Technology - Joanna

I have always been a firm believer in technology; I find it fascinating and exhilarating to hear about all of these new ideas and creations. It blows my mind sometimes when I hear about the kinds of things that have been thought of and created. Why wouldn’t I believe that technology will save our planet, it brought us the cars, foods and merchandise that have allowed me to live such a comfortable life without any effort. If it did this much for me, why wouldn’t it be able to do the same for our earth! However that is the paradox of technology, while it is so amazing and fulfilling it is equally detrimental. For every solution there is a new set of problems that comes with it that lead me to believe that maybe life would be better if we just went back to simple, peasant everyone has their own small gardens and farm times.

So I have come to believe that as much as technology is sublime and godlike it will not save us. However I also think that it has to because it is just not possible to turn back the clock and become the living off the land type people again. I would fear the effects of an angry population that was told they could not buy the new hummer or explorer. Technology will not save us, but it will be able to reduce our footprint, it is ultimately a change in consumer habits that will save us. Technology is not going to be able to be a quick fix for our spills and that is clearly evident today. The oil spills in the gulf still sit today, just rotting the oceans. Technology saving us would be clean energy, clean cars or some form of transportation and ultimately clean consumer actions.

Lessons from Ozone Depletion

The idea that technology will save us is comforting, but it is false. I'm speaking from a Neo-Malthusian perspective, and I truly believe that there are limits to population and resource use and that we will not be able to avoid them forever. If technology could save us, that would mean that it would have to allow us to grow past our limits indefinitely. That is simply not possible.

That is not to say that I think technology is bad. I think it can do great things to improve our lives, and it can be modified to reduce its environmental impact. But no matter what we do, technology will impact the planet through energy use, resource use, or pollution. There is unfortunately no way to stop this. Even "green" technology isn't free of its impact. This means that to be truly sustainable, we need to look beyond technological innovation.

I have previously used ozone depletion as an example in a posting because it is so explicitly a demonstration of the failure of technology. The CFCs and ozone depleting substances were being used because of technology, and no improvements in technology were changing it. The only thing that has been able to prevent their use is international agreements with binding force. The belief that technology will rescue us from our limits is too cornucopian in nature, and the only way to survive on this planet is to respect our environmental limits. As our experience with ozone depletion shows us, unregulated technological expansion can hurt the planet, and institutionalism seems to be one of the best remedies.

Discussion Question 4

I love technology. Mostly, it makes our lives easier and more convenient-- I don't have to walk everywhere I go because I can drive; I don't have to write a letter and send it through the mail to contact someone who lives more than a few blocks away because I can call or email them; nor do I have to brave the summer heat and the winter cold because I have air-conditioning and heating. And it's not just these big, life-changing technologies that I'm a fan of.  I love my laptop, which I use to entertain myself constantly, and I often feel as though I couldn't live without my phone because without it I feel so disconnected from the outside world. I am, in the best sense of the word, addicted to technology and its conveniences, as are so many others who live a similar lifestyle. 


But I feel so guilty about my addiction. What I have been lucky to realize (because so many don't) is that technology isn't just a positive force in our lives: every new technology that is created to solve an old problem brings with it new problems. Cars are really convenient, but they use obscene amounts of non-renewable fossil fuels and they emit obscene amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The general infrastructure of energy and power that supports my lifestyle is pumping toxins into the environment, but it sure is nice to have a well-lit dorm room and a working refrigerator. So to the people who espouse that technology is going to save us from the environmental disaster we have created, I say think about it. It's technology that got us here in the first place. It's technology that has allowed us to inflict so much damage on the environment on such a large scale. Without mechanization and industrialization, there's no way we could ever have achieved such large ecological footprints as we have today. "Green" technologies sometimes have the right idea, but even there we face the same dilemma as before--that is, new green technologies solving old environmental issues but creating new ones. For example, many environmentalists support the development of biofuels and bio-diesels made from agricultural products like corn and soybeans to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But this increases demand for those products so much so that farmers are clear-cutting large swaths of forest in, for example, the Brazilian Amazon, to plant soybean crops and earn a profit. Here, in trying to reduce carbon emissions through a new green technology, we are risking causing the loss of enough trees to reduce the planet's ability to suck up the carbon we're already emitting. 


So no, technology won't save us from this environmental nightmare, and it risks making things worse than they already are. 

Ariel's Post

I agree that technology has the potential to help alleviate (although by no means be a “magic solution” to) our environmental crisis. I support efforts to find more eco-friendly solutions for everything from obsessive fossil fuel usage to less and more biodegradable product-packaging solutions. However, with our society’s addiction to consumption, I wonder whether or not technology will ultimately help our crisis or worsen it. We may be attempting to build wind farms, but aren’t we also attempting to own a cooler cell phone every year and a new iPod every few Christmases and a better digital camera every once in a while?

I guess my concern lies not in the fact that technology is increasing, but in the worry that we aren’t making the most of our intellectual capacity. I fear we are only using our technologically inclined minds to increase our consumption— exactly the kind of thing the I=PAT equation proposes we reduce. If you want to buy into the idea that technology will someday save us from the environmental crisis (and I’m not even personally saying that I buy into that), you have to wonder: What happens in the meantime? What happens when the technologically inclined society that might create a cleaner car is the very same technologically inclined society that produces a million pairs of $100 ripped jeans every five minutes and makes you falsely feel like your $1,000 laptop needs to be replaced every year?

I feel like this concern is mirrored in the issue of stratospheric ozone depletion. One of the main causes of ozone depletion was CFCs in consumer aerosol cans. If you buy into the idea: Yes, technology might save us, but it will also inevitably convince us of the “problems” we have and come up with “solutions” to make our lives “easier.” Because isn’t non-aerosol hairspray such a pain to apply? I mean really, having to push a button multiple times when you could just push it once?

We might not have known then what we were doing, but we know now. So, let’s fix it.

"Aren't We Clever?" Response

The U.S. certainly is at risk of losing a "green race" with China by failing to capitalize on the new market for green technology. We will indeed lose out on opportunities to stimulate the economy by creating green jobs if we do not start acting now. But even winning the race to create green jobs and technology would not be a sufficient solution for the many environmental problems we face today.


That is to say that I don't agree with the notion that the technological innovation is the best way to address climate change. Friedman's thinking is distinctly cornucopian: advances in technology will let us "do more with less," and such improvements in efficiency can mitigate climate change. I, on the other hand, prescribe to a more Neo-Malthusian school of thought (as has most likely become apparent through my blog posts and essay). I do not believe that technology can mitigate climate change on its own, and I do not view environmental issues through an economic or market lens. Instead, I see the answer in the I=PAT equation: we must reduce population, affluence, and our dependence on technological infrastructure severely before we will see any significant reduction of climate change. Certainly, improving the efficiency of our resource use is good for the environment (Biddle's above-ground mining is an excellent idea) and government regulation of producers (as in the example given of enacting producer-responsibility laws in which manufacturers are responsible for collecting and recycling their products) is a necessary step for reducing climate change. These are all good things. But they are simply not enough given the vast amounts of damage that have already been done. If we are to reverse climate change, we will have to do much, much more than improve our technology in some kind of green race with China. We will have to minimize consumption through greatly decreasing population, affluence, and our reliance on technology to counteract the climate change that has already occurred.

Green Race - Joanna

The first words that come to my mind when reading this article are regulation and government intervention. American Society has taken pride in its “freedoms” to let the markets control themselves and to not have government telling them what to do. I feel like this green race would be doing just that. Making a country greener requires government to implement laws that do not allow companies to work the way they want and people to live the way they want. For example I do not think the one child rule that is in effect in China would work in the United States. If someone told people that they were only allowed to have 1 child people would riot. However in China people feel like it is their duty to uphold laws like that. It is simply a difference in opinions towards the government.

I definitely think it makes sense to consider there to be a race between China and the US because they race in everything. Ever since China’s economy has boomed I think the US have felt threatened and are constantly competing. I also agree that technology is a big part of the future of “green” living and this goes back into the point I made above about telling people what to do. I do not think that one-day everyone in the world or even US will wake up and think I am going to be as energy efficient as I possibly can from now on. I will recycle, use less water, use less energy and so on. Therefore yes I place most of my faith in technology because I think the only way US people will become green is if they can maintain their easy lifestyles as well, being green takes work and focus. It is also the manufacturing industry that creates a lot of the pollution so refocusing our energies on making their industries better for the environment is a very important factor in a green world.

However I think that we need to refocus everything. It is not just technology that will save us but the entire cycle, reducing, reusing and recycling. Just merely being conscious of your actions what they do and all together invested in keeping the world alive.

Are Green Jobs the Answer?

Green jobs are, of course, important for sustainability. Better technology that can reduce human impact will always be an improvement over the status quo technology. In this respect, Friedman is correct that America is lagging behind other countries, such as China, in our progress. But that is not the whole story.

The assumption that green jobs will be the key to preventing climate change, which seems to be Friedman's main focus in his article, is not accurate. That does not mean that they are unimportant or that it is ok that America is stalling the effort to move towards green jobs. But we should not put all our faith in technology. Technology cannot solve an environmental problem in its entirety. It can merely delay the issue and postpone the limits of the planet. This is something that we need so we have more time to find the solution, but we should not confuse it for the solution itself.

As an example, in the 1970s, ozone depletion became recognized as a serious issue. There were no 'clean' CFCs that solved the problem. The only solution available was an international agreement. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (which entered into force on January 1, 1989) bound nations to make substantial changes in policy to ban CFCs and other ozone depleting substances. These substances are now under more control, and the levels of many of these substances are decreasing. Ozone levels are expected to stabilize by mid-century. This internationally binding agreement is what is ultimately required to achieve sustainability. While green jobs and competition between nations may help set us on the right track, we will need more to make a significant difference.

Source: ozone.unep.org

Ariel's Post

The argument presented in Friedman’s article offered a unique perspective. I had not previously thought of the solution to climate change as a race between nations. Instead, I had viewed climate change as a destructive force brought about by negative collective actions. Thus, I had always felt that climate change must be fought through collective actions— empowering individuals around the world to be more responsible with fossil fuel consumption, implementing cross-national agreements to install climate change goals, etc.

Friedman’s view as combating climate change as a race between nations is, therefore, a bit foreign to me. However, unlike McKibben (see Eaarth page 49), I can’t see much harm in viewing climate change in this manner. It’s a nice thought to think that individuals might bond together to alter their consumption patterns, or nations might meet to collectively produce an agreement that accomplishes something. However, those things don’t seem very probable. Because there isn’t a “world government” or “world president” holding nations accountable to their promises, who’s to say that a world climate change agreement would get (or has gotten) much done? Rather, when thinking about how international relations really works, it does make sense that nations often do things because they feel international pressure to do so. It makes good sense that the United States might need to install more “green jobs” and initiate more “green projects” to appear as if they are keeping up with China. And believe me, I’m the last person you’d expect to believe we have something to learn from China.

I do believe that green jobs and green projects are a good means through which to address climate change. While McKibben won’t agree with Friedman or myself here, I believe that such means, if used on a large scale and effectively managed, have the ability to help solve the climate crisis. However, I think that portraying “green jobs” and “green projects” as the entire solution to climate change is misleading. Issues of climate change are deeply embedded in our social patterns, especially in the United States. Installing “green jobs” and “green projects” is only half the battle. The other half is motivating individuals to make meaningful changes in their lives that better the environment.

"Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" Response

In his piece "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," Michael Maniates insists that we must, as individuals but even more so as a society, move past the "easy" environmental solutions espoused by politicians, activists, and even celebrity enthusiasts to institute "fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems." We must sacrifice much, much more than we do now if we are to really combat global climate change (as Maniates notes, some figures indicate that the U.S. would have to reduce its emissions by 80% in 30 years- 80%! 30 years! Personally, those figures astound and depress me in their immensity). I certainly agree that more must be done, that "easy" changes won't cut it in the face of the grave environmental threats humans are currently imposing on the earth. But I also feel that anyone who has read the literature on global climate change has read this. Maniates claims that environmental elites treat us like children, but I get the exact opposite sense from much of what I read. As I said, I find much of the environmental literature disheartening precisely because it points out just how much we must do, and it seems infeasible in a world where so many feel ambivalent toward environmental change. The problem, therefore, isn't that no one is calling attention to the vast overhaul necessary to not just slow the growth of environmental damage, but to stop it altogether. Instead, the problem is that consumers aren't responding to these messages. Whether it is because they don't care, choose not to believe what they read, or feel overwhelmed and then do nothing, they only respond to the "easy," convenient, cost-effective solutions.
Maniates also blames politicians for treating us like children. They do treat us like children, but I think not for the reasons Maniates proposes. First, the way our political system is set up does not incentivize taking long-term action that may in the short-run be costly. Overhauling our agricultural, transportation, and energy systems would cost billions of taxpayer dollars, so any politician looking to be re-elected in two, four, or six years has no motivation to pass such laws. Second, and equally important, is that we act like children. Maniates claims that we "understand the necessity of hard work and difficult choices," that "we're ready for frank talk about how we best confront... the planetary emergency before us." I fundamentally disagree. I don't believe that most Americans would be willing to entertain the idea of giving up the "consumer culture" that characterizes our society today. Sure, many of us are willing to take the "easy" steps toward greening our lives by recycling and turning off the lights, but I believe that the majority of Americans today simply do not care enough about climate change to inconvenience themselves in terms of time, money, or resources in order to save the planet. 
In sum, I agree with Maniates that easy doesn't do it. But the problem isn't that no one is proposing the difficult solutions, it's that the public is not receptive of them.

Environmental Progress

In his piece "going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," Michael Maniates makes the excellent point that sustainability isn't easy. It takes more than flipping off the light switch when leaving the room to combat environmental harm. It is also true that our leaders should expect more from us and tell us ways that we can improve our environmental situation that are not necessarily easy. We have the ability to get motivated and mobilize, and nobody should tell us otherwise.

However, I believe that he misses a critical point. Some people do not wish to go out of their way or substantially change their lifestyle. For these people, it is the suggestion to recycle or drive less or carpool that prompts them to make any change at all. Without the easy solutions, some people would take nothing, rather than inconveniencing themselves.

Furthermore, even for the people who want to make substantial differences, they need to start somewhere. Progress towards environmental sustainability may not be as good as successful environmental sustainability, but it is still better than the status quo. And if enough people are making progress, that's even better, and before too long, they start to look for ways to make larger differences.

The only real flaw with providing 'easy' solutions to environmental problems is that many people may not distinguish between progress and success. After making progress, they may declare themselves successful and stop trying to make more changes. In this way, giving the easy solutions can clearly be a problem.

The remedy to this is for scientists and leaders to offer simple changes as well as provocative changes. This gives people ideas for change that they can choose from and find what they are comfortable doing. The people who only want to slightly modify their lifestyles (and only if it is convenient) will choose the easiest options. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the people who are always looking for a new way to help the planet will be presented with both easy and challenging ways to alter their lifestyles and they will do as many as they can. The areas between these two extremes will be filled with people who choose some combination of the above.

In the end, Maniates is correct that we need to realize that the challenge before us is large and will not be easy to solve. But that does not mean that making small changes will be ineffective. Any change, no matter how small, is a move in the right direction. Even if the move does not go as far is it needs to, it is better than staying put.

Joanna

I enjoyed Michael Maniates piece “Going green, easy doesn’t do it” as a refreshing piece on activism towards the environment. The comparison of taking the “giving” aspect of thanksgiving and gearing it towards the world is a crafty technique. I say this because it is commonly known how altruistic people become around the holiday time, Thanksgiving and Christmas especially. Maniates is quick to notice this and use it to the environmentalist advantage. However he also dictates how taking the “easy” route (which I will talk about further) is simply not acceptable at this point. We need action that will actually have an impact now.

I really want to look into the trend that even doing the little thing is helpful, which it is better than nothing don’t get me wrong but in this case it is simply not going to cut it. I am someone that’s always considered myself fairly conscious of my actions, turning off the lights, using certain light bulbs, bicycling instead of taking my car but I also realize that my actions could be more. I only do the bare-minimum because it is the easiest possible actions that I can take and still feel as though I am having a positive impact. Maniates is trying to reach these people who DO care and push them to stop being lazy (in my case) and reach cut back on their consumptions and literally GIVE back to the environment. Especially in the United States where our energy usage per person is the highest in the world. The United States could set the example and be the revolutionary people that Maniates states he knows we are and can be

Frankly I find this piece to be moving but also loaded with information and facts that for anyone who doubts could be convinced with.

Ariel's Post

The issue brought up by Maniates is something I touched on a bit in my last post. One can even say that I made the same error he brings up, by suggesting the best course of action lies in the little things in which people can engage.

Yet, I agree with Maniates— we are in need of radical change, and it won’t happen if we are led to believe that the solutions are easier than they really are. Still, we have to start somewhere. And I wonder if a true revolution, as wonderful as it is to imagine, is really feasible in the manner Maniates suggests. The kind of revolution Maniates is suggesting involves an intense amount of passion— the kind of passion that doesn’t just appear overnight, the kind of passion that results when people decide to dedicate their whole lives to something in which they truly believe.

But perhaps, and I’m guessing here, this kind of passion could be a product of the little things. I’m unconvinced (as is psychological evidence) that you can show someone a documentary, convincing as it might be, and have people walk out of it with a sudden, deep, meaningful dedication to its cause. But perhaps, if you show them such a documentary or present them with a convincing argument and then suggest some little things they could do, people might start small and realize how far they can go with a bit more dedication. And then a bit more. And so on.

But on the overall, I agree with Maniates. We do need to do more and become more involved, and it is bad to believe that little things can make all the difference when the problem is huge. It’s true; environmental scientists shouldn’t just “treat us like children” and give us small answers when problems require big solutions.

However, they also just can’t say “you should be angry and start a revolution!” and expect people to just believe it and fight for it with all their hearts. The movement Maniates suggests requires real dedication and real passion. You know, the kind of thing people need to really find within themselves.

The American Dream is Green

1. What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?


The most pressing challenge facing the global environment today is the widely accepted notion that more is better. According to most, all economic growth is good economic growth, and we constantly seek to expand our economy in the name of progress. The latest DOW, NASDAQ, and GDP figures are nearly impossible to escape in the daily news. For Americans, the main concern is how the economy is performing, not the equally important and inextricably linked concern of how our ever-increasing consumption will lead to global catastrophe if it is not curtailed. Admittedly, the "progress" with which we are so concerned does benefit humankind in an abundance of ways, but we often fail to recognize that this constant economic expansion actually diminishes our prospects for the future. Yes, economic growth helps to raise the world's underprivileged out of poverty, but we simply cannot continue to grow at this pace. According to figures published by the United Nations, the global economy would need to grow five to ten times larger in order to raise the standard of living of the world's poor to an acceptable level, yet already the so-called "developed" countries are overworking and over-stressing the world's limited resources and fragile ecosystems to the point that "the ability of the planet's ecosystems to support future generations can no longer be taken for granted" (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). If we are to save the environment, and thus ourselves, we MUST exercise a shift in mindset. The American dream can longer be to have one's own mini-mansion, two cars, and a vacation home. The American dream is (or at least should be) green. 


What that effectively means is that we should no longer strive to consume so much, nor should the ability to consume mark one's success. Instead, our goal should be to use less, to be more frugal, to not live in excess. That means not owning a car if public transportation is available, whether or not you can afford one. It means reducing the impact of your daily living by purchasing a home of a size appropriate to your family and making conscious decisions to buy only what you will eat, to eat locally, etc. Such a shift in thinking is the only way we can save ourselves from the environmental impacts of the gluttony that has pervaded the American mindset since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. More is not better. 


None of this is to say that Americans are the only culprits of such thinking, that we are the only ones inflicting ourselves upon the earth's ecosystems. In fact, people in most developed countries consume far beyond the limits of the earth to support all of the 6.8 billion people that live on it. And, increasingly, the Indian, Chinese, and Brazilian dreams are for more. Their goals, too, are economic growth. They, too, are seeking ways for every citizen to own his own car. The point is that we must ALL stop striving to "achieve" what so many Americans have: excess. Certainly, I am not arguing that the world's poor (or the world's poorer countries) should not be allowed to raise their standard of living. Instead, we should ALL be striving for someplace in the middle. Instead of Americans having an average ecological footprint around nine global hectares while Bangladeshis have an average footprint of one half a global hectare, we should all have an ecological footprint somewhere in between that might actually be sustainable in the long run. We would need five earths to support a population in which every person lived as the average American does today. We must each challenge ourselves to live communally within this one earth or face the reality that earth as we know it will cease to exist. 

Ariel's Blog Post

The first thing that struck me when reading the Stanley Fish piece was the title of the piece itself. It declared, “I am, Therefore I Pollute.” This articulates something very true. That is, no matter how much we try, we still have an impact on the environment. Even if we utilize the most strict (and from the point of view of many, “insane-tree-hugging”) measures of minimizing our ecological footprint, the footprint is still there. For those like Fish, this implies hopelessness. Because really, what’s the point if it’s going to happen regardless of whether you use 300 tissues a day or one handkerchief rinsed only once a year with environmentally friendly soap?

Fish’s struggling to be a “good environmentalist” is understandable. Our effects on the environment are often not physically seen by us. Literally, we flush our effects down the toilet. We throw them in the garbage bin. They are for someone else to take care of. Thus, it’s fairly easy to fall into the trap that Fish describes. It’s difficult to care, and even if you do, it’s difficult to translate it to your own life. It’s an understandable phenomenon in the modern American life. But, it’s a terribly unfortunate one.

So what does it mean to live in an “environmentally friendly” way in modern American society? I feel like we have gotten to the point where, for many, it’s become too difficult to simply go “cold turkey” on environmental mishaps. Many of us are such offenders that attempting to suddenly turn eco-friendly would result in severe stress, changing everything in our lives all at once. It might be so overwhelming that it could very well result in the individual completely and totally giving up on “the whole environmentally-friendly thing.” So, I feel like, for many, the best option is to start small. Pick a product or a habit that, for you, is clearly an offender.

Fish mentions tissues. Yet, even if one dedicates some to boycotting the more harmful variety of tissues, things can get complicated. For example, one of the most disturbing things about American society for me is the utter lack of information we have on the products available to us. Fish comments on this: “...we would have to give those items up and go in search of green alternatives. But we had already done that once before when it turned out that the manufacturer of the paper products we used to buy...engaged in research on animals. That’s when we found Kimberly-Clark. So it seems that the pure were not so pure after all, and who’s to say that the next corporation won’t have an ecological skeleton in its closet, too?”

I feel that this is a very true statement. At times, it’s overwhelming to attempt to be “environmentally friendly” because we have such a lack of information. Companies aren’t required to tell us their deep, dark secrets. Figuring all this out often proves to require an immense amount of research. It’s as if we almost need to wait until someone releases a ground-breaking report to know the truth.

But it doesn’t mean we should give up and die by death of tissue overdose. It means that we just need to keep taking small steps, like buying a product that is biodegradable. Enough of these small steps, when added together, can pressure the system. Companies would see an increased demand for products they produced in an eco-friendly manner. Sure, you might feel like Fish: you’re here, you’re going to pollute inevitably so you might as well live it up. But what Fish seems to neglect to realize is that your small sacrifice, when added with the small sacrifices of others like you and the larger sacrifices of those “insane-tree-huggers” might actually result in something really positive.

Response to Article, Question 2

Have a look at this piece that NY Times columnist Stanley Fish wrote a summer or two back. What do you make of his struggling to be a "good environmentalist?" What do you think it means to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US?

I thoroughly enjoyed Stanley Fish’s article, “I am therefore I Pollute” because I know (myself included) so many people that continue to struggle with the new green movement and changing their lifestyles to fit the mold of what is “green”. One issue is making them believers of the movement and the other is actually putting in the extra effort to turn off televisions and spend the money for the reusable water bottle instead of 20 packs of water bottles (even though THAT is economically more efficient!).

Fish to me appears to be in a place where he is struggling not only to be more environmentally friendly but also to be okay with it. When his wife nags him to get the more environmentally friendly toilet paper he seems annoyed with having to change brands, same with the paper towels and last with his remodeled kitchen. His issue comes down to understanding why it is all such a big deal? He knows the basics, throwing paper towels away = bad because it equates to garbage in landfills. However I see the reasons for his hesitation to changing his lifestyle, it is similar to his issues with locally grown beef. He simply didn’t grow up eating it, just like he simply didn’t grow up having to use reusable rags or worry about disposing of napkins. Humans are creatures of habit and breaking or changing that habit can be very difficult. Maybe the generations that are now growing up as babies to the green movement will not have as much difficulty and maybe this is improvement, however it is important to remember that the current generation simply has to make these lifestyle changes or else that baby generation might not have the change to continue their lifestyles!

An environmentally friendly household to me is not one that is entirely run on solar panels (this would be nice but is quite costly) but one that separates their garbage, unplugs devices when not in use, uses fluorescent light bulbs, only takes a shower a day and is simply conscious of their activities. It is not easy to be environmentally friendly but once you get the hang of it, it just becomes routine. The first step is education and learned what even small steps you can do and then acting on that as well as being a teacher and educating the people around you. Modern-day US especially, I think compared to other non-developed or developing societies allows this transition to be quite easy. Most US residents have access to some kind of public transportation that is accessible, carpooling, and a variety of green products in nearby grocery stores. The US society is one of the worst in terms of energy usage because we are developed and the products that cause the most damage are the ones that also cause the most leisure (BIG cars, heat, electricity…). To Close I think that being a “good environmentalist” who lives in an “environmentally friendly way” is someone who makes some strides towards the effort of changing their previous actions and maybe once this has soaked into their lifestyle they will make even more efforts and become that crazy “environmentalist” who helps even more.

Environmental Problems and What it Means to be an Environmentalist

1.

Of all the environmental challenges, the one that is most grave is that of population growth. All other challenges would be inconsequential with a small population, but as the population grows exponentially, the other challenges increase proportionally. Every time the population doubles, the impact doubles. If population growth were controlled, the other environmental problems could then be addressed. However, if population growth continues to proceed exponentially, no amount of effort will be able to limit environmental degradation of any kind.

2.

A good environmentalist is somebody that makes a conscious effort to reduce his or her impact on the planet. Environmentalism is not measured in magnitude of impact reduction, however, but effort and intent. If somebody buys a fuel efficient car to replace an SUV because of gas prices, and reduces his or her carbon footprint, it is better for the environment but that person is not an environmentalist. The action was not done with the purpose of environmental protection. However, switching incandescent light bulbs to compact florescent light bulbs might make a smaller impact, but if it is done with the purpose of environmental protection, the person who makes the switch is an environmentalist. Environmentalism is a measurement of the intent, rather than the extent, of an action.