Growing to Sustain

"We can't live with growth, and we can't live without it". This is quoted from Thomas Homer Dixon who believes its not possible to grow economically while sustaining the environment. It seems that those who care about the environment are split into two groups, those who say theirs no hope and those who want to help. This article did not show any signs or solutions to the problem but just on-going ranting on how the people of this century need resources that have effected climate change to grow. He says that 2.7 billion people live on $2 a day and that those countries which this type of poverty exists need to use money and energy to pay off debt. Poverty and the environment is an issue but poverty has always existed and unfortunately their are many circumstances where nations do waste money and people have to suffer but that's why their are scientists and researchers and teams that are hired to solve problems.

Its guys like this who make non-believers in environmental change stay the same. As time goes on the advancement in technology grows and their are solutions into using our resources that won't hurt the environment but like everything in life it needs money. Certain government spend money well and usefully but the U.S in the past decade has put billions of dollars into war which has put a negative stigma against the United States. With reforms going on all over the world and especially in the Middle East who says the U.S can't have one for ourselves? A protest, a revolution, one that will change and help the environment and the people.

"Humanity has made great strides over the past 2,000 years, and we often assume that our path, notwithstanding a few bumps along the way, goes ever upward. But we are wrong: Within this century, environmental and resource constraints will likely bring global economic growth to a halt". Who's to say that we can't keep going upward? The topic of environment and many other ones in the United States are usually seen negatively if their cannot be an immediate impact, many give up right away but good things come in time. Reconstruction after the Civil War took 14 years, all is not lost.

Think Outside the Box

According to Clapp and Dauvergne, Market liberals believe that economic growth is necessary to maintain progress and sustainable development. They believe through economic growth, more money is made, and can be used towards cleaner energy, conservation and other environment-improving methods. They are not concerned about the depletion of resources or the billions of more people that will be added to this earth because science and human ingenuity can solve all problems.

Social Greens are quite the opposite, believing that industrialization, capitalism, and overconsumption are the causes of environmental degradation and social inequalities. They call for a regression from industrial life to small self-sufficient communities.

The article, “Economies Just Can’t keep Growing,” by Thomas Homer-Dixon is coming from a social green perspective as it argues that resource depletion and environmental constraints will slow economic growth. Market liberals however do not see these as issues, believing that technological changes can always shift necessities elsewhere.

Homer-Dixon points out a clear catch 22 that he believes we are currently facing. He says the economy must grow to support the growing population and thus must burn more fossil fuels. He then says burning fossil fuels is contributing tremendously to climate change and could most likely stop economic progress. He says "humankind is in a box" but I think he needs to think a little outside of the box. Homer-Dixon does not take into account any path towards greener technology. He simply says that there is no way of avoiding the environmental crisis. Maybe it is just my market liberal side talking, or just the side that doesn’t want to be scared into a corner, but I believe there are definite probable ways--through innovative technology-- that can contribute to economic growth as well as a lessening of Carbon Dioxide emissions and environmental degradation. Human history has had a trend of adaptability and although I believe the environment is in dire need, I do not believe we cannot dig ourselves out of this dilemma. 

Do we really need to halt growth?

As Clapp and Dauvergne explain, there are four major environmental world views. Market liberals focus primarily on economic growth and high GDP, which are viewed as essential to human welfare and the maintenance of sustainable development. In this light, globalization is viewed as vehicle to address environmental concerns. On the other end of spectrum, Social Greens view social and environmental problems as inseparable. Social Greens condemn economic globalization for fostering inequality and unequal access to resource. In their view, the only way to save the environment is to return to local community autonomy.

In light of Clapp and Dauvergne’s explanation of the Environmental world views, Thomas Homer-Dixon’s view of the environment aligns more closely with that of Social Greens. He warns the reader of the dangers we face if we continue to view the Earth’s resources as everlasting. He explains that humankind is trapped by the wheels of economic growth and our reliance on energy use. He cautions that if we do not mitigate economic globalization, carbon emissions will sky rocket causing climate change. Homer-Dixon says “the economic damage caused by such climate change would probably, by itself, halt growth”.

The way in which Homer-Dixon frames growth as something we can’t live with or without is quite pessimistic. Implicit in his argument is the idea that we cannot have economic growth and environmental sustainability. He characterizes this relationship between economic growth and environmental sustainability as contradictory. Rather than presenting some sort of solution, he sets up the challenge as “humankind's biggest of the century” and leaves it at that. This nihilistic approach doesn’t seem probable to me, particularly, within an American context. Rather, we need to combine environmental views and sustainable practices with our economic/growth framework.

The Grass is Greener: Not Yet

"Were treated like like children by environmental elites and political too timid to call forth the best in us or too blind to that which has made us a great nation". Its not only politicans that can be blamed for the sad donations that some of us give to help save the environment. The education system can take a hit for this as well. Like learning a language, the best time to learn is when your young. Many children around the world know two languages by the time their 10 years old but here in the United States the average American only knows one language. And like this we need to implement this into the youth as well. When kids come home to their parents to talk about what they learned and what's going on it will ring a bell to the parents that their 5 year old knows more about environmental conservation and its surroundings more than they do. In D.C they now charge .5 cents for any plastic bag at grocery stores. This is what is meant by being treated like babies; people might feel happy at the end of the day because they used a recyclable bag or buy organic foods but this is only in the capital of the United States. If the governmental wanted to they can put pressure on States to do this as well but technically cannot get into the thick of business.

Depending on where you are in the United States their seems to be a different culture wherever you go. Being from New York, whether you have a small family or a big one you'll see gigantic SUV's and trucks that are being driven by everyone. On the Long Island Expressway they recently added to the HOV lane that if you have a Hybrid you can enter in, but very few cars in the HOV are hybrids. In Virginia, at Tysons Corner Mall, one can get the closest parking entrance to the mall if they have a Hybrid car. Majority of the times when I'm their these spots are empty. The United States as many of us know and many around the world see us are very materialistic, complain if you want but its a fact. We get what we want and if we can't afford it we take out a home equity loan and everything is well..haha. Their needs to be a revolution in saving energy and going green. I think we need to start with the kids, because since this is effecting the future why not educate those that will be their when we will be gone.

We need more than 10 easy steps

The ways in which cultures around the world think of and use the environment is fascinating. It seems as if the way we relate to nature is directly related to the societal culture that we are surrounded by. So, what is it about American culture that makes us a leader in environmental genocide?

Maniates seems to think of environmental degradation as a problem of perception. That is, when Americans think of the solution as simplistic and our role minimal, we continue to perpetuate the cycle. Environmental leaders who frame the solution to one of the most challenging problems of today as easy only deepen the American obsession with that which is fast and effortless.

Perhaps, as Maniates suggests, we need to rework the conversations we are having in order to change the way we think of our society’s impact, and ultimately “fire(d) our individual and communal imagination, creativity and commitment.” Of course, we shouldn't expect much environmental change if we don't expect much change from the primary environmental abusers.

"Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"

The article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” gives great insight into the core reasons why the problem of environmental degradation is so difficult to tackle. I agree that America needs to be shocked with the harsh reality of the world’s environmental situation and let go of the false impression that just recycling will heal our planet. I personally had a very naïve perception of environmental problems. Americans definitely need more education on this problem. Right now it seems that people act eco- friendly because it’s “in” oppose to really understanding the problem.

It was pretty eye opening to read that America would need to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent to avoid climate change. One point that I somewhat disagree with is that other countries would follow Americas standards if we drastically changed our carbon emissions. Countries may still be very resistant to changes due to the expensive costs associated with it. Overall, the article expressed critical issues that need to be addressed such as leaders demanding to reduce environmental degradation as well as Americans being enlightened on the real situation the planet is in.

My Eco Footprint

Eco Foot Print
ecofoot.org is not working so I went to myfootprint.org to calculate my footprint.
Apparently we would need 4.89 earths if everyone lived my life style : /
My footprint is: 189.54

-Harmony