A Combined Initiative

Zaina and Aya have made a clear case that technology is an obvious part of the environmental harm we have caused the planet but it can also be part of the solution. In order for us to form a sustainable society, or probably be able to continue as a society, we must make use of technology. I see technology as inseparable in our drive to create a sustainable manner of human life. Obviously the discovery of the uses of fossil fuels over the decades has significantly harmed our planet. We all know that the petrochemicals in many electronics and household goods are toxic not just for humans but for our waterways and animal life as well. So yes technology has been the catalyst for human destruction of our environment. But, I also see it as an intrinsic part of a sustainable society.

I believe that the environmental problems facing our society are so large that they need a multifaceted approach to be solved. Just as using low energy light bulbs and carpooling once a week will not end our addiction to environmental destruction, simply creating new technologies will not create a magical world of never ending resources. I see a combination of actions as being our only possible way to create an environmentally sustainable society. First, we must collectively use less of everything. This is going to need to be not just changing light bulbs. We need to build viable public transit systems that will allow people to easily give up their cars. We must farm in environmentally friendly ways. We must as a collective society commit to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Coupled with this, I believe we must fund research for technologies that will not only help us develop in a manner that will not ravage the planet but also remove some of the harm that we have already done to the planet.

This combination I see as being intrinsic to our success. I believe that technology increases very rapidly but it will not save us without two things: direction, and purpose. It is up to the international community to sponsor technological development in manners that support these things. Also, at the same time we must reduce our consumption because technology cannot possibly move fast enough to save our society. If we do not at least begin to slow the sea level rise and the exploitation of mineral resources there may not be anything left for technology to save.

Technology: destroyer or rebuilder?

Technology is scary. Moore's law tells us that the speed of a processor will double every 18 months. I am a firm believer in technology, and mimic the beliefs of Ester Boserup that population increases will lead to innovation. I do believe that technology will save us, but it is also what has ruined us. Technology is the catalyst for global warming. The agitation from fossil fuels has caused the climate change, and has fueled our idealism of consumption. In environmental terms, technology saving us means returning the carbon parts per million in the atmosphere from 390 back to 350. It is not safe to assume that technology is going to save us, and we must change as a culture. Technology is a human asset, but newer technologies must be combined with drastic changes in human and economic focuses. Newer technologies in collaboration with newer lifestyles could lead to a healthier planet, but not the planet Adam and Eve lived on.

Will Technology Save Us? ...Yes and No

It is true that many people believe that technology will save us with positive effects. Technology has made people's lives more convenient and affluent. However, will it save us from environmental issues in the future? I totally agree with Zaina that an answer to the question, “will technology save us?” is yes and no. I believe technology will save us if human beings use it wisely, but if we use it incorrectly, we will destroy our planet buy making huge mistakes. It is always difficult to take a moderate point between two extremes. If we use too much technological power to improve a society, there will be more environmental pollution and destruction. On the other hand, if we use little technological power, we will suffer from current environmental issues and lose the planet. Therefore, people need to make a wise decision in terms of how to use technology. So, technology means the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes in general, but in environmental terms, it gives people choices of how to use scientific knowledge and tools to save us from global environmental issues. Use of technology is a challenge for human beings. People need to be responsible for what they do with technology; otherwise, they will demolish the earth. I hope people use technology with virtuousness to have comfortable lives.

Is technology our new superhero?

chris mentioned that technology is the only way out of this mess – but isn’t the reason we’re in this mess in the first place technology? The industrial revolution sparked this uncontrollable need for technology and ever since human lives depend on technology- even if it’s slowly eating away the environment. I’m not saying I disagree with Chris at all- I actually do believe that technology is the only way out but I’m very skeptical at the idea (who wouldn’t be after the attempts we’ve seen to change the reduction of pollution).

Last class our professor was telling us about ideas of developing huge hoses filled with certain elements that would bond with the greenhouse gases and decrease their effect… how do people not see that is a disaster waiting to happen? People assume an advancement of technology will solve the problem-that the more complex the technology gets the more likely it would work. I do not believe that technology is the only thing that will save us- if we continue believing in technology’s power in solving all our problems and acting the same we do to our environment we are destined to an uninhabitable earth. Ideas like a hose full of gases seems to be a horrible idea to me and in that case technology will fail us, but when it comes to ideas like mechanical trees – I believe technology is a great solution to what we have done to the environment. Of course there is a “but” to that statement. If we continue to uproot trees thinking that mechanical trees are the alternative; that would an even bigger problem. Will technology save us? Yes and no. It depends on how we use it. It not a solution but it is a TOOL we can use to help the environment.

I found a video on youtube that shocked me and if you have a couple minute you should watch it to see how technology has evolved is a extremely fast speed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcSzqm5Whwc&feature=related

There Is No Way to Technology. Technology Is The Way

I say that technology will have to save us because nothing else really can. Like I said in my last post, how else are we going to figure out or solve our environmental problems? If technology is knowledge and the production of means to apply said knowledge, then technology has to be the answer to how we are going to save the planet. We need technological progress to gain knowledge on how to fix the environment, and then we need to produce methods and means to execute the solution. What this means in environmental terms is that different technologies need to be applied to limit and/or reverse human’s impact. For example, alternative energies to fossil fuels which overtime can decrease carbon emissions.

The story of stratospheric ozone depletion is further evidence that technology can save us. It points out another helpful aspect of technology: recognition. Without technological progress, we would not have even realized that we were destroying the ozone in the first place. We then learned the causes of ozone depletion, and came up with new technology that did not harm the ozone layer. (Such as building household appliances without CFCs) Of course one could say that with out technology the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place, but do you expect us to just live in the Stone Age forever? Humans are progressive peoples, and with conscious technological development, we can progress in an environmentally friendly way.

Technology, progress and solutions all point in the same direction: Forwards

***This is the title to my post made this morning.

Wake Up Call

The article by Friedman should without a doubt be a wake-up call for the American government. As long as the government continues to ignore the drastic negative effects that climate change will have on the world, so will the population. What the US also fails to realize is the investment possibilities and the sustainable economic growth and development potential that investing in green energy has. Friedman takes a peculiar angle when making climate change sort of a competition. However, because he compares China and the US, two major economic players in today’s ever-globalizing world, the article makes complete sense. Unfortunately, China only realized its specific need for investment in green energy after many of its cities became the most polluted in the world. Still Friedman’s points on climate change as a race makes sense because of the ongoing economic rivalry between the US and China, especially with China’s need for new jobs with its extremely high population.


I personally believe that technological innovation and refocusing the economy on green manufacturing is the best method of addressing climate change, but it is conditional on the efforts of American society as a whole to make sacrifices that include lifestyle changes. Technological innovation as a whole will not only mean newer methods of maintaining the environment, but also, as seen with the example of China, has the potential to create jobs in various sectors and pour money into the US, which is exactly the driving force needed to push the US economy forward and perhaps a first step to counter the fiscal crisis.

Green Jobs, Green Economy, and the Green Planet

Thomas L. Friendman introduces an interesting and new idea about a relationship between climate change and green jobs in the article, “Aren’t We Clever?” He argues that the United States is behind compared to China and European countries in terms of creating more green jobs and developing technology and production because the United States explains climate change as J-O-K-E while China explains it as J-O-B-S. In the end, he gives a question, which is “does a race matter when talking about climate change?” to readers. To answer this question, I do not think that differences in a race do not affect actions toward climate change. In other words, how people think and behave toward climate change is more important than racial differences.

In the article, “D.C. Invests in Green Collar Jobs,” Bracke Hendricks claims that creating more “green collar jobs” and improving “green economy” is a solution for climate change. “Green collar jobs” is defined as jobs involved in environmentally-friendly goods and/or services. For example, using solar panels and hybrid cars is helpful for preventing further climate change. These jobs promote sustainable living economy and healthier societies. “Green economy ” is defined as a creation of a big billion-dollar industry, which will be established by more “green collar jobs” production. I agree with Bracke Hendricks and believe that this solution will bring the positive future because people are motivated to make the planet green by creating more green jobs, goods, services, technology, and economy.

As Kevin made a point, human beings are one big race that causing the global environmental issues; therefore, it is unnecessary to argue for and against some kinds of races. All people in the world should engage in improving the production of clean energy technologies and green jobs. Thus, an idea of creating “green collar jobs” and encouraging “green economy” is a good starting point to solve climate change not only in the United States, but also in the rest of the world.

I believe that the idea of a race does make sense to a certain extent. Of course, it is not a race in the sense that there is a start, a finish, a winner and a loser but the analogy still holds when comparing one nations progress over another. In this case China is doing a better job of using clean technology and green initiatives to expand the economy and create jobs. This is also done over a period of time (albeit long and indefinite) another characteristic of a race. Therefore China is winning the race over the US
I know people say that this isn't a state issue and states shouldn't be "competing" or trying to do better than other states when it comes to the environment, no matter how liberal or constructivist the world looks, the number one actor in international affairs is the state actor. International solutions to environmental issues will rely on sovereign nations to do "their part." The world will always be judged in how individual states fare in terms of progress and the environment and states will always be compared to other states on their performance. State governments are the one's actually enacting policies, even if it does happen to come from an international institution. So I believe it makes sense to make these comparisons between nations
I do buy the argument that technology and "green" manufacturing is the answer. How else are we going to figure out/solve these problems? It is not going to be using the present means. And we are a race of progress that is constantly moving forward. We are not going to find the answer by living simpler or in other words moving backwards. No, we move forward and the answer is also forward with "good" "green" and efficient technological innovations.

Institutional Green Technology

Friedman in his article "Aren't We Clever?" makes an argument that the United States is loosing its opportunity to create green jobs or move toward green manufacturing because many politicians have been treating "'climate change' as a four letter word." Here Friedman means that our politicians still cannot get beyond the initial scientific debate and enact legislation that properly stimulates or implements green research and development. Thus Friedman argues the United States is falling behind Europe and China, in particular, in green core jobs. The problem that I see here is that we are not in a race with other nations for the most green jobs or manufacturing centers. We are in a race to keep the planet from changing so dramatically that it can no longer support human life. While an outcome of a race toward green manufacturing may be positive, this focus is clearly misguided.

Green jobs, manufacturing, and infrastructure are certainly a noble goals. However, sustainability cannot and will not be reached by a green war. Building stockpiles of recycling centers instead of nuclear weapons is helpful but will not go nearly far enough to create a sustainable environment and culture on our planet. Yes, our last many congresses have failed the people of the United States by enacting little or no helpful legislation to reduce our consumption and stimulate green industry. But, we must not loose site that every country on the planet has the same (or should have the same) goal - to end the destruction of our planet. The legislation enacted by China and European nations should not be something to compete against but something to work toward. A problem as large as our destruction of our planet needs all the help it can get. We must not have a race for green jobs or wage a green war. Instead we must strengthen our international regulatory organizations to impose harsh restrictions. And, they must also have the power to back up these restrictions. At the same time, we must have policies that stimulate the development of green technologies. It is this combination that I see as the only way to make any real progress toward sustainability.

GUILTY

Personally, I can’t say that I haven’t fallen into the “I recycle, that’s my personal input in saving the earth” mentality. This article shows that people believe one tiny step is the solution to a sustaining planet. Maniates says, “To stop at "easy" is to say that the best we can do is accept an uninspired politics of guilt around a parade of uncoordinated individual action”. Doing one small thing and priding yourself for doing it doesn’t quite make as big as a difference as you’d like it to. Sure recycling is better than not recycling- but what next? My classmate below says that the leaders are just as responsible as individuals for the damage to the environment, but maybe a better mentality is for people to stop pointing fingers of blame at each other and take action. Even though he might not be the correct person to quote in this area, but Bob Marley once said, “Before you start pointing fingers, make sure your hands are clean.” So leaders can’t blame pollution of individual’s lives and vice verse. Instead they can work hand in hand- TOGETHER overcome the materials and actions degrading the environment and sustain the earth and resources for further generations,
Leaders should be responsible for showing their citizens the “green way of life”. This doesn’t mean hiding their pollution and dumping it in third world countries. It actually means the government has to take initiative and change the way they manufacture things and research methods of creating less pollution. In return, individuals should change the way they live (even if the old ways are easier). Small things do make a difference when EVERYONE does it. I don’t think the leaders are at fault, I think everyone should be held accountable.

Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It

I completely agree with Michael Maniates argument that the consumer’s efforts alone cannot stop global warming. As Bill McKibben says in Eaarth, the damage has already been done and cannot be reversed. He combats the books “Its easy being Green” and “The Lazy Environmentalist” which advise that we should look for things to do in our private lives that can together have a cumulative effect and create a safer planet. He says even The Environmental Protection Agency has simple lists of things we can do that will just erase the damage we have done and set the planet on the right track again.
He is very much in agreement with McKibben who argues that there needs to be transience and coordination between government organizations, non-profits, and communities to get the planet on course once again. There needs to be sustainable renovations in areas which include more green spaces, parks, narrower roads, greener transportation, and a fundamental change in our energy usage We must exercise restraint over our carbon emissions rather than focus on recycling and installing halogen lightbulbs.

Who's to blame...Leaders or the Individual

Maniates is right when he says that the small efforts by the individual will not be all it takes. I kind of realized this myself after I started working for Dunkin Donuts during High School. The amount of waste that DD accumulated in one day probably outstripped the waste that I accumulate in one month. So you have to think, what difference does the individual consumer make when producers, offices, and other projects are producing waste at a much greater rate that individuals and their homes. Maniates is right in saying that large-scale projects targeted at eco-footprint reduction will have a greater and more lasting impact than the small things.

I disagree with Maniates when he says it’s the leaders fault and that they sell us short. They ask us as individuals to do our part which is limited and easy. I feel that both are at fault. The leaders for not convincing people that more needs to be done, and individuals for not pressuring the government to partake in more large-scale changes that can make more of a difference. The individual alone cannot create, organize and implement large-scale projects. The majority of our days we are living our normal lives and the “easy” things are all we have time/the ability to do. Also, these “easy things,” Maniates admits, do make a difference by slowing down the growth of environmental damage and therefore we should continue to chip in ourselves and ask others to do their part. It is the government, NGO’s, IGO’s and businesses that can make the real difference when it comes to saving the environment. We are the ones who need to put more pressure on them to do something. And part of the reason we don't put enough pressure on them is that the leaders don't inform us on what really needs to be done. It's really a two way street.

More roads? Easy Action!

The article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It" essentially argues that simple or easy changes to our lives (for the purpose of reducing environmental impact) is not enough to stop the exploitation of our resources and sinks. Maniates argues that we need collective serious action. He wants our environmental agencies, governments, and lobbing organizations to ask more of our society than replacing light bulbs. Greater action is clearly required. Individuals should make greater sacrifices to reduce their environmental impact. The problem that I see here though is a lack of 1, motivation, but also 2, ability to make these types of changes.

How many cities are there in the United States where individuals do not need a car for transportation? Certainly you need a car in LA, Las Vegas, Denver, Cleveland, Huston, ect... I see there being three to six cities where you do not need a car for your major form of transportation: Washington DC, New York, Boston, and possibly, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Chicago. In my mind this country can make no significant impact to reduce our path of environmental destruction until we give up our love affair with the automobile. This is clearly impossible if there are no other viable transit options.

President Obama on September 6th announced a $50 Billion plan to modernize and expand our transportation systems. According to an article in BuisnessWeek, "Obama wants Congress to approve spending to rebuild 150,000 miles of road, construct and maintain 4,000 miles of railroad, and refurbish 150 miles of runways." Does it seem like there is something wrong with this ratio to you? This is clearly not a path that will lead us to a reduced environmental impact as a nation. Yes a decent portion of the 4,000 miles of railroad is high speed rail which will reduce some of the commuter flights. However, this is not nearly good enough. This proposal from a man I would consider to be politically left and environmentally minded still is clearly focusing on road systems. With almost 4 times the miles of roadways as railways we will not be reducing our carbon footprint. In fact this seems like the easy way out that Maniates warned against. Perhaps then if we need collective serious action, as Maniates argues, then we should all fight for the creation of viable, efficient, and green public transit systems in all of our major metropolitan areas.

Criticism for Easy Actions

Wow, the article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” changes my mind completely. It critically views that taking easy actions to slow the global environmental issues is not enough. I am impressed that Michael Maniates makes a good connection between Thanksgiving and the global environmental issues. I like his point because it presents a strong message about how we think about the environment.

Before reading the article, I agree with an idea that everyone should take easy actions, such as reusing scrap paper and taking shorter shower as mentioned in the article, because it is good for the environment and people can prevent serious issues, such as global warming. I totally agree with an opinion, “if we all do our little bit to recycle and conserve -- the simple things, mind you, because that's all we'll need (translation: that's all they think we'll go for) -- we can together rescue the world for our children and grandchildren,” especially the translation. It is true that more people will act environmentally friendly when actions are easy and cost-effective because we are lazy enough to save the planet.

However, this article suggests that “the time for easy is over,” and criticizes that easy actions are not helpful to encourage people to be true environmentalists. The main argument is that people should consider the global environmental issues critically and take more difficult and serious actions to prevent further issues. I am convinced because it may be possible to slow down the environmental damages through easy actions but it does not mean it will stop them. To put it another way, the environmental issues will continue slowly and steadily despite of easy efforts. I am sure that a goal of the environmentalists is to completely stop further environmental problems. In sum, it is time to change lifestyles and put more serious efforts to save our habitat.

The Most Pressing Challenge: Consumption

I felt like it was difficult to pinpoint ONE main challenge facing the global environment. I tried singling out one factor within the IPAT equation that I thought was the biggest challenge, but noticed that all factors were equally significant. An increase in technology can either be good or lead to higher rates of finite resources depletion. An advantage of an increase in technology may, however, be favorable if they reduce the amount of resources we use altogether. Significant population increases are most likely to occur within developing nations where consumption levels aren't particularly high. An individual in the United States has a much larger carbon footprint than another in Darfur, Sudan. Therefore even if the population increases in Sudan, the consumption of resources of one person in the United States would completely overshadow any changes per capita consumption in Sudan, which will probably be negligible. In my opinion, if I were to choose the most essential letter in the equation, it would most likely be "A". Affluence is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment. Even though my classmates think population is the most pressing issue at hand, I think that regardless of population, HOW MUCH we consume is far more relevant.



I felt I connect to the “I am, Therefore I Pollute” article. It is difficult to believe that one person's actions could potentially be saving the world. Many consider recycling to require leaving one's comfort zone. However, even the smallest of changes, like my buying a recycled toothbrush and using energy saving light bulbs at home, on a larger scale, have the potential to influence environmental outcomes and positively restructure and alter lifestyles in the future.

The Most Pressing Challenge: Excessive Human Activities

My point is similar to Chris’s point. It is true that the rapid increase in population is one of the most pressing challenges facing the global environment because the world has a certain limit on resources that human beings can use. As Chris made a point, reproduction is not a crime, and we just cannot help it. In addition to Chris’s argument, I would like to point out that excessive human activities cause the most pressing challenge. Since the industrial revolution, human beings have innovated and developed technology. Because of high technology, the living conditions became much better than before, but at the same time, human beings ruin the global environment. To improve technology, more exhaustion of carbon dioxide is a must. Excessive use of fossil fuel, gas, and light are some examples. Also, a huge car production causes more exhaustion of carbon dioxide. As the population increases, people drive more cars and it damages the global environment. In addition to the technology development, human beings hurt the environment by cutting trees and polluting because people need more houses due to the increase in population, and we waste unnecessary things a lot. These are just a few examples of excessive human activities that damage the global environment. In short, human beings act selfishly so we should think about how many resources we could use to stop doing excessive human activities. As Bill McKibben argues, we only have a certain resources, so we need to act smartly to live this planet.

No More Either Or!

The problems Chris described are some of the most pressing issues facing our society. Since the late 18th century scholars have been predicting that the earth cannot sustain an increasing population. There have been countless maximum population figures predicted since this time. Today there are largely two sides to the population debate: 1 the Neo-Malthusians and 2 the Cornucopians. The Neo-Malthusians believe that the earth has a limited amount of resources and thus can only sustain a limited population (the food supply increases arithmetically but population increases exponentially). The Cornacopians believe, however, that technology is consistently improving and thus will overcome the earth's scarcity. It Cornacopian scholars that argue the validity of the Kuznets curve. The curve or theory that predicts as societies gain wealth the they will cause more harm to their environment until they reach a tipping point, where serious technology and legislation kick in, when the society decides to improve their environment. Therefore these individuals basically believe at above a certain income a society will begin to actively improve their environment instead of continuing to harm it. Of course neither of these theories helps our environment now.

The problem with the Neo-Malthusians is that they do not really provide a viable solution to the population problem. Yes- its great to know that there is a problem. Yes- we all need to recognize that there are limited resources. But how are we going to tell the millions of people in Africa to have only one or two children? How are we going to stop people in the western world from having more than one child?

The problems facing the Cornacopians are obvious. We clearly do have a limited number of resources that are being destroyed every day. From the air we breathe to the water we drink to the food we eat human activity is poisoning our environment. This decay is or will soon will be to the point where we harm our ability to succeed and grow economically. Clearly something needs to be done because we may never reach the tipping point.

What then should we do? I believe we need a combination of these two beliefs. First we must recognize that our resources are scarce and take significant governmental and international action to protect them. Second, we must develop the technologies that will allow human life to continue and improve on earth. This means more governmental intervention and stimulation of research.

Most pressing challenge facing the global environment = population

World population growth has been increasing at a ridiculously fast pace since the industrial revolution, which has put a strain on the earth. Some environmentalists such as Bill McKibben believe that the planet has a limit on the number of humans it can handle (by handle I mean provide adequate food, resources, livable conditions etc). population size directly effects the severity of other global environmental issues. The more people there are, more resources are needed to meet their daily needs, more food needs to be grown to feed hungry mouths, more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere and more trees and other carbon sinks are destroyed which increases global warming...and the list goes on and on. Controlling population growth would go a long way to start to solve the many other challenges that are destroying this earth. However, a solution is not easy.

How do we control population? There is no one to blame. Having children is not a crime. No one is doing anything wrong by using resources to provide for their children and others. Can we force people to stop having children? Do we let people starve around the world to slow growth? These solutions are immoral at best and against human nature. Unlike other global challenges, reproduction isn't a man-made catastrophe, its a natural process. Limits and controls don't seem to be moral or humane. So what is the right way to go about doing this? The world isn't going to volunteer to have less children. Some people like them.