Call for a Cultural Transformation

In his article, Eric Assadourian provides a brief history of consumerism in the world and they ways in which it is instilled into our culture today. The methods of encouraging consumerism in our culture that he identifies include: marketing, product placement, the media, and education. Accordingly, Assadourian advocates a "cultural transformation" to address the current environmental situation. Our current rate of consumption is not sustainable and a quote from the MA Board that is included in the article (and that Professor Nicholson likes to quote in class) is that "human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be take for granted." Today's culture, especially in the US, is so deeply rooted in the ideas of consumption and consumerism, that we will only be able to ease the growing threat to the environment by changing and altering our culture to be less harmful. Overall I agree with his transformative plan, but at the same time I am pessimistic because I find it hard to imagine a time in the US where people don't buy into big extravagant celebrations and rituals and where it isn't the norm for someone to get a car on their 16th birthday. However, my pessimism aside, I think that the steps he advocates to take to have a "cultural transformation" are valid in that it will take a multifaceted approach to alter this culture of consumerism and the mentality that more money and things equals greater happiness. In the article he applauds the social movements that are taking place that include the Slow Food movement and ecovillages, which I heartily support as well. Ultimately, I agree that a cultural transformation needs to take place, but I worry that we won't have enough time to make it a reality before it is too late.

Marchers in SF- Maggie Kuk

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/25/BA221L92LL.DTL

In San Francisco hundreds of people took to the streets in a march to protest the use of fossil fuels. It was a part of a global Moving Planet day. Over 2,000 similar protests were scheduled to take place around the world. Some participants were dressed in polar bear and fish costumes, others held signs demanding changes such as improved public transportation, more solar and wind energy, and cleaner air.

What makes this a successful form of action is that it was organized and run by the civil society. This is a perfect example of democracy at it's best- hundreds of people protesting for their government to change something that they're unhappy and dissatisfied with. I wrote in a previous post that I believed in the power of the people. I believe that the push for environmental change doesn't have to come from the industry. This is a perfect example of grassroots organizing.

This action is definitely replicable. Just the fact that 2,000 similar marches were scheduled proves that fact. I think the more people protest the more pressure politicians will feel to push for higher environmental standards. 

This gives me hope for several reasons. This action shows that there are hundreds of people that want change. It also proves that the masses have a voice and that they are being listened to. So many people assume that they're voices can't be heard, but this action shows otherwise. I think with more protests from the public really changes might start to take place.

Eco-Friendly Chesapeake Bay Foundation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012404669.html

The article describes that measures taken by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to create the most eco-friendly building. The purpose of this building was to set an example for others to showcase alternative energy options and "green" living. The building was finished in 2000 but still is a gleaming example of how construction can be changed to better protect the environment.

a) This is an effective form of action because the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is not just helping the environment by building a eco-friendly building but it gives an example of what actions are possible to save the Chesapeake Bay. The bay is threatened by many different environmental factors, including human and animal waste. The building for the foundation eliminates waste flowing into the water by composting it.

b) This action comes from civil society. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is made up of individuals that want to donate their time and money to a cause they see as dire. The government tends to get involved with Chesapeake Bay conservation, but the construction of the foundation's building was strictly funded by civil society.

c) This action is replicable in some ways. It is not realistic to assume that all new buildings will be built like the foundation's building, especially for ones around the bay. The building was very expensive, although some prices have gone down since its construction in 2000. The components of the building that can be replicated in new construction are things such as composted waste and alternative ways of heating a building. It is also more plausible that these types of changes to construction are possible in a large building then in individual homes.

d) This article only provides some hope for me. I really enjoy reading about the advances in eco-friendly technology. It is also encouraging to read that this technology has reduced in price over the years. This may mean that the technology is accessible to more people. The primary issue that causes me to have some doubt in this action is that is was completed by individuals that were are concerned and aware of environmental issues. I believe that is was a great investment and a good example to others but I don't think that it will produce much change. It seems as if there are groups of people that care to make their lives as eco-friendly as possible and they participate in such actions as constructing green building. Then there is the rest of the population in America that does not take the actions necessary to change their behavior and positively impact the environment. I would have a lot more hope is this was a developer in a suburban area that was building environmentally friendly homes.

Solar India

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/04/11/bangladesh.solar.power.kalihati/index.html

This article from CNN details a program that has been active since 1996 that sells solar panels to homes and businesses in Bangladeshi villages. Although these panels are rather expensive on the average Bangladeshi salary, they are slowly introducing electricity to thousands of people who have never had it before, and they are doing so in an environmentally friendly manner.

a) This is a very effective action because Bangladesh is a part of the world that is developing at a fast rate and will be using increasing amounts of energy in the near future. Starting many of the homes and businesses in the area off on solar energy will form good habits in the village and cut down on a good bit of energy consumption in the future as well as the present.
b) This action originates from civil society. The company that started this program, Grameen Shakti, is a non-profit organization in Bangladesh that combines several causes into one solution. Not only does this organization provide green, solar energy, it also trains women in the community to install and maintain them, giving many of them jobs. 
c) With the proper funding, this program is definitely replicable and would be perfect to impliment in many of the other developing nations that are going to be using larger and larger amounts of electricity in the near future. This would even be a good program to replicate in already developed nations to decrease our dependence on oil and gas.
d) This program does give me hope because it suddenly makes the threat of the billions of people rising out of poverty and using similar amounts of energy as developed nations a little less scary. If more people outside of Bangladesh adopted similar programs I would be even more comfortable with the coming future.

Social Project uses pop bottles to provide indoor lighting for the poor

In summary, the article talks about how water-filled plastic pop bottles through holes in each household roof could vividly light up the inside of a one size house room. And this is Isang Litrong Liwanag (A liter of light) project that’s been going around homes of poor in the Philippines. This project is running by Philippines’ MyShelter Foundation and they promote social enterprise, appropriate technology and alternation construction in the region. The Solar Bottle Bulb was designed by MIT students where to make this bulb is very simple. Filling the bottle with water, chlorine then the bottle is squeezed part way through a hole in a piece of corrugated tin. Even though this solar bottle bulb only works when sun is out, it still helps many poor houses where the house does not have a window and electric.

a) What makes this an effective form of action?

- This is an effective form of action because the cost to produce solar bottle bulbs is very low probably people only have to buy the chlorine and that all they need. Water and thrown plastic bottles are easy to find and by reusing the bottle is another way of helping the environment better. In the articles, the author talks about how these bottle bulbs are built in the houses for the poor plus where the electrics are not provided. This little bottle bulb action all together help the environmental issue in Philippines by reducing the cost to help the poor and recycle and reuse the thrown bottles in the areas which cleans up the dumpster.

b) Does the action come from the government, from the economic realm, or from civil society?

- This action comes from civil society because the foundation is nongovernmental where their goal is to promote social enterprise, appropriate technology and alternative construction in the region. And there is no government or economic realm involve in this project.

c) Is the action replicable?

- Yes, This action is replicable because to produce solar bottle bulbs do not need professional specialties or high cost to create the bulb. This action could work in other developing countries to give them a light in the house.

d) Does it give you hope?

- Yes, because to make this bulb do not need much cost or specialties and it is easy to spread the word around the developing countries. Places where there are no electric can use this method at least if the country it self do not have yet advantage technology or development. I hope this project will impact to reduce the amount of bottles that are meaninglessly thrown out in the garbage and at least have chance to reuse to give a light to people who do live in dark.

Brazil Farming Revolution

I found an article from Scientific American magazine that caught my eye for this assignment. In summary, the article talks about a new method of farming and cattle raising in Brazil that is intended to greatly reduce the practice of slash and burn by using a method that requires less land. Brazilian farmers and cattle ranchers are trying to decrease the need for more land by diversifying production and feeding their cattle grain instead of grass. The plan would be to convert existing pasture to corn production. Historically, the Amazon has been destroyed by slash and burn methods to clear out land for cattle to graze. This new method of diversifying production however would decrease the environmental impact of the cattle industry by slowing the destruction of the Amazon.

a) This is an effective form of action because there is incentive for the farmers to use this technique and use less land more efficiently. In the article, a farmer talks about how with this new method, they can earn more money and raise more cattle on less land while simultaneously helping the environment.

b) This action comes from civil society because farmers must decide to reduce the size of their pastureland and begin growing grain to add to the diet of their cattle. As of now there are no official government mandates calling for all ranchers to use this new method.

c) Yes. This action is replicable because it has already been used in the United States and Europe where cattle are fed grain.

d) I know that this solution is not a perfect one to address the destruction of the Amazon, but I think that it is a step in the right direction. Finally people are beginning to think about how to reign in the cutting down of trees and thinking of ways to use land more efficiently. I hope that this step is the first of many to make an impact on the environment, and as time passes people will come up with even better and more efficient methods to make cattle ranching take less of a toll on the environment.

Unintended consequences

Maniates makes a decent argument that people need to do more than the simple things such as recycling and turning off the lights to make any progress in rolling back global warming rather than just delaying the inevitable downfall. I know he was not trying to discourage any of these individual activities, yet after reading the article, I couldn't avoid the thought, "well then why do I bother going out of my way to do the little things if they are not going to make a difference". I feel that Maniates article has the potential to backfire. For many people, like myself, conserving energy, resources, etc. is merely an afterthought I go through with because sometimes I remember to feel guilty about all the energy I go through in a day. However, if someone was to tell me that sacrificing a few minutes in the shower or running back in to turn the light off wasn't actually making a difference, I would simply stop inconveniencing myself and would cease to do such things. Maniates tone in the paper seems to belittle such actions and tempts me to stop bothering with them. His point that it will take bigger changes from cooporations and governments could not be more true and definitely needs to be said but I believe that he should do so without trivialiving the little things.

There is no Easy Way Out

I have to agree with Maniates that "easy" isn't going to work in this case. It seems that we've reaped all we can from our planet and recycling or priuses aren't going to cut it. I think all people enjoy a challenge and look forward to reaching a goal. So why not set the bar higher? Why not ask Americans to start drastically changing their lifestyles? In fact, why not demand it? At this point we really don't have much to lose. An earlier post pointed out that industry should be the first to change. I agree that this would be ideal, that industry could set the standard for the typical American to start altering his/her lifestyle. But I also want to point out that industries are run by the common American. If the progress starts in the home then soon enough Americans will be demanding that industries adopt "green" habits as well. If we ingrain the idea "that this isn't going to be easy but that the rewards will be worth it" I have hope that the public will respond and that big business will follow. After all, isn't that what Capitalism is all about, that the little man can make big changes in the economy? Why don't we all try to work towards an economic environmental revolution. I think Americans could use a new challenge. 

The Time for Easy is Over

Prior to reading this article I had never really considered the Green Movement as lazy, but Maniates makes a valid point. In the article he says, "Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment." This statement made me begin to look at the Green Movement in a more critical light. I mean, how hard is it to use fluorescent light bulbs, turn the water off while you brush your teeth and recycle? If we only make the easy and convenient changes, how can we expect to see great improvement? However, even though I agree with Maniates, just looking around American University's campus you can see that even these lazy and easy tasks are too much for people to fully grasp. I cannot even count the number of times that I have spotted water bottles and soda cans in the trash when there was a recycling bin a few feet away. I in no way condone this laziness, but I do acknowledge that increasing the green expectations of people is no simple task. One of the obstacles we face is that our environmental woes are not always so apparent and seemingly relevant to the average Joe. The consequences of our actions often go unnoticed by the perpetrator. In a Moral Ground, Oren Lyons' "Keepers of Life" says that "We were told that there would be a time when we could not find clean water to wash ourselves, to cook our foods, to make our medicines, and to drink."(43) We can already see evidence of these things today, and Lyons, like Maniates, believes that "We need the courage to change our values to the regeneration of our families, the life that surrounds us."(44) Courage to change our ways, courage to not take the easy route, and courage to take action that will make a difference and save our environment. Ultimately, easy doesn't do it, but at the rate we are going today, it may take more time than we have for people to realize that.

Easy is not enough

"Going green" should not just mean throwing a few extra water bottles in recycling or buying some new light bulbs. Maniates states that "if we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of the growth of environmental damage." The problem is, we should not be only trying to slow down the damage, we should be putting a conscious effort to stopping or possibly reversing the damage. I believe that the only way that "going green" can become a productive set of behaviors in America is if corporations can profit off of new, truly environmentally friendly actions. I disagree with Maniates that we need to ask more of the American people as individuals, too many Americans see any kinda of request like this as extreme environmentalists creating drastic demands. If these actions can become main stream and products and services can be produced through real changes then individuals will naturally progress in that direction as well. It may be take more time that available for industries to adopt new techniques but I believe waiting for the collective whole of America to start drastically change their lifestyles will take a even more time.

Going Green?

Through out the reading something came up to my mind that Americans as a general do not feel much threaten by environmental changes, and what the media or press keep saying is that we all need to change on our action to keep up with our environment. But seriously, who does actually think about saving the earth and do reduce the usage of water when they are taking shower or cleaning the dishes. Maniates was approaching his point in a way where we should make bigger and more effort to see the changes. For example, “look for easy, cost-effective things to do in our private lives as consumers, since that’s where we have the most power and control” in order to keep the environment safe. But in my opinion, this would not help much, because looking at today’s economy and every person’s amount that they consume is very high compare to what we would put in to our personal action (taking short shower..). Perhaps, if we do try to minimize consumption the economy would not run efficiently and may start to see the downturn on economy, and people would be more focus to run the economy rather than environment if this situation happens. The environment change issues are very difficult to discuss through out the nations and make a decision to put in to action plan, but I think sooner than later we do need to change and act on it.