at the risk of being repetitive

Here are my two favorite quotes of the semester. I am taking two quotes from Meadows because I think her piece was in part the one I was waiting for since the midterm...the clencher, if you will. Also, there are TONS of great quotes from Cradle to Cradle, but McDonough can quote them himself. So, here are my favorites from Donella.

"The most stunning think living systems and social systems can do is to change themselves utterly by creating whole new structures and behaviors."

On paradigms...."It is in this space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off addictions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, found religions, get locked up or "disappeared" or shot, and have impacts that last for millennia."

Favorite Quotes

"Like cancer cells, we destroy normal systems. Like cancer, we are very good at growth...at the moment of cancer's greatest achievement, its host organism is near death, but so is the cancer."
- from Island Civilization by Roderick Frazier Nash

"Procrastination is still the thief of time...and time is deaf to every plea and rushes on."
- from The Bridge at the Edge of the World by James Gustave Speth

Lines that Stood Out

The two quotes that stuck out to me from our readings were

Hot Flat and Crowded, pg 177.
Nicolas Sarkozy, " When America us not taking the lead on such an important global issue as climate change, I am asking, "Where is the American Dream? What has happened? Where has it gone?"...You cannot be the first champion of human rights and the last when it comes to obligations and responsibilities on environment"

* Vandana Shiva, “Globalization and the War Against Farmers and the Land,” in Norman Wirzba (ed.) The Essential Agrarian Reader (University Press of Kentucky, 2003) pp. 121-139.

"famines occur because they are not prevented: they are allowed to happen."

I realized over Thanksgiving break that my family is where I get my concern for environmental issues. And, thus, we are in agreement in pretty much every area. I decided to talk to my father anyway. I told him about what we had read and talked about during the class and my take on everything. He seemed fascinated by the same reading that really caught my attention: Cradle to Cradle.

I explained the main ideas in the book, particularly rethinking the way we look at waste. I talked about how the book had distinctly optimistic feel about it. We had a good discussion about whether or not the optimism was justified and what repercussions it might have on the environmental movement.

Look Outside In Not Inside Out

The Future. The Future sounds pretty far off from now, the present. But in all reality, the Future is here, now, in the present. We all from time to time, think the future is far away and forget to calculate the actual distance in reality. However, when we look at this problem from the outside in, then we see that the future is now, not later. The Environmental Movement, which consist of different movements with different ideas to go fight for the whole movement, tends to present the future to us in a glaring light of what is going to happen in the future. But what I think what needs to be done is show, the future as now. Show the communities, what is happening now to our planet. And that is the problem. The Environmental Movement is pushing us to move in the right direction, but to many of the skeptics, they are being pushed in the wrong direction.
If I want the global community from everyone to the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, to the die hard skeptics to the all mighty believers that we are destroying the earth, then I would present it to them in the way they can easily comprehend it. We need to find the leverage point, in each situation in which people will be able to grasp it from their level and as a result, have it move it up to the next level to the very top.

Look at it from an economical standpoint. The market will not move to make solar panels, wind energy, and anything environmentally friendly unless there is the cost effective incentive to do so. Okay, so the question is, How do you make the market "agree" to be moved along with the environmental movement and make resources cost effective" You need the start up technology, investors, a plan, and producers and consumers. Produce the product, market it correctly, have a group venture to invest in it and show it off, give detail and upfront cost effectiveness in the long run and short run. Next, the supply will outweigh the demand, which means the prices will be expensive, but as the demand increases with subsidies and other trade measures, the price will decrease. Once the price hits the level where the majority that many can afford to buy it and then the cost is compared to fossil fuels, the market will show consumers, what is the most cost effective and advantageous to other resources.
In order for their to be a leverage, there has to be something that will make it change. In order for the masses to see what is happening now, it has to be presented in the now factor moving towards the future factor.
Thats all.

turning reactions into actions

Framing, re-framing, beginning and re-beginning has been a pattern of mine over the years as I try to discuss environmental issues with loved ones. With strangers there is an ease of introducing ideas and topics, then depending on the dialogue, situating the topic in the form of a constructive debate or just a more laid-back discussion. With family and friends this "directing" is far more difficult. So, I find myself constantly re-approaching how I approach these topics with people. Guilt and anger are not emotions I am all that effective with. I am far more prone to feel guilt about others feeling guilty and anger is not really something I excel at. Working with what I've got, I can do logic and information in the forms of science, academic work and suggested sources of information. With people like my mom, a doctor, who respond to science this is the more effective. Often, these are the people who distrust the politics of it all. Also, I do storytelling. This works the best for me because I can convey how people are actually dealing with issues surrounding the environment in the world and it engages in a dialogue that is further away from re-hashed political chants. While I prefer talking to people about issues in this way, I have yet to see this incite a large transition from someone in the form of proactive measures. However....I have, over time, having these discussions again and again, paired with tools to enable people to make small changes, gotten family and friends to make small changes that they had previously scoffed at. While these measure are SO small and fragmented, like re-usable water bottles, bags, buying local/organic foods, new light bulbs, recycling, and buying stuff they need used, it has given me the impression that while they are not people who will become environmental activists, whenever they say something will never work, I can point out to them how many small changes they have made in just a year or two. Often, they haven't even realized the change, the adaption and how it doesn't bug them like they thought it would. I am still really unsure about how to talk to some of my friends about issues, especially around the idea of working towards implementation, like writing letters, reconsidering norms or getting together to work on a project. This is the next step for me, from constructive dialogue that makes people reconsider to making constructive concrete action happen.

Fighting Instinct

Seeing as both of my parents having opposing political views to mine, I was worried that I would encounter a resistance when I brought up the environmental issue. Surprisingly, they seemed to understand my side and where I was coming from. I will mention what I said - indeed, who I borrowed from - but I want to quickly comment on the way I said it.

While it may not inherently make sense why I am mentioning my tone before mentioning what I said, after my debating experience, it is clear to me that tone, inflection, cadence, etc. is paramount. Talking about climate change can be a very touchy issue; yet, by being calm and polite while talking about this issue, I was able to engage in a civilized and thoughtful debate. By keeping the tone calm, I was able to avoid the tension and harshness that is the constant accompaniment to this issue. It is as if being "normal" depoliticizes issues.

While there is a sense of urgency for change in these matters, not putting that urgency in my speech seems to civilize people. I think, then, that urgency is the nemesis of reason. If people are forced to make sudden moves, those moves are instinctive, unplanned, and the first reaction is to revert back to the only things you know - in this case, your politics. If I attack someone with a different opinion than mine, their instinct is to fight back with the only knowledge they know. Clearly, one will not try to form an argument when under siege. Thus, I just made the conversation person-to-person, not advocate-to-advocate. Without urgency in my speech, the reasonable side to my parents was evident. They understood what I was saying - they heard my evidence - and then processed it. Whether they believed me or not, I cannot say. What I can say, however, is that my side of the argument was listened to without any apparent resistance. This seems the better option than constant bickering. Even if there is bickering going on in our thought processes during this talk, not to have it advertised - indeed, out in the open in public debate - can only strengthen the cause of the pro-environmental movement.

The thing that seemed to resonate most sense with my parents was Leopold's "land ethic". My parents agreed with me that humans do not see themselves as part of the environment, but rather its master. This paradigm, my father said, "needs to be changed." He went on to say, "If we don't know how to control what we think we're in control of, then it's clearly going to bite us in the a**." He later went on to say that this situation is like Terminator - close enough.

When I brought up Maniates' "Individualization", though, my parents started having some trouble. "I don't get it: How do we stop climate change from happening if we're not allowed to do anything on our own?" I explained - calmly, of course - that taking steps to reduce your impact is a good thing, but it cannot be the only thing. There must be collaborative action at some point. It is possible that that collective action is a bunch of individuals doing things that add up to collective efforts. Regardless, I personally cannot save the world. In fact, my household's efforts cannot save the world. But, if the households in my town started changing, and then the people in my state started becoming eco-efficient, and then the people of my country and so forth, then big changes can be made. I alone, though, am not the CO2 Crusader (although a superhero costume would be sweet). Together, and to continue superhero references, we could be climate change's kryptonite.

I finally mentioned "Cradle to Cradle." This business-oriented approach appealed to my right-wing parents the most. Becoming eco-efficient via business? What a dream! I explained the notion of "being less bad is not good," which I tied to "Individualization." Sure, my house can be less bad than anyone else, but that does not make us energy free, just efficient. The goal, of course, is being environmentally free - so to speak - so how can we say that efficiency is good? All design must be done so that we are being good to the environment. In return, it will be good to us. Then, using my tour guide skills, and the knowledge from the tour, I talked about the new SIS Building.

So, did I win the argument? I can say with decent certainty that I made the best points, but I don't think the assignment of bringing this up during the break was about "winning." I took the assignment as a way to synthesize all that I've learned and use it to my advantage. Maybe if the stakes were higher, I might have pushed for "victory." But, let's face it, my parents aren't very influential save inside my mom's classroom and my dad's laboratory. Yet, maybe I won the battle for eco-efficiency in my household. Of course, it's not a win if I'm by myself - I need the collective effort. I'll ask for my parents' cooperation as nicely as possible.