass the United States in terms of green technology and in emitting fewer carbon emissions. This was actually a surprise to me because personally I have not heard very many people talking about China going green. All the talk I have heard is about the U.S mission to convince China to go green. So reading this different perspective of China's government actually being greener and more committed to being green is fantastic.

I am all for a Going Green Race with China, lets switch from the Space Race to the Green Race. The world is in trouble and if a competition with China is what the U.S government needs to get off its ass and and lower our carbon emissions then I say lets get out our huge America is #1 foam fingers. Friedman says that China has made climate change about creating jobs for Chinese. The Chinese have brilliantly turned a major global catastrophe into a way to improve the everyday lives of their citizens. While here in America we (as I have said several times now in my blog posts) are still talking about if climate change even exists. And the Chinese are not just talking about improving their technology they are talking about changing the way they do things so they can live greener lives and use greener technology. Where as in America we are more focused on using greener technology and no changing our lifestyle.

Feel free to call me a non-American by saying that I am all for the Chinese to start kicking our butt in the Green Race, because climate change is not just an American problem, its a global problem and every nation needs to address it. And if a threat to American superiority is what it takes to cause change and really get our government to take action then I say on your mark, get set, GO Green!

Who is doing the asking?

In his New York Times article, Michael Maniates argues whether or not people are being prompted to change as much as the environment needs them to. Environmentalists are regarded as baby-talkers, encouraging small time change through re-usable bags and water bottles, certainly no Dr. Kings of this global rights movement. Expanding last lecture's economic discussion and touching on Grace's post, I want to raise the question of who is doing the asking and how loudly can a population respond?

Some may say that it is the public faces of going green that prompt all this change, the touring and preaching Al Gores of our time, but I beg to differ and say it is our elected officials that are prompting the American public. Through the polls they determine the answer, how green can we go as a society, and as Grace said we answer time and time again with our consistent "gas guzzling" and "conditioned-air" lifestyles. Political change is arduous and viscous, citing only extreme cases leading to rapid response (million-man marches for equality, or 9/11 response rationale for acts of patriotism) so what the degradation of the environment warrants is a higher value placed on what we have left to lose, appraised by our world leaders.

We have already seen it put in place in DC with a simple initiative to reduce a local aquatic impact in the form of 5 cents per plastic bag. One of the smallest recognizable taxes has spawned a collective thought of personal responsibility and created a more widely-ecoconscience city (note the look of confusion and disgust on a tourists face when they're demanded to hand over a nickel or two and compare that to the non-chalance and active nature with which a DC resident now totes a re-usable bag.) This small act of local government stepping in to create positive change parallels Maniates' dilemma of we being asked to little, but puts the questioning power in the hands of the government.

Politicians and policy makers are testing the waters, they're baby-talking us with bag-taxes. It's up to a collective voting population to make it clear that citizens today know that "the time for easy is over." We must make it known that we're ready for some harder questions, and we will answer through the vote.

Its the little things...

Michael Maniates has a good point in his article, the easy way isn't going to cut it. It's a point that certainly holds true, changing a lightbulb won't reverse global warming. However I think that through his article he gives the average people too much credit. When comprehensive climate reform occurs it won't be enacted by the common people it will come down from the top and it will make many people angry.

He references notable figures in history, Paul Revere (who did actually only 1/40th of the work on his famous night), Martin Luther King and FDR. None of these men can be called the average American (one lived before America existed but thats not the point). These were men who could have taken the easy way out and chose not to do so. The American people are asking what they can do and are choosing to do the easiest of choices.

It doesn't matter how many "It's Easy Being Green's" are published if the American public decides to do more. The fact of the matter is that America just doesn't want it enough, they are satisfied doing the little that they are being asked to do. Maniates writes "Rather, it's that when Americans ask, "What can I do to make a difference?" we're treated like children by environmental elites and political leaders too timid to call forth the best in us or too blind to that which has made us a great nation." Maniates almost hits the nail on the head here, American's won't do the big jobs until it is forced upon them, it happened with the clean air act, it happened with segregation and it is going to happen with climate change.

In the middle of his article he writes "Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment." But what he should have written is

Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment and never have so many been happy to give that little.

It Ain't Easy Bein' Green

Michael Maniates makes several excellent points in his article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It." There is no way that recycling, turning off the lights, and taking shorter showers can stop the damage that is being caused to our planet.

So why aren't Americans pushed (hard!) to reduce our carbon footprints? I see two huge road blocks in the way.

1. People still don't believe that something is happening to the earth. It is kind of amazing that in 2010, well-educated people can still deny the existence of global warming and climate change. Or that they can believe that our actions are what causes climate change. One of the most successful, well-educated men I know is a cynic when it comes to this debate. He believes that it is impossible for us to know that the changes we see happening to the earth aren't part of a natural cycle. How much can our recorded histories really tell us?

And who knows... he (and the other critics of climate change) may very well be right. But by the time we discover who is right and who is wrong, it might be too late.

2. Politics, politics, politics! Ethanol isn't the answer, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. So what's the problem, right? The problem is that we could be using a better kind of ethanol. The United States is good at producing corn, but sugar cane, that is mostly produced in Brazil, can give us a more effective type of ethanol. On top of that, sugar cane is easier and less expensive to grow than corn. But the United States wouldn't make any money off of using and producing sugar cane ethanol. So we restrict trade with Brazil to make a couple bucks and give work and profit to our farmers.

Just like everything (genocide, presidential elections) it is probably going to be too late for change by the time we realize the mistakes we've made. We might even be dead when the consequences of our actions come to pass...

Going Green - It Ain't Easy

In Michael Maniates’ article, the author makes the case that our leaders hesitate to ask much of the general populace when dealing with climate change. Few in government want to tell us want to do, for fear they might be criticized for infringing on our personal rights, while self-help books suggest measures that only barely counter the environmental crisis. As a society, we seem to be looking for an easy way out.

It seems as though our consumer economy has been structured to be guilt-free. We have no effective means of measuring the effects of our purchases on the wider environment. As a result, our society does not feel the need to make the drastic stages it should to counter climate changed. We retreat to the half-measures that we know so well. Radical change would just be too complicated, too confusing, and not at all efficient.

Recalling Jared Diamond in The Last Americans, he makes the argument that societies are not bound to make decisions on issues that they cannot readily perceive as problematic. For example, the ancient Maya had no idea their farmland was becoming depleted until it was too late. We too cannot simply look out the window one day and realize that climate change is upon us. The key to solving the problem is educating our entire society. Only with the knowledge of the challenge can we involve everyone to work toward the solution.

Easy is the American Way

While I completely agree with Michael Maniates' point that the "easy" ways to be green are not going to solve our environmental problems, I disagree with the idea the most Americans want to/will work harder to be green.

Americans like doing things that are easy and they do not like making sacrifices. Just ask a Hummer owner, they are not going to want to give up their giant, gas guzzling monster of a vehicle in order to drive a tiny, eco-friendly hybrid. Of course there are many Americans who do want to be green and do recycle and do care about the environment, but even then many of them will not be willing to give up their air conditioning during the summer for a greener earth. It is not that Americans do not care, recent polls have showed that Americans really believe that we must become greener, its just that too many of us are not willing to get our hands dirty for a better tomorrow.

And in part I believe that this is a cultural thing, Americans believe we are entitled to our large cars and six bedroom houses, we are a consumer culture. So of course we love the "easy" way to be green, recycling is easy when there are clearly labeled trash cans and that bulb that lasts for five years and cuts down on energy costs? Those savings might encourage more people to turn their air conditioning on a few weeks earlier.

Yes I completely agree that we do need to be told what we really can and must do in order to save our planet but I also think that we still need to keep in mind our consumer based culture. We will need more a cultural change before Americans will be willing to make those sacrifices, we really need to make the environment everyone's problem. And I know that people have been saying that for years and that being green is more popular then ever in America, but its not enough. If it was then there would be more people demanding change and more changes being made by the government. Americans need to stop following a culture of "gimme, gimme, gimme" and want to live simpler, greener lives, before real change will occur.

The Crisis of the Commons

Having read the articles for this day, it seems as though the pressures of Earth’s growing population seem too much for it. Already we have begun to see the frightening impact of man on this planet: ever since the industrial revolution, the human race has improved his standard of living greatly, but at great expense to his surroundings. As our population swells as it increases its ability to support more people, the natural world bears the burden thrust upon it by humanity. Garrett harden makes this point clear when he recalls the “tragedy of the commons” – a dilemma that plagued herding societies of the past. As herding societies share common lands, the vast swaths of lands on which their animals survived seemed inexhaustible. However, as each individual attempted to increase the output of his herd, more animals would appear with each passing generation. In time, the fields would become exhausted.

This lack of a foresight has already cost humanity numerous resources that can no longer be replenished. Garrett warns us that even our Natural Parks are at risk. Unless we can reverse course, our industrial processes will simply continue to have severe impacts on ecosystems.

There are measures we can take, Garrett tells us, but he warns that it may be hard to encourage people to follow them without expressly creating new laws. I agree with his analysis that the law is all too often behind the times. Our nature conservancy agencies must work with the congress to formulate new means to preserve our national and indeed global “commons.” Our lawmakers must look to the scientific research community for answers. Only grass-roots movements can truly hold our leaders accountable for the future of our resource security. Jared Diamond points to such resource exhaustions as the cause of the collapse of numerous civilizations, including the Maya, the people of Easter Island, and the Greenland Norse.

The Blind Environmentalist

For the past twenty years or so going green in the U.S has become the hip thing to do. We teach our children the importance of recycling, we scoff at the lazy person who takes the elevator to the third or second floor, and we try to elect green politicians who push for change in office. But the truth is many American Environmentalists do not even know which plastics are recyclable or where the turkey in our sandwich comes from. We are a nation of blind environmentalists, our hearts are in the right place, but we fail to see that many of our "green" actions are not really green at all.

Take the example in Green Planet Blues about California. The West Coast is often considered the more greenly minded population, but they only pretend to conserve. Sure they have saved their deserts and many of their state parks, but they simply get their finite resources imported at over double the coast. And when one factors in the environmental impact that occurs in shipping those goods from New Zealand, California is more of a threat to the global environment then ever before. Then there is the use of ethanol, most Americans view the use of ethanol as a good green practice, when in reality ethanol causes an increase in the demand for corn, that cannot be filled by American farmers, so corn fields pop up in other parts of the world and their products are shipped to the U.S. Causing an increase in carbon emissions to get the corn to the U.S and the new corn fields cause great deforestation.

Its not that Americans don't want to be green, its that we don't know how. Big businesses and the government give us "green" choices but normally we are not given reasons why they are green or they appear to be green on the surface, but if you dig a little deeper you discover that we are actually doing more harm then good. So what can Americans do to see the light? Become more educated, ask questions about where that ethanol is coming from and what has to be done in order for it to be created. Yes it takes time and more attention the most average Americans are willing to pay to the environment but if we all just try a litter harder and think about where the Coke can is going to end up after its thrown in the recycling bin then we can avoid such counter-productive "green" programs and polices like the ones in California and open our eyes to a brighter, greener tomorrow.

Pressing Challenge

For me, the most pressing issue pertaining to the environment is ignorance. Ignorance of environmental degradation is one of the leading causes of inaction among the youth today. The most profound and dramatic negative impacts on the world around us aren't always so blatantly obvious, ie average temperature rising a single degree centigrade, so it takes the dedication and perseverance of environmentalist education to create positive change.

Ignorance of the affect humankind is having on the world we live on has habitually decreased the urgency and intensity with which environmental problems need to be addressed. Based on the past two weeks' readings, it's clear that the information, studies, and science is out there and available to the public, but the lack of mainstreaming of these global issues has become the norm of today's media.

Broad and mainstreamed enviro-campaigns have proven successful in the past, like the creation of national holidays Earth Day and Arbor Day, so why can't a national rally for a greener way of life bring about contemporary change? With more education of global green issues, greater innovation is capable. This is not to say that Moore's Law will directly correlate to reducing impact, but scientific advances can create positive change if responsibly used and widely installed.

Interesting innovations and creative implementations are a profound way to solve environmental problems through fostering education and raising awareness.

To conclude, something fun to watch, demonstrating what's actually possible with the help of a little infrastructure and a lot of smarts.

http://wimp.com/solarhighways/