Oh dio!

There is a problem, problems… so many problems. You could probably pull it all together into one simple all encompassing phrase, which may or may not be enlightening, but a'int nobody got time for that. Back to the point though, problems. 

The sheer number of worrying environmental issues from deforestation, to overfishing, to climate change leaves one at a loss of where to start. Even once you choose something to focus on you have to determine where the leverage points are, and which one you want to go after, and how, and it can become simply paralyzing. WHAT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER?!?! What should I do?! Where can I be effective?! 

Take one look at the huge number of environmental NGOs and you'll see all/many/most of those options exemplified. All of the NGOs take on different arenas, issues and methods, with different views on what is important and effective and what is not. To illustrate this I will consider the tip of the ice berg and compare three separate NGOs and briefly discuss their focus, their plan of attack. The three I will look at are: Young Voices for the Planet, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.


Young Voices for the Planet, uses film to inspire. This NGO creates short films with young people who are actively working on reducing the carbon footprint of their communities, schools, homes and states. The idea is that showing stories of young people taking action will illustrate that playing an active and effective environmental role is possible; and will inspire others to do be more active. Young Voices for the Planet screens their films and assists and encourages groups to replicate the stories they see in the films. Young Voice for the Planet is the smallest of the three NGOs that I am looking at, and it shows how NGOs operate on different levels. 

The infamous Greenpeace. The name Greenpeace ignites thoughts of a kind of rogue green militia stealthily moving through the night on missions to take on environmental wrong doers. And there is some of that, but Greenpeace is certainly much bigger than a collage of rogue attacks. Greenpeace is an international organization who fight environmental issues in a variety of areas including whaling, climate change, deforestation. Any envionmental issue that is percieved as being a serious threat is taken on by Greenpeace. A key note about this NGO is that they do not accept funding from governments or corporations, rather they receive individual contributions from their members around the world.


Last but not least I consider Friends of the Earth. Unlike Greenpeace which takes more of an activist approach, Friends of the Earth takes a more political approach. They advocate for policy changes, with an emphasis on fighting for changes that may be percieved as uncomfortable. They, like Greenpeace are an International organization. Friends of the Earth place a lot of emphasis on economic and development aspects of environmental issues

These three NGOs have clear differences in approach and scope. They differ in their opinion on strong leverage points and effective techniques. I think this is good. As Donella Meadows says so astutely in her article on Leverage Points the most powerful is the ability to transcend paradigms. To be able to step outside of the whole crazy system and realize that there is no 'right' answer, but something must be done all the same, and I'm glad there are all of those NGOs out there doing their thing. 

Power of the People, to the People, by the People, for the Planet... and the People

Having spent the previous weekend in NYC marching in what is being called the largest protest ever assembled focusing on climate change, I feel as though I got a first hand look at the wide spectrum of groups represented in this march. What struck me was how mainstream and diverse the participants seemed to be. From the young to the elderly, different ethnicities and nationalities, business people to world and local politicians, mainstream media to guerrilla media, and those that would be considered more “traditional” environmentalist, the movement has moved way beyond the fringes.  Of course this was by accident, and it most certainly didn’t happen overnight. The movement has taken literally decades to gain the strength, numbers, and momentum to reach this point. It has also taken a conflation of particular set of historical circumstances to make it possible action of this scale to take place.

In order for any issue, environmental or otherwise, to gain traction it must be properly framed in a way that is easy to understand to the general public, and creates a clear choice before its audience. I think the most famous, and quite possibly the most effective; of this issue framing wars comes from the abortion issue; “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. The criteria for an issue frame: short, succinct, a clear decision that must be made, and far reaching consequences for that decision. One of the most important parts of the climate march is this new, larger umbrella that many different issues can pull together, “climate change”. What this umbrella essentially did was allowed numerous issues associated with climate change to be seen as a part of this much larger conversation. For example, during the march I saw people focused on solar or wind energy as a solution to the climate change issues, there were also those focused on indigenous rights and deforestation of the Amazonian rainforest issue, they were alongside groups that wanted to ban fracking within the United States. The issues were as diverse as those that represented them.  I think that it was symbolic of the complexity, scope, and scale of the issue of climate change itself.  In some ways this mirrors the civil rights movement of the 1960’s that encompassed desegregation, voting rights, worker exploitation, black power, and judicial discrimination issues. It allowed for a much movement to combine in solidarity around the idea of civil rights.

In 2014 it is far easier to get involved in movements and become an activist than at any other point in history. The idea of individuals potential to affect change and the power endeared to them in the 21st century is a common theme cutting across all of the readings from this week.  The cause of this? Information. Individuals have the ability to collect, synthesize, and disseminate massive amounts of information in near real time.  No longer is it necessary to rely on the mainstream media to pick up a story. Individuals are now the driving force behind shaping what “is” news.  They have the potential to reach broad audiences at very low, almost insignificant costs.

Looking over a number of activists’ groups websites, including Surfrider Foundation, 350.org, and Fossil Free AU, a few trends appear almost immediately. One is the power of the images. Whether it is in the form of still images, video, maps, or graphic design, these sites are trying to get a message across to its viewers in the shortest and most powerful manner possible. No longer is it necessary for the organizations to include a mission page (although they always will), because if a page is designed well, a visitor will have very good idea of what the organization stands for within moments of visiting a page. Once the message or issues is established, there is always a highly visible page or link directing one toward information on how to get involved. Whether it is to donate, volunteer, attend meetings, or possible employment opportunities, these organizations are looking for active participation not just passive spectators. Finally, I would say that the third most common characteristic is the “guts” of the organization. What I mean by “guts” is the reports, news articles, scientific data, the real hard evidence and information that used as currency in its information war.

This information war is being waged on numerous fronts and in many different formats. For example, 350.org was one of the principle organizers for the climate march. They are using the force of spectacle and mass demonstration to draw attention to an issue. The Surfrider foundation just recently fought and won a court case in California regarding coastal access. Working within the legal system and the CA coastal commission, SrF fought to ensure that actions taken by a wealthy individual to block coastline access, which were in direct conflict with state and local law, did not go unchallenged.  Fossil Free AU is looking to build on the momentum of the climate march and force the AU board of directors to divest from fossil fuels investments. They are organizing meetings and strategizing ways to put pressure on the board.  Many organizations create policy recommendations and take stances on particular issues, then advertising those policy positions to garner support from an informed populous.  Almost all larger organizations recognize the importance of representation in democracies and fund, support, organizer for politicians they see as having their interests at heart. Many write actual legislation with the hopes of finding a powerful spokesperson to take up issue from within the system.  On the most basic, but highly important level, these organizations go to great lengths to try to reconnect people to nature. By providing outdoor vacation itineraries, clean ups in nature, and things like social hikes/paddle/swims they strive to build a deep appreciation for nature, and in so doing, a willingness to protect what they then come to love.

One of the major problems with the environmental movement is the scope and scale of the problems that face the movement. There are so many pressing issues and there are only so many available resources to fight for their conservation. I like Erik Assadourian’s view that the movement needs to become almost religious in its approach. I look forward to hearing about his views on this in class.

Right. Wrong. I guess maybe it's all relative.

Who is right? What is right? These kinds of questions... they rarely illicit a clear answer from me. In this case I prefer to address whose approach is the most feasible in the world we live in. In this fast moving world, with so many impending issues, things like blocked Congress, awareness and denial of global issues, slow tedious negotiating can be frustrating. I want action! Action is needed! I understand of course, that taking the best course of action is important, and I would rather take the time to ensure that we're moving forward on a viable path than to move agressively with a option that is more detrimental than effective. However, that being said I still want to see some action. I have grown quite tired and skeptical of words and promises, after all actions speak louder. So, with regards to the perspectives portrayed in the articles I weigh them based on my perception of the feasibility of their implementation in reality, rather than weather or not I think they are inherently right or wrong. (as an aside I do recognize that this all sort of depends on the way you define the use of the word 'right' but I won't get into that now).

Deep down I seem to believe that we need a system overhaul, a detoxification, of the current market system. The world needs to go on the Master Clense if you will. Noemi Klein really put my feelings into words in many ways. Klein's approach to the Climate Change conversation is certainly rousing. The idea that we need to fight Climate Change with economics, but at the same time that the current market system built on the assumption that nature is limitless is inherently detremental to the environment, aligns with some thoughts I had vaguely wandering through my head. Klein's breakdown of the areas and methods of change was inspiring. My only caveat was the ever present question 'how?.' How can we start all of these changes? How? These are not small changes, certainly we can start small somewhere. Klein herself says individual action will never achieve anything, so we need big action, big change. Ok, I'm interested, but how? Maybe Klein has answers that I am not privy to at the moment but thanks to the lack of this information I'll move onto some authors who maybe offer a less succinct definition of the issue areas to be straightened out, but who basically operate within the current system.

The other authors all essentially analyze different aspects and issues of the market (Klein does as well actually I suppose, just she believes in the necessity of large scale reform while the others focus on more specific issues). I would like to take a moment to step back and ask a question 'What is economics?' Where did it come from? What came first, economics or human civilization? Well, it seems to me, and I'm presumptuous to think to most of these authors as well, that economics is something all its own. Humans, particularly western civilization, have applied a multitude of vocabulary words to economics, and have created a huge body of discussion, perception, ideology, etc that economy now lugs around with it. But at the end of the day supply and demand exist and function all on their own. Sort of like music, we heard the notes, gave each pitch a name, but a 'c sharp' by any other name would sound as sweet. This idea is simply fasinating. That being said I'll move on.

Most of the authors find a serious discontinuity in today's economics and climate change. I find that the thread running through all of the pieces is that the general perception of what economy should and needs to do is not in line with achieveing positive steps towards the alleviation of climate change. More specifically that the popular economic view does not account for everything. As I mentioned previously Klein says that the economy assumes that nature is limitless. This idea can also be seen in Daly's article, in his discussion of growth versus development. Then in Rowe's article in his perspective that our obsession with a growing GDP over looks what is actually going on in that growth – the BP oil spill was a boon for economic growth for example. In Dauverne and Lister's excerpt they argue that while eco-business may have some positive implications for climate and environmental issues ultimately the prime motivator for these businesses is profit, and this motivator in light of the current economic views does not work well with positive environmental action. Last but not least Krugman, the author with seemingly the most faith in the economic system believes that the issues lie on the politicians side. Krugman takes the purest view of economics, while the other authors discuss economics within a more political context. Krugman separates the two and highlights the issues in a political context. Essentially he says that economics has the answers we just have to have the right policies to encourage the economic system to move us in the right direction.

So back to the orignial question, who is right? And by my own extension  who is offering a feasible solution? Well... They're all right. And there are hints at solutions, but I can't say that one author offers an idea that would be particularly easy to execute, or an issue that would be particularly easy to solve. Perhaps Krugman, if the right people are working together to manipulate the politics, policy can be changed. Even if poicy is changed however, we are still left with the underlying issues of perception as outlined by Daly and Rowe which will effect policy decisions. Basically I don't have any answers and I don't who does… But maybe if we keep having this conversation and pay attention we'll come arose a really excellent strategy for implementation. 

Institutional basis for new political economy

Environment and economy have been presented as binaries since the birth of modern environmentalism in 1960s. However there are also attempts to reconcile the contradictions between them. Sustainable development is one of such conceptual attempts to further economic development without harming environment. However, there were fears, as Daly expressed, that such concept would only be an instrument for unchecked economic growth. If we see the current trend of eco-business and corporate environmentalism, Daly's doubts are now turning into truths. When our policies are only focused on making the big businesses green without checking their influence as if there will no world outside the current consumerism and corporatism, we will not reach to the roots of our current environmental woes. The concept of eco-business seeks solution only at the actor level, which is important for the short run, but they are neither sufficient nor instrumental on correcting injustices created by consumerism and corporatism. Dauvergne and Lister have also accepted that eco-business on its own cannot alter the underlying logic of accelerating consumerism and unequal globalization behind the increasing power of big business.

Krugman recommends using market-based instruments, such as cap and trade, carbon tax and direct control in order to pay the price of externalities and correct environmental problems. Although his recommendation seems seeking solution within the existing political-economic structure, that echoes a reformist, he is arguing for using state's coercive power to regulate the the economic activities that harm environment. This is more than seeking solution within the existing system.

Klein goes further and argues for use of coercion from both levels: state and grass-root, in order transform the current political economy which, according to her, has remained as main problem for both, environmental degradation and social justice. Although I share most of her points, the argument still has some contradictions. For example, she is advocating for transforming the current political economic structure without elaborating her imagined new structure. At some point she sounds supporting the stiff state regulation, but at other points, she has also argued for more community control. Even though we may resolve problems arisen from corporatism and big business, can we address any contradictions between state and community in order to govern the environment? Once we resolve the institutional basis for alternative governance of environment in new political economy, I think we can go beyond seeking reforms in the current political economic structure. Otherwise recommendations of Dauvergne and Lister and of Krugman would be only ways to bring changes although at a limited level. 

The Natural State of Man... and Business.

I often find myself feeling conflicted about this idea of “sustainable growth”.  The idea that Daly confronts is that, society and business in particular, think that we can continue to grow a robust global economy, extracting further resources in larger quantities (as that’s what growth implies), and still at the same time be able to do it in such a way that it does not harm the environment. To me, on the surface, these seem like very contradictory ideas.  But this is also one of the difficulties with the term sustainable development. The common definition is “development that meets the needs of the present without depriving future generations of the ability to meet their own needs,” but if the earth is comprised of a finite amount of resources (which it is), and the population continues to grow, and a larger share of that population begin to expect a life equal to those in the Western world, then how is it possible to not run out of resources at some point? Additionally, we don’t know what future generations will need, what the earth’s carrying capacity is, or if the amount we take now will leave enough for those in the future. Is it all a total farce? I don’t know, and here I am in a sustainability management degree program housed in a business school.

The three articles in section five attempt to address this issue from very different perspectives, each focusing on a different point of coercion. Dauvergne and Lister point to market forces and the movement of big business toward sustainability as the answer to much of the world’s environmental problems. Because of customer demand for more earth friendly products and services, corporations are taking a more conservationist approach to doing business. On the surface this looks all well and good. The purchasing power of major corporations like GE, Walmart, and Coca-Cola is so large that they can affect change in practices on a global scale, leading to a real reduction in consumption of resources. In many cases, it is far more effective than national or international regulations can be.  But this has nothing to do with being good stewards of the earth. It has everything to do with a drive for higher profits, larger market shares, and a plan to being in business 200 years from now. This is no secret, as highlighted by Beth Keck, Walmart’s senior director of sustainability, “Sustainability is a business strategy, not a charitable giving strategy.” I do believe that it can help in certain areas of environmental degradation that needs immediate addressing, but history is littered with examples of entities, organizations, countries and individuals being the causes of their own demise. And to address the most pressing issue facing humanity, climate change, a business strategy will not be enough, the must be coercion.

It’s a dirty word “coercion,” especially in a country based on the idea of personal liberty and freedom. We do not want to think of ourselves as a people coerced. But we are, every day. I’d love to drive a 125 miles per hour on an open road, or say whatever I was thinking at any given time. But I can’t, because we live in a civil society with norms, rules, and expectations that help keep our system in balance. We expect to be safe from lunatics driving two ton steel death machines and bite our tongues out of  fear of being socially ostracized over breaking the rules of civility. Without some sort of coercive force, Hobbes was right, life would be nasty, and brutish, and probably short. So why is it that we think corporations, made up of those very same humans, would be any different?

Despite the unseemliness associated with the word coercion, Krugman makes a solid argument for a coercive force that allows money to be made and the environment to be protected, ensure that humanity has the opportunity to buy another pair of shoes. Cap and trade is the only way to go. We’re not going to blow up the whole global economic, political, and social system. Nor should we. This system has made more people healthy and wealthier anything else has throughout all of history. The idea of buying and selling is as humanity itself.  I suspect some caveman somewhere recognized the benefits of mutual agreements and exchange to obtain some good he was lacking. Is the system perfect, no. It obviously leaves some out in the cold, and favors the advantage of others. There is much room for improvement. However, for the purposes of dealing with climate change, one must look at the alternatives and realize that using a market based approach has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.  Lessons are to be learned for sure from the EU’s cap and trade system, the system just recently implemented in California, and the seven province trial system in China (soon to be nationally implemented), but the potential remains.

Tackling the Leviathan

Environmentalism has now become a universal perspective with so many converging patterns even in such a differentiated world. For many, biodiversity can be best protected by establishment of national parks of US model in those areas where people are still living inside the "wilderness". Even an illiterate third world citizen speaks the same language of neo-Malthusians, "Environment is degrading because of growing population". There are national versions of 350.org with activists displaying 350 placards and reminding the meaning of this very number around the world. Clapp and Dauvergne's travel through the recent history of global environmental politics sheds some lights on the force behind the convergence of environmentalism in such a flat world. As they travel from publication of Silent Spring and Population Bomb to Brundtland report and pass through the gatherings of Stockholm, Rio and Jo'burg, state appears as strong factor on developing environmentalism all over the world, particularly in the third world. All environmental worldviews accept the Leviathan a central character. However, these worldviews differ on what to do with the Leviathan: maintain it, reform it or transform it. For me, state is necessary but not sufficient mechanism to have desirable results of environmental movement. We need engagements at societal level, either to maintain or reform or transform the state. Besides state-society interaction, we also need international regimes, important source of environmental policies in many countries.

As noted by Harris, the state-centric approach has clearly shown limitations on addressing climate change. The limitation is not only on achieving international agreements, but also on framing of justice and equity issues in the north-south dichotomy, which hides so many differences at the sub-national level. We need more actions above and below the state to cure the "cancer of Westphalia". Besides doses of medicine (international agreements and national regulations), treatment of cancer of the later stage usually requires a surgery (reforms and transformations). Therefore, once we postpone tackling the problem now, we have to move from maintaining the Leviathan to reforming it, even further transforming it. Here we need correct diagnoses: at what stage of the cancer are we in so that we determine what to do with it. Diagnosis must include reflections on our moral and political approaches rather than measuring through some science and technology-based indicators. According Falk, Hardin shows a tension between pursuit of private gains and protection of the public good. For example, what would have been the condition of the grazing land when the cattle in the Hardin's story were commons? Can we go towards the shared pursuits? According Falk, the current state system does not allow us to move to that direction. For me, there are possibilities in the current world as we are seeing convergence of several issues including environmentalism.

Is a critical mass possible?

I’ve begun to give some thought to the Petri dish idea. In section one of Nicholson and Wapner’s Global Environmental Politics, we read from Charles Mann that the “world is a petri dish.” He points to a study during the 1920’s by Georgii Gause in which single-celled protozoans are given a seemingly limitless habitat and food supply causing the populations to grow exponentially until they reach the constraints of the food and space.  At this point levels begin to level off, eventually they compete with themselves to the point of starvation, ultimately killing off the population. The conclusions here are that like this group of protozoans, and every other example of nature’s success stories, human will likely follow a similar trajectory. In other words, we’re doomed.

But I don’t buy it.

Disaster scenarios are easy to imagine. Hollywood has made a fortune at it. But much like the nice guy, the success story doesn’t get the attention it deserves. Although humans share many characteristics and patterns of behavior with other organism species, it is the differences that set us apart. It is here that I turn to this weeks readings, and highlight a number of those differences that I believe will steer us from extinction.  

“Blue Marble,” a picture of earth from space, shown to be floating in the vast black void of space with no borders or man made boundaries separating humanity was one of the key points in the environmental movement of the 1960’s. The image doesn’t show the complex social and political systems, networks of communication, methods of education, or multinational organizations working to eradicate disease, hunger, and conflict. All of which were created by the imagination of man. Richard Falk laughs at these manifestations of human creativity and claims a dichotomy of helplessness while living in the perceived glow of power.  He excels in his ability to present the failures of the modern nation state system. He points to the general selfishness and self interests of the nation state, and how those interests are determined by leaders at the helm driven by short term motivations and often “beholden to the wrongdoers”.  And on this point I agree. I do think that the Westphalian system lends to a system fully in pursuit of individual goals and interests. And more often than not these goals are in contradiction to one and other, making agreement and the formulation of common policies on common problems nearly impossible. Where I think Falk’s argument fails is in it’s inability to explain the seemingly altruistic actions of NGO’s, the selflessness of individuals working together to alleviate social/political/environmental ills, and the power of multinational communities to mobilize in support of a cause.

I expect that the rise of a central global government enacted to solve all the world’s environmental problems is as likely as the invasion of extraterrestrials from the moon. However, the idea of a common threat by which the global community is galvanized is far more plausible to imagine. My expectation is that that common threat will come in the form of public opinion. We are more interconnected than ever before with the ability to disseminate information faster than ever before.  Both of these trends are headed only for more speed and connectivity. Governments' perceived inaction or under action can pose to be a real threat to national security. Responses could come in the form of public protests, sanctions from democratic global community members pressured by their populations to act,  or possible boycotts of products produced in countries perceived to be freeloading on international agreements or not participating at all. Clapp and Dauvergne point to numerous agreements and a progression of the conversation on climate change; Stockholm in ‘72, Rio in ‘92, Monterrey ten years later. At the start of the modern environmental movement there were a few dozen multinational agreements on the subject, and today there are over 400. I see this as progress.  Are they difficult to enforce? Yes. Could more be done? Of course. And, it is.  But is it enough and will it be fast enough? I suppose that depends on how bad a critical mass of society wants it. 

To Westphalia or not to Westphalia, that is the question

We are not ants.

We have no hive mind.

This is the essence of both the beauty and the destruction of the human race.

After reading the introduction to this section of the reader I presumed that the articles would take my mood downhill as I moved through the three of them; that as they grew less optimistic I too would grow less hopeful. On the contrary, despite the fact that Harris in the second article, uses the incendiary 'cancer of Wesphalia' to describe what he percieves to be the defining feature of International relations, and Falk ends the section on a low note “...there is no reason for confidence.” I was actually slightly lifted by Harris and Falk's arguably 'downer' articles. Perhaps this oppositional mood lifing was caused by intellectually empassioned adreneline, coursing through my veins. Perhaps I'm becoming emotionally numbed from studying the current global environmental situation. Whatever caused it I was plesantly surprised that I wasn't depressed.

This does not mean that I necessariy agree or disagree with one of the authors more than the other. The system is flawed sure, most (all?) man made systems are. This system has been in place for hundreds of years, it has seeped into our cultures, into our collective view of the world we live in, and it we can't easily step out of it. Out of it and into what? We would need an entirely new world wide arrangement.

Overhauling the system is in many ways an attractive idea. But, whenever I 'go there' mentally it seems that a system overhaul would simply be too much work. As an American I believe that anything is possible, but there are so many roadblocks to a system overhaul; so much bureaucratic red tape, so many opposing ideologies, so many differing opinions, that I cannot help but feel that a system overhaul is not a realistically effective option on the table. So despite the fact that I belive that if some magical omiscient being came down and wiped everything away and put it all back clean, fresh, and reprogrammed that we could exist comfortably inside a system that works with the environment, I think that this is unlikely to happen. Thus, I believe in something that I find to be more realistic, and hopefully more effective in the long run, baby steps, or rather one adult step at a time. If we make change slowly within the system we have in place I think people and states will be more likely to go along with it. Of course there is the question of time, how long do we have? How many people can the earth support? Is slowly putting on the breaks while careening down the hill towards the cliff's edge going to stop us in time? Are we careening? I don't have specific answers to these questions of course. I believe masive ideological changes are necessary. Small changes and movement are happening as Clapp and Dauvergne point out at the end of their article in their discussion of Critical Mass and Reclaim the Streets. These movements alone are not big enough to be truly effective, but I think they are a hopeful start. 

[9/15] The Role of the State: Westphalia and Beyond

This week, Clapp and Dauvergne take us through a general history of global environmental politics and perspectives along with various paradigm shifts over the years.  One theme the authors discuss is the role of economic globalization as well as the dynamics between developed and developing countries.  They follow this theme through a number of international summits from Stockholm to Rio, and how the debates and agreements that come out of these talks try to recognize a middle ground between different national interests and responsibilities.  Clapp and Dauvergne then move to identifying the main actors on the global scale of environmental politics.  They put the state at the core, as the other authors in this section also recognize.  For better or for worse, states are dominant in our current system even with the participation of international institutions, NGOs, and businesses.  Clapp and Dauvergne do mention the challenge posed to the system by global issues like climate change, but seem content with the tradition and offer up ways that change can be made within the sovereign state framework.  Despite the past failures, continued weaknesses, and lack of urgency in the global environmental arena, the authors cite growing influence of non-state actors, potential for partnerships, and ideas coming out of the market and from local levels as key steps for the future of addressing global scale environmental problems.

Paul Harris is more critical of the sovereign state system, taking the perspective that we cannot work within it effectively without reform.  As he puts it, "the Westphalian system creates and reinforces an obsession with the interests of the nation-state above all else" (138).  This is inherently at odds with the approach needed for a problem like climate change that transcends boundaries and national interests.  Perhaps we need another "Spaceship Earth" moment to galvanize us in seeing past these constraints, but it won't be easy and it likely wouldn't have the staying power that the long-standing and deeply embedded sovereignty system does.  We need a massive response and global rather than national interest to prevail, because "business as usual" or even incremental changes and shifts in the right direction are not enough.  Harris goes so far as to call the Westphalian system a cancer, and that "the cancer has made that response feeble relative to the seriousness of the problem" (143).  It is a depressing image, but certainly evocative.

Richard Falk goes even further and essentially rejects the Westphalian system altogether.  Bitterly, he asserts: "Despite the marvels of the modern world, there is an increasing realization that mankind has strayed from the pursuit of its own welfare, perhaps decisively, with little prospect of recovery and a growing appreciation of urgency" (144).  I thought of our exercise in class where we chose between going forward in time three hundred years or going back three hundred, and realized that in a single statement Falk made me decidedly uncomfortable with my choice of going forward.  Past this, his insights include the sovereign system as "unable to cope with endangered-planet problems" (144), that only a common and personified enemy could unite the world politically, and that we can't even agree on the issues on our agenda much less how to solve them.  Falk describes Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons," another reading for this week and an oft-cited concept, and uses it to forward the notion of the "paradox of aggregation" and its dangers regarding ecological catastrophe.  I have read Hardin's classic piece along with Susan Buck's response before, and enjoy the comparison in perspectives as well as Buck's attack on historical inaccuracies leading to the prevalent "commons" term.  Her hope for a remedy based in a new perspective on the commons is refreshing.  I've always found Hardin's piece too coercive and one-sided particularly in his arguments on reproduction, much like the Ehrlichs of the same worldview.  But back to Falk, who is compelling in his urgency and warns of the motivations that come with exploitation.  I hear his warnings and agree that "voluntary compliance" (149) is not enough to address all our problems, but I am not sure I'm ready to buy into the complete rejection and overhaul of the current system...yet.

Boring but pragmatic, I read the system maintaining, reforming, and transforming systems respectively and identify with the seemingly middle option of reforming. All the perspectives have insights to offer, but I do think we need a different approach than the current one and I find it most practical to look at serious reforms to the system before trying to throw it out altogether.  An ultimate transformation could bring radical change for sure and with a clean slate we could find solutions that don't have to fit into a framework that wasn't meant to even address the problem.  Considering the growing influence of non-state actors, the sovereign state system does seem outdated.  However, I think a reformist perspective would garner more support from different stakeholders so it would actually be more effective than the transformative.  With our history, it is safe to assume that barring an alien invasion we won't be dissolving political borders in the near future.  A transformation sounds ideal in the long term, but since we need solutions now we don't have a tangible option other than to take the structures that we have already and make them better - make them fit the answers rather than the other way round.  The state can be a part of environmental governance, but it should not be the only or even the most prominent one.  Bottom-up and grassroots movements should be given the same consideration as the ones coming from the top.  The voices and perspectives informing the dialogue should come from all stakeholders in a forum that enables participation, especially from those voices who have typically been excluded from decision-making in the sovereign state structure.  These are not new ideas; they just need to be fully incorporated into a reformed system as an effective means for change.

Chicken or the Egg?

Is time running out for us (humanity)? Have we reached, or worse, exceeded our carry capacity? Could further development really be the answer to solving our environmental dilemmas? Can innovation and human ingenuity pull us back from the cliff as we stare down into the abyss? Do humans have the ability to move beyond self-interest and work toward some sort of collective solution where the needs of the individual become subservient to that of a greater society? Can we recognize that our perception of a limitless food and habitat supply is a gross overestimation of the reality? Are we able to beat back instinct and do what no other species has been capable of: stop being so “successful”? These are just a few of the questions raised from the past weeks readings.  Not your light Sunday “funnies” section kinds of questions. Rather, ominous and dark, the kinds of questions that keep one up at night – or at least should. However, at the end, I have been left with a notion of hopefulness. Especially by the last of these questions – can we be different? To that I think the answer is yes. We are different, we have learned to tame (to a certain degree) nature, we have learned to work with nature, we have the ability to collect, calculate, analyze, and synthesize information causing major shifts in behavior. Even when that change in course runs in opposition to our self-interests. Charles C. Mann points to this “behavioral plasticity” in his article State of the Species.  It was from his analysis of the transition away from the slave industry in the 1800’s, decline in state violence, the growth of women’s liberty, homosexual rights, and the list goes on, that depicts humans ability to perceive a moral disaster and evolve into our potential.

The conversation as to what our potential must be in regards to situation facing the environment today and how we must apply this behavioral plasticity has reached a fevered pitch – a possible critical mass. The data overwhelmingly supports the notion that we as a species are doing significant harm to our habitat. What is far less clear is what exactly must be done to rectify this situation.  Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne try to neatly compartmentalize the predominant theories circulating in their article Paths to a Green World. Initially while reading this assessment I found myself thinking in terms of a spectrum, with “Market Liberals” occupying the far right and “Social Greens” to the left.  Quickly I realized that that evaluation was far too static and too much influenced by the American political system. In actuality, if one is to visualize these categorizations, a four-circle Venn diagram would be far more appropriate. Each worldview layering upon the others with commonalities and distinct differences to help make better sense of the “seemingly unmanageable avalanche of conflicting information and analysis.” 

Naturally, as a nascent student of global environmental politics I found that my loyalties to one category or another were continually pulled in different directions as I read through and thought about the various arguments.  I wondered how many actually fit neatly into one box and are able to reject the basic tenants of competing theories. However, my biggest issues came with the premise laid out by the “Market Liberals.” The idea that more economic wealth, production of goods and services, and consumption would lead to a reduced impact on the environment seemed a contraction to me. I do agree with the idea that the poor don’t have the luxury of demanding environmental justice when their greatest concern is survival on the most basic level. But as the “Bioenvironmentalists” point out, the “drive to pursue even more economic growth” has been the main driver of resource gluttony. I fall in line with this idea that innovation and human ingenuity will provide progress, but I take exception this “silver bullet” approach. Innovation has the potential to do as much harm as good. Without a shift in the moral obligations of, not just national or continental populations, but the entire global community, resource extraction and self-interested exploitation will persist.  For this to happen, a global debate must take place. We now have the ability to connect and discuss these issues at every far-reaching corner of the Earth. I find myself drawn to the bioenvironmentalists belief that the earth has a finite limit to its resources and ability to support life. This consciousness must be reached, even by the poor, for our full potential to be totally realized and any real progress to be made in the development on new technologies and innovations. Here is where institutions must come into play. International, national, state, and local governments have the ability to drive the conversations, provide education, protect innovation through patents, and write legislation to protect resources. It becomes a chicken or the egg scenario as those institutions are subject to the will and pressures of the societies they serve. And how does the instillation of an environmental urgency take place in 2 billion people living without electricity and proper sewage? (Humanities Potential, 2006) I agree with Alex Steffen that the ability of urban environments and municipalities hold tremendous potential to effect change and shape the debate. I think that if any kind of global social consciousness is to be reached, it will be the city that leads the conversation and education effort.

IPAT and Worldviews

The dire environmental situation we are currently in is evident from a number of articles and books within the Global Environmental Politics literature that we read for the first two weeks of class (Nicholson and Wapner 2014; Mann 2012; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).  As Nicholson and Wapner point out in Global Environmental Politics: From Person to Planet (2014), together with several other accomplished and esteemed scholars, we are challenging our planet’s capacity to support us.  We have polluted and degraded the very ecosystems and natural resources we rely on – irreparably impacting generations to come.  Clapp and Dauvergne take a different starting point in Paths to a Green World (2011) and look at the world through four “worldviews” people have on global environmental change, and in particular its intersection with the global political economy.  These, as they admit, do not encompass all possible perceptions, but rather are ideal-types to characterize the extreme idea social constructs.  While most of us lie in between two or more of these, they provide a helpful typology of the divergent underlying values and perceptions, which shape how people interpret and act upon environmental challenges.  One question that arises is how characteristic these worldviews are for all cultures.  Or would the worldviews in Bolivia, for example, where there is a large indigenous population, be quite a bit different than those in the US?

Clapp and Dauvergne’s worldviews can be very useful when looking at not just interpretations of environmental challenges, but solutions and the processes involved in trying to reach such solutions.  The complex, multi-layered stakeholder negotiations involved in governance occur between people or groups that have widely divergent worldviews.  Several strands of negotiation theories, such as the mutual gains approach, focus on moving beyond interest-based bargaining and seek to improve the situation for everyone involved.  Understanding actors’ orientations towards whether and how dire the environmental situation is, globalization and the market, and equity are useful as a starting point when looking for common ground between differing perspectives.  This holds true with multilateral negotiations, as well as for local issues, such as city planning, and all scales in between.

Within environmental governance, the power relations between actors impact whose worldview will shape how we respond to environmental issues.  For example, the way Clapp and Dauvergne brought together perceptions on the market and globalization with the environment is particularly important because the solutions to environmental issues that people advocate for are often linked to their economic values.  Actors that have power to influence the economic system, indirectly also influence climate change, natural resource use, pollution, and a host of other environmental issues.  Constructivist approaches to power, knowledge, and ideas could be useful to pair with worldviews to better understand what shapes peoples’ values and actions and how they influence other people and resultant outcomes.  In Power in Global Governance, Barnett and Duvall (2005) elaborate on how productive power can shape actors’ subjective understanding of concepts, ideas, and processes.  The term “green growth” has caught on in the international community like wildfire, paralleling a shift on the part of some countries to embracing addressing environmental issues in a way that will also support their economic growth.  While Tierney brings up the notion that economic growth and environmental sustainability are not incompatible when he discusses the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), there are several shortcomings of his piece.  He neglects to discuss the variance of consumption patterns, as well as across countries in terms of their resources.  Furthermore, while the EKC originally arose with response to air pollution, there have been many studies that have shown it not to be true with regards to other production and consumption patterns.  As Gallagher (2008) points out in the Handbook on Trade and the Environment, increased affluence is not enough to ‘green’ the economy – proper environmental policies are also needed to manage resources and reduce environmental degradation.

Environmental threat of "American" consumerism

   

Friedman is worried about meeting of the crowded world with the flat world so that more people from crowded side would follow "American" consumption level and multiply threats to the planet. He pleads for changes to initiate from the first place and shows several options of green economy for the rest of the world. Although the green economy sounds quite appealing, I would be particularly interested to know how Clapp and Dauvergne's various worldviews propose their own versions of green economies. Certainly it will not be a single animal.

Assadourian discusses western consumerism as a cultural practice and reaches to its historical root. He argues that consumerism was developed as a social response in the particular political-economic context of the west. Assadourian's interpretation complements Friedman by elaborating why the west developed such level of consumerism and what is the force behind its expansion to the other parts of the world. I think besides media, there is still a larger political-economic force for the expansion of consumerism in other parts or the globe.

While reading about consumerism as cultural practice in the west, I come up with a question: Does consumerism in the west also have some ecological roots that can be interpreted in terms of cultural ecology?

Tierney's optimism is solely based on environmental Kuznet's curve, which is largely unconvincing if we take account of environmental costs for a larger space and longer time. Apparent environmental improvement in one region at a particular time might have implications for other regions and for future. Similarly, he has overlooked the role of environmental movement behind any improvements made so far. 

Drivers of environmental change

Since 1960s, scholars and policy makers have been debating on questions like what is actually driving the environmental changes and whether the change is leading us to progress or perils. In the initial decades, the debates were focused on relationship among population growth, environmental degradation and poverty. Later on, during the debates of environmental security in 1990s, the same positions became visible in various interpretations of relationship between environment and conflict. According to Clapp and Dauvergne (2005), we see still these positions or worldviews in the discussion of current global environmental politics. While going through the literature, it seems that there has been a little change in these worldviews. Is this really true? Or the scholars are simply repeating the same frameworks again and again? To what extent the analytical categories of pessimists, optimists, institutionalists and distributionists help us to understand environmental politics? At one level the framework clarifies different environmental discourses, but it also hides several aspects of environmental politics. For example, state, which is still central in environmental politics, is absent in such categorization. I do not think authors would agree that, as some might argue, with increasing involvement of actors outside the state in environmental politics, state's role has become less interesting and less relevant. It's true that state is not a homogenous body. It comprises all worldviews distributed around its various departments and organs. But, while making or not making particular policy response, it adopts a particular worldview which is not described by such framework. Although authors have accepted that the categories in the framework are not clear-cut, the problem with the framework becomes more obvious when we discuss about position of an actor. Let us take an example of a local level NGO activist in a developing country blowing trumpets of conservation, international treatises and conventions and social justice at the same time and receiving supports from bilateral and multilateral donors, international conservation organizations and corporate foundations. Can we put such activists under a single category? I think their positions are important because they crosscut various worldviews and potentially present a balanced view on a local eco-political issue. In my opinion, we need more such actors, which rather than embracing one particular worldview, encompass all worldviews and come up with a more nuanced position. Therefore, as Nicholson and Wapner argued, we need to understand environmental harm in terms of "material" factors (described by IPAT formula) and "ideational" factors (cultural and socio-political context). For me, drivers of environmental change can be best understood in terms of economic activities or livelihood strategies of population and formal and informal institutions and structures (ranging from policies, rules, regulations to customs, social relations, beliefs and values). 

Reaction to 9/8 Readings on "I=PAT and Beyond"

It is delightfully uncomfortable to start a new semester having to take a hard look at oneself.  Self-deception is a happy existence, and self-reflection is a valuable tool.  It's easy to feel separate from the issues at hand when we are trying to objectively and academically analyze them, residing in Nicholson and Wapner's "intellectual exosphere" as it were.

My overall reaction to the section three readings of Wapner and Nicholson, primarily to the discussions by Friedman, McKibben, and Assadourian, was an exercise in this uncomfortable scrutiny on myself and the society in which I reside.  Friedman's concept of the "Americum," a unit measured as "any group of 350 million people with a per capita income above $15000 and a growing penchant for consumerism” (81) made me cringe.  He emphasizes that we must set a better example, to redefine the American middle class lifestyle, and notes that Europe and Japan show that we can have this lifestyle with less consumption.  I grew up mostly in Japan, and for years this gave me some warped sense that I was different, not superior but somehow separate from my peers and the American lifestyle.  Looking back, however, it is clear that my family adapted to Japan quite well but only to the extent that it suited us.  We lived on the economy (off base) and hung our clothes outside to dry on racks and railings, which probably had less to do with our concern for energy savings and more to do with the futility of using our Japanese dryer.  It was about the size of an American microwave and in the humidity, about as useful for drying clothes. 

My city was always pretty stringent on waste management, and when I was in high school they began a system for neighborhood trash pickup where you had to buy specially marked clear plastic bags in three different sizes - the largest of which was probably as big as a pillowcase - and from the post office or convenience stores you had to purchase sheets of special stickers which had to be placed on the garbage bags in sets of one, two, or three based on the bag size.  There were also strict rules on sorting and the days you could drop off trash at the collection sites.  I'm embarrassed to say that after a few months of dutifully participating in this rather expensive but presumably efficient system, my mother gave up and had us use good old American black Hefty bags to corral our household trash, put it in the trunk of our car every week or so, and drive it to the base which for some reason was allowed to have dumpsters. Er, we still proudly sorted recyclables for our neighborhood collection.  When Friedman talks about Americans everywhere, I thus see it literally as well as in the sense of other cultures adopting our stereotypical lifestyle.  Our foundation and approach indeed continues to be flawed, and as Friedman concludes, "Unfortunately, instead of rethinking and redesigning what it means to be an American, in many areas we Americans are still intensifying, expanding, and plain old doubling down on our old energy-guzzling model" (86).

McKibben continues the uncomfortable examination with a discussion of a classic question on the Earth's carrying capacity and essentially whether we have an overpopulation problem or a maldistribution problem.  He doesn't let us off the hook as readers; on the whole we have large footprints and our academic pursuits don't always mesh with our lifestyles…but we do have the solutions, right?  "If they are politicians and engineers, they’re in favor of us living more efficiently – of building new cars that go much farther on a gallon of gas, or that don’t use gas at all. If they’re vegetarians, they support living more simply – riding bikes or buses instead of driving cars" (91).  As a LEED accredited vegetarian who has never owned a car, this one made me smile. McKibben knows his audience, and I somehow felt guilty for sitting in my apartment reading the book with my electricity and refrigerator and imported cheese.  I agree with McKibben's premise that changes to the consumer lifestyle are difficult both for the embedded cultural ties and for the fact that many of us don't feel rich, which is a relative and subjective notion.  We still have to do something about it.

Assadourian delves further into consumerism as a cultural construct and the history that has shaped our society into the current model.  It's not easy to undo years of such conditioning, but as he asserts: "Considering the social and ecological costs that come with consumerism, it makes sense to intentionally shift to a cultural paradigm where the norms, symbols, values, and traditions encourage just enough consumption to satisfy human well-being while directing more human energy toward practices that help to restore planetary well-being." (104). This seems to align well with the Brundtland definition of sustainability, meeting the needs of the present without sacrificing the needs of the future, but will Assadourian's cultural pioneers be enough? Are there enough people willing to lead this shift, and do we have enough time? The pioneer image is inspiring to be sure, but it is easy to be pessimistic and lament the scores of consumers (yes, I used the term to refer to people in general) unwilling or unprepared for change.  I'd like to think I'm still separate from this, enlightened and eager to participate in shaping new cultural norms, but I am still a product of a culture and I still have my own identity to develop and question individually. If you're doing nothing, you think you should be doing something. If you're doing something, you wonder if it's enough. I'm not sure it's ever enough.

Tierney finishes out the section on a seemingly positive note that only made me more pessimistic.  A proponent of the [environmental] Kuznets curve, he is clearly of the market liberal worldview that (simply put) if we keep getting richer, we'll also be greener.  I find the arguments associated with the Kuznets curve to be simplistic and applicable only to environmental measures directly linked to human health. As Tierney points out, when incomes go up people start to focus on things like clean drinking water and hazardous air pollutants (107) and other efforts that improve quality of life.  This is great, but Tierney (and the Kuznets curve) glide over other environmental issues that don't fit into a nice curve - namely carbon emissions. Tierney mentions this outlier in an attempt to be balanced, but is optimistic that we "seem to be near the top of a Kuznets curve for carbon emissions and ready to start the happy downward slope” (107).  As if we're poised to start caring more as long as we get raises every year, and carbon emissions will finally fit into the bell curve without us really thinking about it. I disagree with this, and on Tierney's assumption that "in the long run, a Kuznets curve is more reliable than a revolution." I think that's just an excuse to do nothing, which none of us can afford.

Moving on from Nicholson and Wapner, McNeill gives us an overview of the growth and energy changes across human history as well as the oddity of the twentieth century.  The achievements our species has made in an explosion of growth came with both a social and an environmental price (7). In discussing the advent of the fossil fuel age and its widening of a wealth gap, I found it odd that McNeill juxtaposes it as "a good thing if one prefers to see some people comfortable instead of almost all locked in poverty, but it is a bad thing if one prefers equality" (16). I understand the core of this argument, but he makes it seem like some people have metal roofs while some have mud.  I'm not trying to be a bleeding heart or demand that people fly their private jets over the developing world and throw out bags of cash, but after all we've read on consumerism I think the wealth gap constitutes a bit more than "some people [are] comfortable."

We finish off with Clapp and Dauvergne's introduction to their four main overviews on environmental change and the global economy: "market liberals, institutionalists, bioenvironmentalists, and social greens." I've read discussions by other authors on similar paradigms with different names, and agree with the authors' note that these are "ideal" categories that can each provide their own insights, that one's individual ideology can overlap categories, and that there is a range of debates within these worldviews as well as amongst them.  I myself feel rather pragmatic and can fit pieces of my evolving ideology into more than one paradigm. After reading the descriptions of the different views, it is easy to start trying to classify an author of another book or article into one of the categories - as I did with Tierney.  This can be enlightening as an exercise to identify common themes and read more into the author's interpretation of facts or their agenda, but it can be limiting as well.  Not everything fits so neatly into one box, and if we assume we know what an author is trying to achieve, we may miss their nuances or in some cases the entire point altogether.  I find Clapp and Dauvergne's categories to be a useful tool and very helpful for analysis of my own and others' ideas, but not the only tool available in critical analysis.