Plagued with hamsters whilst muddling through

How interesting to read Cradle to Cradle during a holiday weekend where we celebrate gratefulness in overeating, then go out and trample one another for the cheapest electronics that will last about a year so we can throw them out and do the same thing over again.  Don't get me wrong, I love Thanksgiving, and I even ventured out mid-morning on Black Friday...and bought sock yarn and darning needles so that I can learn to fix holes in my socks.  I'm not trying to be condescending or anything; I actually think this holiday weekend that epitomizes the extreme of American consumption is becoming oversaturated.  More and more of us see how ridiculous it is, and it is a smaller percentage who are still lining up at 3am to get more stuff.  I say this anecdotally, perhaps it's just part of my "downshift moment" as De Young and Princen would call it.  Those around me are reaching this moment as well, whether it is in the realization that we don't want or need more "stuff" or in the realization that material goods seem trivial in comparison to focusing efforts on social justice.

So, back to the readings. If I've taken anything from this class, it is that a healthy amount of skepticism must accompany analysis of solutions to environmental problems.  We've read specific critiques of McDonough and Braungart's views, but it is still refreshing to see a positive paradigm.  The authors address the theme of conflicting ideas around growth; many of our class readings have likened it to cancer.  The image of the massive hamster haunts my thoughts.  McDonough and Braungart distinguish types of growth.  In children and nature, we see growth as beautiful.  In industry and areas where growth is for its own sake, we want it limited.  Some growth we want and some we do not want.  This is agreeable, although they do not address how even the positive framing of growth must eventually come to an end.  Children stop growing, and the hamster does not inherit the earth.  Perhaps from there the "good growth" comes in ideas and intellectual growth, but the authors do not specify this.  

After so many weeks of thinking about impending doom, I am once again cautious of a so-called world of abundance.  It is certainly appealing.  The authors seem part of a system reforming view, wherein people can thrive if we reshape our culture and paradigms on design and do away with the concept of waste.  It would at least feel less stressful.  They point out: "When the choice is consistently between the frying pan and the fire, the chooser is apt to feel helpless and frustrated, which is why a more profound approach to redesign is critical." (170).  At the same time, it feels like as end users we are being absolved of some responsibility here. If only the choices were 100% good instead of "less bad," we could stop feeling wracked with guilt. But we still want what we want, and will deal with the negative feelings about it or do without.  Their arguments resonate somewhat, but do not do away with my general discomfort.  I suppose for my community and for myself, I like De Young and Princen's concept of "adaptive muddling" at this point.  Not only does it sound like exactly what we are all doing anyway, in an adorably bumbling way, but it gives one the chance to solve problems for ourselves, in a relevant context.  Forget being presented with better choices, let's make our own.

Everything's gonna be all right?

Hello anyone reading this. 
Prepare yourself for a train. A train of thought. 
A stream. A stream of consciousness. 

To preface, I am both enamored with and confused by (confused as to whether or not it is the 'right' solution) the whole cradle to cradle idea… I agree with downsizing… 

For me (in case this hasn't been obvious) it's all about some kind of fundamental truths and human nature. I am possibly operating out of the mind set that there is some kind of greater power, shhhh don't tell anyone. It just seems like everything fits together so neatly. Sure, it may simply be the case that this wonderful Earth system came about after a huge number of different random variations, and this is the only way it all goes together. Also there is the issue that the only reason I perceive things being put together in the 'right way' is because I, as a human, am able to comfortably exist in it. I guess in some ways assuming that things are correct is assuming that the Earth was made for people. Just because Venus doesn't have any aware beings that we know of, is it less? I'm just musing here, but humans are undoubtedly a part of the Earth (unless there is some sort of alien situation that I am unaware of… ooh but that would make for an interesting story), so we're a part of the Earth, as is evolution, we have evolved to have this beautiful, complex brain and have created so many things with it to make our lives 'easier' and 'better.' It seems that our brains, which are natural (whatever that means) would encourage us to function in a way that works with the environment from whence we have arisen. From this it seems perhaps something has gone wrong with our brains, everything was made to fit perfectly together, the infinite possibilities came together and produced this, but one of the outcomes it turns out was faulty… and it's us… I am inclined to think that common sense and morals should lead us to operate in a way that works with nature. 

Earlier in the semester I got this crazy idea that I told myself I wouldn't share for fear of ridicule but I throw caution to the wind. I should preface this with the note that all of my surmising rests on less than well informed grounds. 

Alors. 

Basically it seems to me that all of the major world religions - Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu (and any others I'm missing)- rest on the same moral grounds. We could collect a lot of the moral codes from these religions and we would see some very strong parallels (again, I haven't actually done thing myself). I wonder if we had truly stuck to these moral codes what the world would look like, I am inclined to believe that we would be living in a more environmentally friendly place. Erik Assadourian said that he believed we need some kind of environmental religion, I don't know if this is where he was coming from, or if he was more acknowledging the fact that people require some kind of religion to follow for social reasons, or what exactly. I really must read more of his thoughts on this. Anyway, the point is all of these world religions arose independently (kind of), and they all acknowledge similar things, as did the Ancient Greeks… I can't really speak for their Mythology though, there was some funky stuff going on there… Native Americans have some interesting ideas as well. So all of this for me seems 'natural' to some extent…. 

The catalyst for all of this were two phone conversations- A few weeks ago I spoke with one of my best friends on the phone and she expressed the idea that humanity is small, and the Earth is large, and nothing we can do can really harm the Earth. This view greatly distressed me. A few weeks later I spoke to my mother and she expressed a similar view point. "The Earth has been through all of this before, ice ages, warming, meteorites, and it is always fine, it always adjusts." I felt a kind of depression creeping up, then I probed deeper and I realized that we were approaching the situation differently. What my mother (and I assume my friend) meant was that the Earth would be fine through global warming, people and animals might go extinct but the planet would still be there, basically until the Sun dies. Fair point. This seems to come down to definitions, as things so often do with me. What is the Earth? What are we fighting for when we fight for the planet? The Earth has always been the Earth right? Even before people existed. We're fighting for the inhabitants of the Earth, we're fighting for morals, we're fighting for a happier planet in terms of the living beings and systems supported by this chuck of molten magma and rock we're floating around on. We're fighting for fairness. 

Balance is important, intuition is important, acting on what you know to be right and just is good, and getting all tangled up in detail and then never acting on anything isn't good, but it is important to take a step back and make sure everything is lined up right. I can't say that I've really figured out that everything is lined up correctly but at the very least I've analyzed things a bit more. 

And on that very unfinished, unpolished note I leave you my friends. 

China. The new Taylor Swift.

Call me hipster but China has always been a little mainstream for me. 

Everyone I talk to is interested in China-US Relations. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the significance of China in the world today, and I've always been glad that people are interested in it. It is just that China never really lit my inner fire. Of course as a naturally inquisitive person who is easily interested in almost anything I should have known that a fascination with China and its role in the world was only the introduction of a book away. Shapiro's integration of culture, history, society with environmental issues and policy was truly enlightening to read. 

One thing I have been struck by recently is this perception that because China is supposed to be communist they can just tell their people what to do and they will do it. This seemed somewhat ignorant to me, and after reading this and listening to Dr. Shapiro talk about China my opinion is even more set. I saw a clip from a documentary a while ago, it showed a truck driver illegally giving rides to people in the bed of her truck. A uniformed man saw the truck with the bed full of people and tried to tell the lady that she couldn't give rides like that, the woman berated the officer, I mean she scolded him like a child. If I remember correctly she was even waving something in her hand, like a rolled up piece of paper, which we swatted the officer with before getting back in her vehicle and driving off with her truck bed full of passengers. While I was reading reports on the recent U.S. - China agreement I actually read precisely that many American's think that China can just tell their people what to do and they'll do it, but in fact this is not the case. A few days after I read this I was in my Economics class and we got into a discussion on the topic and a student actually raised her hand and said that China had a lot of power over their people and could just order them to follow the new pollution rules... 

One of the biggest things I came away with from all this China talk was that the power in China doesn't really lie with the government. It lies somewhere in between the government and the lower classes. This reminds me somewhat of learning about the emergence of the merchant class in the U.S. and Europe, there are many gaps in the parallels but it is nevertheless brought to mind. There are certainly similarities in contemporary United States. Popular documentaries such as Food Inc. and Merchants of Doubt do a great job of highlighting the close knit relationship between big businesses and the government, I think we can see something fairly similar in China, and a certain kind of capitalism takes root there. With the sort of 'dash it all! We will be a huge beautiful developed country attitude regardless of what we have to do to get there!' attitude of China, they might actually have less control of what their people are doing that the United States. After all, as we read in Shapiro's book China has some of the best environmental laws in the world, yet the levels of pollution in China are jaw dropping, particularly from an American standpoint. What's going on here? In the U.S. there are certainly a large number of issues, and we as noted in the book, export a lot of our pollution causing industries. Nevertheless as jaded and skeptical as I am about the U.S. and environmental regulation policies I am sometimes made aware that there are actually some policies in place that function quite well. This doesn't seem to be the case in China. It doesn't really seem to me that China is going to be able to simply and smoothly reach their part of the goal, as seems to be the opinion of some people. 

The United Staes of America and the People's Republic of China are unquestionably two of the most powerful states today, the question in terms of environmental policy and the recent agreement is are they more powerful that the polluting industries that have given them so much of the power. 

So long and thanks for nothing.

I was so very inspired yesterday as I arrived for work.  50-60 students amassed outside the AU boards breakfast meeting to no so gently remind them whom they represent. I watched over the course of the last few months, people committed to an idea, acting on behalf of something much bigger than themselves. I watched the nervous excitement of anticipated action in the face of power with real potential to endanger themselves. I’ve watched raw emotion pour into the conversations surrounding the issue of divestment and climate change. I have seen Native American people speak of how the fossil fuel industry is further endangering their way of life and spiritual connection to this one and only planet we share. I have also watched those very same Native American gentlemen confront the most powerful forces in this country by civilly disobeying an unjust system and in response were “escorted” to jail.  And in the course of all this, I have also see the expected responses from a society that has not quite evolved fully enough to comprehend the magnitude of the conversation that is taking place before their very eyes.

While cautiously observing and showing silent support for the movements rally on Monday, where a hundred committed warriors braved the arctic wind and rain to inspire involvement and reaffirm devotion to the cause of divestment, two less than subtle students watching the performance could be overheard snickering “this is so stupid.” American University is one of the most politically active campuses in the country and yet the majority of the student population has casually observed this movement on a broad spectrum from mild disinterest to outright hostility. People I know that are not your typical “head in the sand” types are too self involved or dispassionate to give a shit. Yesterday I watched the American University Board of Trustees, which membership reads like a Fortune 500 list, vote NOT to divest away from fossil fuels because they said that it would be too risky. Too RISKY.  The power of money, Wall St., invested interests has spoken from their Upper West Side apartments, from their Bethesda McMansions, and Brown Stone walk-ups. They have spoken for their Porsche Cayenne’s and Mercedes Benz S-Class sedans that inconspicuously dotted the campus yesterday. They have decided their brunches of exotic foods and imported wines far too tasty to be forgotten. They spoke wrapped in their designer clothes made from in factories by people presented with no other option for work.  They spoke from their electronic devices made of natural resources from someone else’s backyard, brought here to only be discarded in a few years time when a “new” toy can bring them a fleeting moment of happiness. It is too risky they say.

They’re right.

Everything they spoke for might disappear. That is risky. They can cloak it by claiming student services and tuition would be affected. The scare you argument. They can continue to fool themselves into thinking this is the only way and that these “kids” don’t know what they’re talking about. The you’re too naiveté argument. Or they can pull out some legal text and interpret it any way they see best’s suits their needs. The it’s the law argument. But let’s be clear about one thing. It’s all total bullshit. This group of individuals is heavily invested in a system of exploitation of the worlds poor and weak and they are using all these other arguments into justifying to themselves and each other that this is the best course of action. They probably honestly do feel like it will all just go away if we were to move away from fossil fuels.  Comments like “We’re not there yet” or the “World’s not ready” dominate this kind of thinking.  Statements like this are heard every time there is a systemic changing potential out there. Idiots. We’ve never gone away. In fact we’re stronger and better off for all the major changes that we as a country have made in the face of severe injustice; The Revolution, The Civil War, Women’s Suffrage, and Civil Rights.

So here is what I say to the Board.  You are wrong. You are on the wrong side of history. Most of you will hopefully come to recognize this in your lifetimes. There is a drum beating just below the surface. You may not recognize it now, but you have critically wounded more people than you think you have helped by this vote. You are all cowards.

To tie into this weeks readings… China wants everything the Board voted for this week.  And why shouldn’t they? They deserve it.  They have worked very hard for it.

But they can’t have it. At least not the way it is structured now. But neither can we.

I see China as this crazy not so microcosm of where the world is headed. Particularly in regards to population. They are showing no imagination in their pursuit of the almighty buffet of brunch possibilities. This is worrisome.

Future from the past: Navdanya's alternative imagination

I ended my last blogpost with a question whether the current environmental movements show us alternative path to the future. In this regard, here I discuss about an organization called Navdanya which has a radically different imagination for the future of agro-food system. It is a program of Vandana Shiva's participatory research initiative Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) in the foothills of the Himalaya. For those who are closely following global politics of seed and agro-ecology, Shiva's name should be enough to get a sense of principles of the organization. My personal acquaintance with Shiva's writing goes back to early 2000s when I was developing my interest on environmental justice issues in South Asia. Her powerful writings and passionate engagements in environmental politics, particularly on green revolution, eco-feminism, seed politics and bio-piracy were keys to understand political-economy of natural resource in the global south. As we talk about alternative imagination for the future, Navdanya's work offers a way forward that is locally instituted and indigenous knowledge-based agro-ecological system.

Right after the Chipko movement, Navdanya originates in the mid 1980s when there was growing political and ecological violence in India, e.g. Punjab riots and Bhopal disaster. Bhopal disaster was itself an ecocide whereas Shiva finds roots of Punjab's Shikh nationalism to the green revolution, which was creating winners and losers and breeding discontents among Shikhs (Shiva, 1992, Violence of Green Revoluton). Navdanya emerged as a result of non-violent resistance to the corporate control of agro-economy. It has now become a network of seed keepers and organic producers across India. It has established several seed banks in the country, trained farmers and promoted direct marketing of their produce. It has stressed on alternative science of socio-ecological system.

Navdanya has focused its work on five areas: (1) Earth democracy that includes seed sovereignty, food sovereignty, water sovereignty and land sovereignty; (2) climate change and its impacts on biodiversity and agriculture in the Himalaya; (3) women for diversity (movement and grandmothers' university); (4) organic movement, a call for a shift from suicidal economy to living economy, that includes organic production, organic certification, fair trade and organic products; (5) Bija Vidhyapeeth, school of seeds or Earth university, a learning center in Uttarakhand, India.

Navdanya has furthered its activities in terms of campaigns, events, publications, learning centers and organic farming practices. It has already organized several campaigns such as soil not oil, save a seed, start an organic garden, GMO free, biopiracy, bija-satyagraha (seed as a force of truth), jaiv panchayat (grassroot democracy, of all life, in everyday life), right to food and seed sovereignty. All of these activities in the leadership of Vandana Shiva and her national and international network have made the organization effective at the national and global level. She has become a globally renowned environmental activist to fight against corporate control of biodiversity. Therefore leadership, network, activities and most importantly its principles are keys to identify the organization.

Navdanya's name itself hints its principles. Navdanya literally means nine seeds (dhanya= seeds) and "nine gifts" (dana= donation / gift) and therefore symbolizes seeds as ultimate gift of life for continuity and heritage embedded in biological and cultural diversity. Navdanya imagines sustainability in the ecological system that develops from local knowledge and practice and aims at protecting agro-biodiversity, local farmers, and their framing system. It challenges existing knowledge and political system and strongly counters the current trend of corporatisation and privatization of the food and agro-system. The organization gives importance to the women's leading role to move toward sustainability. It embraces several Gandhian notions like non-violent resistance of satyagraha (force of truth), swaraj (sovereignty) and traditional knowledge and practice based economy.   

Peace Boat. It's exactly what it sounds like.

"Doing good environmental work." That is such a vague qualification, I'm sure by design.  It is intriguing to see how people interpret such criteria and choose just one organization to fulfill it.  In any case, I chose an international NGO that I learned about ten years ago but I haven't followed their work much since.  It's called Peace Boat and it is headquartered in Japan.  I actually read about it in a book I bought at fifteen called Delaying the Real World and I wanted to volunteer on it since it would have been easy to get to Yokohama at that time.  Sadly, I turned 18 and came to America for college instead and now it's a much further trip to Japan.

But back to Peace Boat.  "Peace Boat is a Japan-based international non-governmental and non-profit organization that works to promote peace, human rights, equal and sustainable development and respect for the environment." (Explore here)  It sounds broad, but the organization does have a number of varying projects related to each of these areas.  What makes it unique and innovative is their chosen medium for change and the philosophy behind it.  They have a strong focus on education and advocacy programs for social and political change, and are historically and operationally entrenched in the civil society part of the triangle.  Peace Boat's main activities occur on "peace voyages" taken around the world on a charter boat.  "The ship creates a neutral, mobile space and enables people to engage across borders in dialogue and mutual cooperation at sea, and in the ports that we visit."  They also have a number of land-based centers for regional work around East Asia.  The ports for each voyage are chosen based on local partnerships and the potential for social and educational programs rather than mainstream commercial interests.  The organization puts a strong emphasis on participation, partnerships, hands-on learning and people-to-people contact as necessary for shaping change in the world.  I find their use of the ship as a way to break down borders as particularly unique.

Peace Boat's history, mission, and main principles make it an effective organization in their goals for change.  Its first voyage was organized by Japanese university students in 1983 as a way to learn about the effects of past wars on other countries in the region.  Japan had a policy of censorship regarding its military history, and this was a way for the students to learn firsthand and foster the people-to-people connection.  Some other main facets of Peace Boat include volunteerism, financial self-sustainability (the organization is funded completely by the people who participate in peace voyages), horizontal working systems, mobilizing people for civil society movements, and remaining unaffiliated from any political or religious group.

Tying this organization into the themes and paradigms of our class, I believe that Peace Boat as an entity would be close to a social green and a system reformer.  The organization shuns traditional media and has a strong focus on social justice and reforms.  While they are involved in a number of environmental projects (such as Galapagos reforestation), people and social issues within sustainability are the focus of Peace Boat.  The organization is a system reformer because it works toward social and political change in innovative ways and civil society movements.  Clearly is apart from "business-as-usual" activities, but it works within existing structures and frameworks.  For instance, it often partners with local advocacy and volunteer organizations at its ports, but it also partners with the United Nations on a number of projects and has its own Peace Boat Millenium Development Goals campaign.

I did not go into depth on the specific projects and voyage activities of Peace Boat, but this should give a general overview into its type of work and paradigms.  Its grassroots beginnings, continuity in operations, global focus with local action, and creative people-based methods of program delivery are all elements that we could explore in seeking to make effective change.  Every organization has its own specific focus and can't "do it all" necessarily, but examining the values and structure of an organization can help us understand what ways we would like to influence the world.

The tireless struggle

The organization that I came across through this weeks research is called the climate justice alliance (http://www.ourpowercampaign.org/cja/). Their focus is to combine forces of similar like minded organization working at the very local level on the front lines (or fence line as they like to say) to build on the growing movement around systems change. They are view climate change as the overarching theme that drives many of the major problems within societies i.e. affordable housing shortages, education disparity, wealth inequality, access to reliable infrastructure, equitable pay, and a whole swath of other issues.  Most of these local level fights are rooted in Indigenous, African American, Latino, Asian Pacific Islander, and working-class white communities throughout the U.S. They view the world as facing two interconnected and interrelated systemic crisis; economic and ecological. To address one without the other is impossible. Their belief is that it is possible to make a calculated transition to a more economically just system if local communities are ecologically rooted and committed to power without pollution and energy without injustice.

I think that a lot of their strength comes from this idea of trying to build the political perspective of their alliances.  There are so many organizations across the country that are working on the same issues that need to be working together and use the national cohesiveness as their strength.  People are beginning to see these issues as systemic malfunctions and are willing and able to come up with ideas for alternative practices.  As the problems are all rooted in the same cause, it is healthy to assume that many of the solutions that work in one area may very well work in others.  This network of knowledge/information sharing is essential to the success of a movement like this.  CJA works to connect groups and encourage joint or shared action. From this comes an element of motivation that may not be present otherwise. Liking it to the bonding that takes place between soldiers in war may be extreme, but similarities do exist.  

This organization is definitely looking to transform and entire system to address not only ecological concerns but also economic ones.  I would say that the are bringing it to the forefront the social green theory on how to deal with the current crisis that humanity seems to find itself in.  I get the sense that many of these organizations have been on the fence lines for a very long time.  As the conversation of local economies has moved into the mainstream, I imagine there is some sort of vindication and satisfaction with their years of hard work.  I almost see this organization has not only a driver of that conversation but also a sort of liaison between like minded peoples.  With the effort focused on bringing together these conversations and joining forces, they are helping to ensure that “issue ambassadors” are well prepared and equipped to go back into their communities and spread the word of the “eco gospel.”  The kind of power they’re trying to build across all those different domains is to have these local strategies but [they] are connected across communities through a unified vision, shared strategies and common frames. I read an interview with the organization’s leadership team and one of the most interesting quotes I found was this: “for us it's never just been about the mobilization. It is as important how we build the road to the mobilization, and actually more importantly what happens afterward.”  In terms of a take away, this would probably be the biggest one.  From a practical standpoint this is a much more difficult task than getting 400,000 people to take to the streets.  That is why I think, despite the major efforts being made on the national and international stage (especially in the past few weeks) it is important that local level involvement and sustained action is important, if not more so.  

I know at times, very often in fact, being a part of smaller organizations that address local issues seem small and insignificant.  But knowing that there are others just like you all across the country/world lends a strong sense of purpose to one’s efforts.  It is important to remember and to remind that this is a lifetime effort.  Change will not come in days, weeks, months, years, or even decades.  But rather it will come maybe by the end of one's lifetime if lucky, but most likely this will be a generational struggle that is forced to push the cart up the hill slowly but relentlessly. 

Klean, Mean, Green, Kanteens

In light of my last post regarding my utter lack of trust or faith in the ability of large companies and corporations to behave in a truly environmentally friendly way, I've chosen this week to respond to the blog topic in a manner I find counter intuitive. I will look specifically at a corporation that is doing good environmental work (so they say). I'm giving them a chance, and trying to broaden my mind - with an enourmous amount of doubt and hesitation. So thanks in part to what I learned this semester about Patagonia, I looked up other companies that are similar to Patagonia and I found a list online. This list of 10 green compaies (with Patagonia at the top) is almost entirely composed of companies that produce items that are connected with an 'outdoorsy/active lifestyle' in some way- the exception being ChicoBag, a company that creates a wide array of reuseable bags, and Super Green, a solvent free liquid cleaner. I suppose that observation isn't too surprising. I certainly wonder if these companies are 'posers' who have simply found a niche market to serve those environmentally conscious consumers out there. Or if in fact the care for the environment expressed by these companies is actually generated internally. But, I'm not here to 'out' anyone. Despite my tendencies I'm going to take a look at what is being done for the environment by a corporation with an eye searching for the good rather than the suspicious.

The corporation I'm going to consider is Klean Kanteen. On a very basic level Klean Kateen offers something positive for the envrironment simply through the creation of its product- a reuseable BPA free waterbottle, thus minimizing (hopefully) the use of plastic water bottles- and stopping/slowing the grown of the trash island(s). In fact Klean Kanteen was around before the media blew up with all of the bad news about BPA (which you would think would have been removed from all plastic bottles by now, but such is this world), and trash island, which signifies a certain inherent care for these issues. They are a member of 1% for the planet and Certified B Corporations. As a member of 1% for the planet they give 1% of their annual sales to nonprofits. 1% for the planet has 1,200 member companies and 3,300 participating non profits. They deal with a variety of issues- Alternative Transportation, Climate Change, Food, Land, Water, and Wildlife. Certified B Corporations are corporations that have been “certified by the nonprofit B Lab to meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performanc, accountability, and transparency.” There are more than 1,000 Certified B Corporations from 33 countries and over 60 industries. The goal of these corporation is to “redefine success in business.” They are trying to use the power of business to solve social and environmental problems (patagonia is a B Corp). Klean Kanteen is a family owned business. They do seem to be quite transparent, they even have an 'Inside Klean' tab on their home page that leads to information on their business practices, history and goals. The top post on their blog is 'Why Protect Our Oceans.' It is heartening to see all of this, and the fact that the participants in the 1% and B Corps projects are in the very low thousands actually adds some validity for me. If they had too many participants I would really find their claims hard to believe. Obviously a majority of the corporations in the world do not have an environmental focus, and do not donate 1% of their annual profits to better the planet. I suppose I would have to label this as a Market Liberal/Bioenvironmental movement. These people are very much working with the capitalist system, they are using the power of corporations to benefit the environment. It is notable that while well known, none of the member organizations are the really big ones- no Wal-Mart, no Proctor and Gamble. Thinking back to Peter Dauvergne's talk (and co authored article), 'Can Wal-Mart Save the World?' I think this is a more practical approach to the question. In my option Wal-Mart can save the world, but Wal-Mart will not save the world, these smaller corporations however, they actually might save the world (not on their own, but as a part of a much broader movement). It seems to me that a lot of people in our program view the business approach as invalid... or maybe it's just me.. but I think this kind of action widens the spectrum of opportunities. There are actually viable business approaches, ways to marry buisness and environmental activism (of sort).

As Americans, as human citizens of this globalized world (is it still globalizing? Should I say 'globalizing world? I suppose it both is globalized and globalizing... but I digress), anyway, as I was saying, we live in this particular culture and while we all care about the environment, we all have different visions of our future paths. Some are called to a life of activism in a variety of forms- NGOs, Non-profits, vagabond protestors climbing trees and off shore oil rigs. Others want to go into a government job, some want to go into the corporate world. We know where the money is, and some people want to fulfill the 'american dream' of making a lot of it. I feel that if you're an environmentalist who wants to go into the corporate world, you need to know your business, know your company, that way you can do good work in good faith. Unless of course you have some kind of Master plan to overthrown/rehaul one of those big ole money loving corporations, in that case more power to you.

Also while I believe in the need for a paradigm shift and for sacrifices to be made by the Western World, I also think that we need to ease into it. You don't generally shock people into changing their view, it happens slowly. This kind of business practice, of viewing businesses as things that are inherently good for the environment, this is a positive shift, if only because it brings environment into the conversation. 

(Please note, all opinions and comments are subject to change, and the author should not be held to them)

Youre not the only one with mixed emotions

As I have been doing research for my paper and for the sustainability video project we did this week, and just generally talking to people, I've run across some interesting and confusing perspectives on environmental issues. We're focusing on Climate Change for the next few weeks, and it's great because as terrible as it sounds, I have been needing some reconfirmation that the dire state of the environment, is actually as dire as I have been holding it to be, and as all roads lead to climate change it's the perfect source of reconfirmation. 

This week I went around campus (with the assistance of my classmate Gab) and interviewed a handful of people about their views of environmental issues. Many of the people I spoke with were students, but there was also a prospective student and a staff member. All but one of the students I spoke to, as expected, admitted concern for the environment. For me the most striking response came from the staff member I spoke with. I've been particularly interested as of late in perceptions of environmentalism, and of nature, and humanity's role and place in regard to nature. I discovered that Western thought places nature as something separate from man. The staff member I spoke with is Chinese, and he informed me that in fact in China they view man as a part of nature. He also informed me that in Chinese landscape artwork you will always find some indication of mans presence. Whether a human figure or a dwelling or tool, there is always something human. 

This got me thinking about how these two differing perspectives on nature and man might lead a person to view environmental issues differently, and how China and the US are both guilty of large amounts of pollution. Viewing the environment as something as separate from mankind may make you see the environment as something in a box, something that exists between the cities, something we can go visit. This view may give the impression that we have no effect on nature, but it may also make people see nature as something we should take care of, something that we need to protect. On the other hand viewing nature as something humanity is a part of may impress upon people the fact that if nature is deteriorating so too are we, and what we do individually has an effect on the whole. However, it seems that the way this staff member viewed things was more along the lines of- humans are a part of nature, so what we do is natural, and everything that is happening is natural. I most recently encountered this point in an article in which Michael Pollan interviewed a group of environmentalists, and it struck me to hear it again in this context. As my interviewee explained his view of current environmental issues, I grew perplexed… in my heart of hearts I know what we are doing and allowing to happen to the environment, and to our fellow human beings is wrong. However, I saw very clearly his point. I didn't discuss climate change with any of the people I spoke with, and no one brought it up, but I did mention biodiversity issues in my conversation with this staff member (I actually started having a conversation with him after asking him my questions), I mentioned the vast number of species going extinct. In response he cited the past mass extinctions that occurred before man was around, I pointed out that the current extinctions were caused by us… and therefore weren't natural… then I found myself caught in my own Western view… for him these extinctions are natural because we are natural… but also because they've happened before. 

I've mentioned before that it's important to remember that we are in a bubble, our environmental discussions are not the norm, they are the exception. In the SIS building, on the AU campus, everyone else is busy and concerned with different issues. I think it is very important to remember this and to keep things in perspective.

In keeping things in perspective… I would like to pose a question, a simple question, one that the readings this week discuss in detail, and one which I think we need to keep in mind:  

What is Climate Change? I mean, at its core what does it entail? I am of the opinion currently (all of my opinions are very subject to change at any moment) that we, as people who care deeply about the environment, need to promulgate the issues and impress upon others how important this situation is. I'm also of the opinion that missonary work is unattractive and offensively obstrusive. So how do we do this? How do we share with others this view? Certainly not everyone will take to it regardless of how it is delivered, but I feel that there are plenty of people out there who would if it was introduced in the correct way. That being said, I havent quite figured out what that way is. However, one thing I really think we should do, and this might be controversial, but I think we should avoid using the terms 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming,' particularly when addressing Americans. These terms are highly politicized, and people will connect them immediately with a lot of things that will hinder rather than aid in the transference of the importance of environmental issues. By avoiding use of the term I in no way mean that we should avoid discussion of the situation. This is where my question comes in, we need to know exactly what climate change is and what it means that it is happening in order to share our sense of concern with others. Basically, climate change indicates that human actions have an impact on the environment, that human presence has grown so large that we are actually starting to shift and change things in the natural world (I am aware of the Western nature vs human implication in that statement), we can take this to other more basic levels as well… I haven't delved deep enough into this yet to figure out exactly how I think this should be framed, but you get my point, right? 

Ok that's enough of my rambling jumbled every confused thoughts and opinions for now. a plus mecs.

Prosperity Amidst Chaos

"While scientists are converging toward consensus on future climate projections, uncertainty remains. But this cannot be an excuse for delaying action." – Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Report by the Defense Department.

Hagel, a main contributor to the Kyoto Kill Bill back in ’97 has definitely altered his tune. Much of that has to do with the fact that he is no longer tied to a conservative constituency and the fact that we works for a president that in some ways may be staking his presidency on an international climate treaty in Paris in 2015. More likely, as secretary of defense, he now views the world through very different shades of grey than he once did.  The responsibilities to defend, and prepare to defend the United States lay directly on his shoulders, and one must imagine that this is a very heavy burden to bear.  Whatever the reason is, Hagel “gets it” that the United States must prepare for low probability, high consequence risk.

Like all phenomenal catastrophes, climate change not only presents monumental challenges, but also grand opportunities.  Countries boarding the Arctic Circle recognize this.  Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, all traditionally more pacifist than not, are following suit with the likes of Russia. They are using precious national treasure to hedge their bets that climate change will present an opportunity to exploit energy resources in previously unobtainable areas.  International relations tell us that countries rarely do things for altruistic purposes.  The world is too large and complex and resources too finite to go sinking them into every potential conflict or net gain scenario. On the surface the moves made by these northern neighbors seem to be more self serving than the comments and potential actions that Hagel mentions for the United States.  One must then ask what it is Hagel and the military industrial complex views as the potential gain for the United States in preparing for climate change? A simple answer is mere stability.

Gidden points out that despite the huge strides that have been made toward the millennium development goals, particularly in regards to the elimination of poverty, there are still huge swaths of people living on this planet that are just below or just at the subsistence poverty line.  It is well known and documented that although these groups did not produce the majority of the carbon in the oceans and atmosphere, they are the most vulnerable to the consequences it will bring. These consequences range from droughts and floods to mass starvation and migrations. It is possible that the U.S. recognizes these events will bring about and even more chaotic world and that the best way to prepare to continue in its role as a global power broker is to maintain stability for its economic and political structures. The disconnect then, in my mind, is how one can view these events as potential risks and feel that the need for preparing for them outweighs or is more valuable than the need for mitigating them altogether. To ask it simply, is a chaotic world with few states of relative stability more valuable and prosperous for the United States than a world with a more widespread stability and economic prosperity?

Attention fatigue...and "gee-gees" does sound darkly hilarious.

I found it hard to focus on this week's material, and not just because I'm stressed that my mother came to visit and I'm trying to rush through this post and take her to the zoo or something.  See, along with all my usual environment-related feelings of guilt and cognitive dissonance I've added hypocrisy.  In Gidden's discussion on risk perceptions, he highlight the difficulty of keeping a given risk in context and the prevalence of "attention fatigue."  I am well-versed and concerned about climate change issues, it is my field of study and tied to my potential career goals, and even I am not infallible to this attention fatigue and the "inclination to 'forget all about it and get on with ordinary life'" (34).  Hence, slogging through more of the same warnings and literature, missing the nuances because I feel so saturated with it, and packing up to go to the zoo.  My guilt and feelings that I am a hypocrite extend even further as I acknowledge that basically the entire point of my sustainability video (please don't watch it) was to get people to think about these problems that may seem futile or easy to ignore in their complexity and time insensitivity.

McKibben expands upon similar issues with the attitudes surrounding climate change.  As he puts it, "Most of us are fundamentally ambivalent about going green: we like cheap flights to warm places, and we're certainly not going to give them up if everyone else is still taking them" (43).  Well, at least when I flew to the Virgin Islands in August I was not falling prey to overstating the risks of flying.  I might have thought twice if I was going to Malaysia.  I'm not sure if my point here is that I perpetuate some of the very lifestyle choices that I objectively scorn in academic writing, or that we need to reshape our framing of risk messages.  But who wants to talk about climate change while we're all side-eyeing our airplane seat mates for ebola, anyway?

I suppose I'm just part of our "dithering" society - and that's the word of the week courtesy of Victor, who actually uses it twice in Global Warming Gridlock to lament our collective bumbling toward catastrophe.  When interests inform policy much more than science, how many more arguments can we make about the bottom line of two degrees, or the numbers of gigatons (who can even conceptualize gigatons??) or the absolute necessity of a low-carbon economy? The IPCC tells us we've got to stop using fossil fuels by 2100...and we all laugh at the news because we know our current political will and the interests shaping it are a juggernaut compared to such dire reports.  That's an "inconvenient number," like Victor said of the scientific assessment of a "safe" amount of ozone, and it's still true that we have little idea "how to get to zero in a politically feasible manner" (44).  We can just keep dithering over the effectiveness, or lack thereof, in UN climate talks while simultaneously giggling over the nickname "Gee-gees" (Giddens, 28-30) and deciding whether we should write "Fat Boy" or "Little Boy" on the side of our figurative carbon bomb and literal failures.

I'm going to the zoo now.

Science and politics of Carbon

I found David Victor's three myths around climate change namely science myth, environmental myth and technological myth interesting to understand climate change gridlock. However, Giddens' three major positions to climate change (page 27) such as skepticist, mainstream and catastrophist, have used all these myths in varying degree. Which position would be in the public discourse depends on larger political economy. Authors like McKibben has used some number facts to paint a scary picture of climate change. But question is, why such fact-based framing has not been able to influence the decision making process? This clearly stresses that, and Victor also suggests so, climate change is more than a science or environmental or technological issue. We have a gap between facts and values. Consensus in facts and science does not necessarily lead to the consensus in the values and in policy making. Here science seems only a part of policy making which rather incorporates broader contentious politics based on values and preferences. Therefore our efforts of developing some sorts of political instrument to govern climate change should go beyond the climate change science. We need more value and ethical framing of climate change than science-framing of climate change.

Victor offers three points to explain why it is so hard to control carbon dioxide emission: burning fossil fuel is intrinsic to the economy; there is time inconsistency that is costs of cutting emission are immediate where as the benefits, if any, are only due for the future; and carbon dioxide has longer life-time so that it can spread all over the globe and lead to the typical tragedy of global common. Beyond these reasons, some authors like Mitchell (2011) have argued that carbon is attached to our current dominant mode of political life what we call democracy. For him, current democracy is developed and survived because of industrial revolution and growth of capitalism that depended on carbon. Therefore, going beyond carbon based life-style would require alternative political-economic imagination. Are current environmental movements ushering us to that direction?

Reference

Timothy Mitchell. 2011. Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil. Verso.

A life of luxury

I don’t think that all hope is lost.  I don’t think that wrongs can’t be righted.  I don’t know if this “human experiment” will end in catastrophe for the species. I do think that things will get worse before they get better. And I’m not really sure that a small group of dedicated individuals has the power to change this course.  The ship is too big, and the trajectory too ridged. So what does this mean for how I live my life?

The collective and individual pulls are constantly a war within me. I know that more space and nicer “things” aren’t good for the whole, but I still want things.  This very simplistic description is a problem that few have the privilege of wrestling with. I am highly educated, well traveled, and lead a life of relative privilege. Privilege compared to the majority of the worlds population.  For most this struggle is nothing but a luxury of one of the greatest consumers and producers of environmental harm the earth has every seen. The problem is that the rest of the world struggles to be just like me. Well, not me per se, but like the life I am able to afford.  A life of comfort. And why shouldn’t they? I live a great life, all my needs are met. I have great housing with reliable water, heating, and electricity. I can afford to eat great food that is fresh and/or exotic. I can get around the place that I live without too much inconvenience. The air is clean. The water is relatively clean. Garbage is not in plain sight. Green space is abundant and available. And I take it all for granted most of the time.  What’s not to love?


For starters, it comes at a price. Not for me, but rather, for those in some of the places I have been fortunate enough to visit on my exotic holidays. It’s not like I am directly contributing to the heating not working during the wintertime in Nepal, but I have had an effect. It’s not like I polluted those rivers in Vietnam that children swam in, but my presence has been felt. And I know this. So again, I come back to the question; what does this mean for me? I know that those right here in this country that have not been as fortunate as me don’t know these things. So how can I fault them for their individual choices? I can’t. But all of those individual choices add up. As do those billions of choices in places like China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, and…. the list goes on. So can we right the ship? I don’t know.  Presently it doesn’t look like it. It would take huge technological breakthroughs, and the amount of time that it will take to change perspectives are a luxury we no longer have. 

 

So I come to the conclusion that I must live my life in the best most responsible way I can think of. Even if it does nothing in the short term, hopefully it will amount to something, anything in the long term. Knowing what I know, having seen what I have seen, it would immoral and unethical for me to live in any other way. This isn’t going to be easy. But I am willing to “sacrifice.”

I said it weeks back, we must reframe and rethink this idea of sacrifice. I do not feel like I have sacrificed anything to live the life I live. By taking an honest and objective view of my own footprint on this earth, I can say without any prejudice that I live a much more “European” existence than an “American” one. As a result I feel as if I have gained so much for the choices that I have made and feel sorry for those that don’t get to experience the simple joys that I feel on a day-to-day basis. Much of this has to do with the choice or riding a bike and public transportation. And I recognize that this isn’t possible for every person everywhere, but I do think that this simple solution has the ability to be a game changer here in the United States. This is what I think Wapner talks about his article “Sacrifice in the Age of Comfort.”  We need to rebrand and reframe this idea of giving something up. I didn’t give up a car, I gained fresh air, exercise, more money, less time spent sitting in traffic, easy exploration of the world around me, and a sense that I am living in a more sustainable way. A richer, more complete life if you will.

 

Environmental justice and ecological limits

Readings of this week have discussed environmental justice from the different levels and perspectives. Environmental movement is usually considered as a big global movement driven largely by inter-governmental and international non-governmental organizations. This is of course the most powerful strand of global environmentalism and it has implications all over the world. However, there are other strands of environmentalism distinct from the big globalocentric perspective. They have become more visible with the rise of climate change discourse. Assigned readings have helped delineate various strands of environmentalism and understand how they conceive or not conceive justice.

The first reading by Peter Singer has discussed inequities in climate change between countries in the global north and countries in the global south based on their historical contribution. This notion is closer to the developing countries' official notions of climate justice often reflected in "common-but-differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" approach. Such approach was supported by the CSE's seminal piece by Agarwal and Narain. They elaborated inequities between developed and developing countries in terms of environmental colonialism and argued for compensation to developing countries. This approach is still present very strongly in the global environmental politics. Although their position sounds closer to the Third World government's official position, they actually shared the Third World non-governmental perspectives. For example, at one point they have cautioned, "None of this means that India should not regenerate its environment nor that it should not become more efficient in its use of energy."

Besides the globalocentric perspective and developing countries' governmental and non-governmental perspectives, there are voices of several grass-root movements in the First World as well as in the Third World. Bullard echoed voices of USA's grass-root movements for environmental justice which is against environmental racism. This also applies to countries in the global south where exists other forms of discrimination and hence grass-root movements in response to such discrimination. Such grass-roots movements highlight the issue of identity like race (in USA) or caste (in South Asia), beside income and wealth, in the environmental movement discourse. It complicates the idea of justice that is solely based on redistribution of wealth and therefore demands for recognition of minority groups' unique issues in larger environmental movement. For example, Bullard argued that only the increase in income of a black household would not be adequate to overcome the problem of lead poisoning without addressing geographical segregation and housing discrimination. According to Bullard, mainstream environmental movement has hardly incorporated ideas of social justice. It is also true for developing countries where there was also a divergence between grass-root movement for social justice and environmental movement for protection of environment. To make this distinction conceptually clear, Guha and Martinez-Alier proposed concept of varieties of environmentalism, that is one of affluence and another of poor. According to them, the later one is more focused on defending environment for livelihoods, rather than simply protecting wilderness.

Seemingly overlapping with above two forms of environmentalism, Wapner has discussed two versions of environmentalism: pro-sacrifice and pro-comfort. Although his discussion is mostly based on developed countries, the obsession with the new Promethean environmentalism is even stronger in developing countries, where comfort oriented environmentalism is justified in terms of justice. This is clearly reflected in the official position of government of developing countries. Very recently, objective of comfort has helped to merge the official environmentalism of developing countries with that of developed countries. As a result, chances for a new global climate agreement has been increased. It is because of convergence of notions of win-win between economy and environment with the help of appropriate technology and policy choices. Therefore it is not clear whether so called perspectives of global south as argued by Singer and Agarwal and Narain, would remain as developing countries' official position since they are moving closer to the comfort-type environmentalism, rather than demanding for justice.

Change in the official environmentalism might have been shared by burgeoning middle class in those developing countries. However, it undermines justice to the vulnerable communities. For example we have seen several past and recent disasters, from Bhopalto the recent trends of droughts, storms, floods, as a result of increasing material aspiration without considering ecological limits. These incidences have put poor and marginalized people in more vulnerable situation. In such context, idea of sacrifice, which is still inherent in the vulnerable communities worldviews, should allow them platform to voice for environmental justice. For that sacrifice oriented environmentalism should connect with environmental justice movement and clarify several issues, for example where it stands on separation between human and nature; whether poor and marginalized people also need to make sacrifices to take care of nature and so on. Since things are rapidly changing in developing countries and aspiration for material wealth is growing, it is now urgent to establish the sacrifice-based environmentalism firmly at the global level and connect it strongly with the demand of environmental justice by vulnerable groups around the world.

Bhopal, Barriers, and Boundaries

Aside from the usual themes of general dismay and guilt, this week's readings were interwoven by a theme of barriers and boundaries.  In Nicholson and Wapner we touched upon the North-South divide, inequality, and environmental racism and injustice.  Whether you subscribe to either the historical or the time-slice principle as laid out by Singer, no one can disagree on the fact that there is and always has been inequity in who benefits and who pays the costs of environmental harms.  Agarwal and Narain focus in on this point in their chapter on "environmental colonialism," and while they highlight data discrepancies and clearly support a "polluter pays" principle, it is a bit sad that they perpetuate continuing the divide by concluding their arguments: "Who's future generations are we seeking to protect - the Western World's or the Third World's?" (237).  Granted, the Third World bears the burdens of this imposed divide and so this question is a reaction to injustices.  It is just saddening that the question is framed so that future generations are separate and the protection of the two groups is mutually exclusive.  I cannot argue that there is no divide or that actions and policies have been equal, I just think that this is not the future than we want.  The authors are forcing a choice that we should try to eliminate.

Koval gives an interesting perspective to the Bhopal disaster and a lens through which to examine a number of other environmental accidents and disasters. Here too we continue the theme of boundaries, now in regards to capital.  Koval argues that responsibility for the Bhopal disaster lies directly with Union Carbide, but indirectly within the capitalist system.  Essentially every factor that led to the release of poisonous gas into a community could be linked to Carbide trying to lower its costs as a result of system pressures for more profit (34) and a corporate culture that incentivizes putting profits before all else, including safety.  I have read a lot of literature on other "accidents" such as Deepwater Horizon and Rana Plaza as well as project management theories on operating in the high-risk realm of hazardous technologies and subsequent "normal accident" space, so it was intriguing to see how similar the factors leading up to each tragedy were.  As Koval says, "an "accident" is merely the statistically unpredictable end of a chain of circumstances" (36) and may point to a larger question of the destructiveness of the system itself in normal functioning.  Bhopal may be Koval's specific example, but the chain of circumstances and failures related to cutting corners and lowering costs are at the core of countless other "accidents" as well, from BP to the sinking of the Sewol ferry.  The fact that these individual catastrophes regardless of their location, industry, or type of operation, have such similar ties to costs and capital actually give Koval's arguments strength without the commonalities even needing to be explicitly stated.  He could create a new paradigm through which to analyze industrial and ecological disasters.  In any case, the author is ultimately a system transformer, claiming that we cannot survive in the capitalist system wherein money dissolves all relationships and ignores any boundary that cannot be monetized.  He sees the irony - and the struggle that most system transformers face - in the fact that this realization must work within the capitalist system that it seeks to tear down.  As an individual raised and living in the capitalist system, it is much easier to comprehend the evils of greed, blame companies for the repercussions of their callousness and cost-cutting for profits, and support action within the society that we have built.  Despite the images of a massive hamster that inherits (or inhales) the earth and the metaphor of growth as a cancer, limits seem so extreme and counterintuitive to all that we know.  For this, I appreciate Wapner's reframing of limits as freedom and environmental sacrifice as a "politics of more" rather than of less.  But can we collectively agree on this reframing?

All roads lead to communism...

As an undergrad I read a book titled The Corporation The Pathological Pursuit of Logic and Power by Joel Bakan. This book compares the corporation to a psychopath going through several points that define psychopaths and explaining how corporations are the same. The idea did not originate with this book but it was certainly made more famous through the book and documentary on the subject. The Corporation made a lot of sense to me, in fact it fell right in line with many of my beliefs. I am wary of being close minded, and getting caught up in only ideas that fall in line with my personal view of the world. I seek opposing views, so that I can reanalyze my own. However, thus far my views of corporations have only been confirmed- with the exception of the information we received about Patagonia, which I feel I simply do not fully understand enough to discover where the dirty corporate psychopath lies within that company... I realize this is based on my personal bias... I'm working on it (on a side note I saw recently that the CEO of Whole Foods co-authored a book Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business, I would really like to read this and see what arguments they offer). Back to the point at hand, Kovel's argument does absolutely nothing to change my opinions of corporations. This causes a mixture of emotions really, satisfaction, despair  frustration…

Kovel says "capital shapes as well as selects the kinds of people who create these events." This idea takes the comparison of the corporation to a psychopath a little further to another popular comparison, the idea of the CEO, the 'corporate leaders,' as psychopaths. There is much discussion about the corporate world turning people into psychopaths, the system takes in people wraps them up in a big ole blanket of capitalism and turns them into a psychopath… This makes the idea of environmentalists infiltrating corporations to steer them in the right direction seem a mite less feasible… We can go in with all the right intentions but eventually we get broken down and turned into a product of the system. But… what if we infiltrated en masse, this is obviously more of a thought experiment than something very plausible,  but bear with me for a moment. What if a huge group of environmentalists filled high level positions in the largest corporations, what would happen? What could happen? The shareholders might not be happy if stock value goes down, but if all of the major shareholders are us… it would require a great deal of reframing.. but if it was actually feasible it does seem like a good way to reframe. Corporations after all hold a lot of the worlds power and money, they are the ones leading the cultural change in globalization, forcing their products into the homes of people who wouldn't normally purchase them by using the culture of these people in their marketing strategy, thus effectively using their culture to change their culture. mind bomb. Just like we saw in Peter Dauvergne's discussion on the introduction of diapers into China. It is going to require something very big it seems to me right now to create the kind of social change that is required to move us into living sustainable lives, but I have no idea what kind of change that might be, nor do I have any idea what this sustainable life we might lead would look like… thats something to look into, what would the world look like if we truly lived with nature? 

Alright, gear change.

I very much like the way Kovel shapes this chapter, the use of the Bhopal 'accident' as a study. I appreciate that he goes through very systematically – logically – and searches for an explanation – causality – of the things he discusses. Very philosophical thinking which I enjoy. I also appreciate how he hits the big points, or at least points I find to be big. More specifically Kovel's discussion on Environmental Economics as a tool to right environmental wrongs is very relevant for me as I am currently taking Environmental Economics. In my class we are presented with very clean solutions, we of course look at the struggles faced by Environmental Economists as well, but the solutions they come up with are presented as inherently good ideas, which would solve the worlds problems if we would just follow and implement them correctly. Kovel doesn't think so. I'm inclined to view the tools of Environmental Economics as a tool, a tool to introduce change, it seems to me that we need to work with the current system in place, to change minds in view points subtlety so that people don't even realize it's happening. 

Frequently after running through brief thought series about how to make the world a better place, I end up with communism.. the sharing of resources, everyone has their own place. But in a beautiful harmonious, circle of life nature like way, not in a Stalin kind of way. Poor Marx if he could see what has become of his wonderful ideas in the general understanding. Kovel's frequent references to Marx's ideas are intriguing. Certainly they are natural references considering Marx's extensive focus on capitalism, but I've never read something about corporations situated within capitalism with the reflections of Marx so succinctly brought in, and it was very satisfying and certainly thought provoking. 

And that mess of thoughts is what I have to say about that.