I came into this course thinking that environmental science was a sort of niche in the scientific community, that environmental politics was something for hippie activists. By no means did I not believe in climate change or think that endlessly burning fossil fuels was a good thing. I didn't fully understand the implications environmental issues had for me and my lifestyle. Similarly, I didn't realize the implications my lifestyle had on the environment.

This class has instilled in me a new way at looking at economic growth. I remember when Paul Wapner came in and talked about the Keystone Oil Pipeline. As we all expressed our fears of an oil spill, Wapner pressed the argument for economic growth. He was playing to the other side, just as stone-faced as Stephen Colbert does. "Jobs!" he repeated. "Jobs for the pipeline! Jobs to clean up the oil, jobs to save the dirty prairie dogs in Nebraska, jobs for lawyers of people who get poisoned, jobs for trucks to send in medical supplies, jobs for everyone!" Wapner's farce really made one of Bill McKibben's points resonate with me: we need to focus on the quality, not quantity of new jobs (Great Recession or otherwise); we need to focus on economic maturity, not economic growth.

As a corollary to economic growth, this class changed the way I've looked at consumer culture. I never really understood just how deeply embedded consumption is in our culture. But I guess that's the point. Americans have entirely too much stuff, and we are told that we need to go get more of the new stuff. Especially in the suburbs, shopping is a hobby. When you need something to do on a Friday night, you go to the mall with your friends and buy more stuff. Not because you specifically needed something, but because our society follows that self-defeating mantra of "more stuff now." And so much of this stuff we only use once! Just look at the purchase of a fountain soda: a cup, a lid, a straw, a cover for the straw, a napkin so that icky condensation doesn't get on your hands. And then after 5 minutes, you throw it all "away." In this class, I've learned that as a social construct, Consumerism can (maybe not just as easily) be deconstructed. I've learned that more (be it fossil fuels or consumer goods) isn't necessarily better.

I came into this class thinking I would learn about the environment and how it relates to international organizations. I'm pleasantly surprised that I've learned about the relationships we share as individuals, societies, and markets with our mother earth.

What Will I Take Away?

I've been thinking about this question since it was first posted and find myself completely unable to articulate what it is that I will take away. A more appropriate question would be: what won't I take away?

For starters, I'll be taking away a completely new lens on the world around me. I can't look at my food, my clothes, my belongings, my own living space anymore without thinking about how my decision have already affected the world we live in. I know this was probably not the intention of the course, but I also find myself unable to shake this sort of nagging feeling of dread that all of the mountains of information and different theories about climate change projections have plagued me with. I suppose that on some level though, the pervasive dread is good. Hopefully it will drive my decision-making for the rest of my life. But then I think to myself ... do my actions as an individual really matter? They don't really make a difference according to some of the opinions we've read. I suppose through political activism they do. Through motivating collective action they do. And maybe that's one of the most important things that I will take away from this class - that if creating change IS something that I want to do, I need to think a bit bigger than I have in the past.

Where to begin?

When I attempted to think about how to synthesize all of the information I have learned throughout the semester into one blog post, I had trouble deciding where to start. Very few other courses I have taken have presented information and concepts that affect every aspect of human life. Everything we think about and everything we do would not be possible without the environment simply because it is the place in which we exist. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the concepts put forth in this class are so unbelievably far-reaching that it is difficult to dictate exactly what I will be taking away.

In the end, I would say that no other class has made me seriously ponder the way that I live my life as much as this one has. I notice person after person driving by on the street, alone in their cars. I notice how it seems like EVERYTHING is wrapped in plastic inside of more plastic. I have come to terms with the fact that no matter how hard I try, I'll never be able to escape corn. These examples may sound trivial, but this class seriously has altered my outlook on and given me a new paradigm with which to view the world and the way it works. Most of all though, this class has given me an elevated sense of appreciation for the environment. I'm amazed by all of the natural services it provides and the rich biodiversity of life that it is comprised of. I also recognize however, that this could all go away and so in addition to an increased appreciation, I feel an increased sense of responsibility for it's well-being. I understand that both individually and together, we are responsible for determining whether or not this environment that we live in flourishes or fails.

Some Time to Absorb it All

Before the beginning of the semester, not only did I feel comfortable with my understanding of environmental issues but also I felt optimistic about the future, the prospect of a world embracing nature in an effort to both sustain and nurture it. Sure I knew about climate skeptics, and was disheartened by the mercenaries like media personnel and politicians who continued to deny global warming and discredit environmentalists, despite clear evidence on the contrary. But as the course progressed my naivety vanished and I began to understand the seriousness of the situation at hand. I thought we had some time, I selfishly believed it wouldn’t happen during my lifetime, not that it was reason to be indolent but that my generation could finally get the ball rolling, and make up for the negligence of the one that came before. Now I realize there is no ball, nor is there time for it to roll, it is purely what needs to be done….and now.

Initially I felt shocked, sometime physically sick, over how deep we have dug ourselves as a species. I was so angry I almost wanted the world to end and climate change to wreak havoc so earth could rebuild itself without our selfish being, morbid I know. But as the course continued I realized there is still hope of salvaging the beauty and diversity we have graciously been given. The planet will certainly not remain as it is but there is potential to create something just as wonderful, through innovative design, technology, utilizing resources that don’t pollute, creating more wildlife habitats, and by more I mean a lot more, and most of all, reinventing what it means to be human. The latter is what I took most from the course but also what appears to be the largest task at hand. As many authors throughout the semester pointed out, the biggest obstacle to solving our environmental dilemma is completely revamping our way of life. It thrills me to think about a new “us.” Ahhh the idea of ALL human beings embracing nature, working together in communities to educate, empower, feed one another, and most of all take the time to enjoy the sun rays and the light sprinkles of rain. I dream of this happening in the United States most, as it is the country that is largely responsible for the environmental degradation that exists, be it through CO2 emissions and other harmful gases, its support of a lethal agriculture system, its failure to act as a role model for other countries, and its consumer run culture, to name a few.

Now more than ever I am thinking about myself as an individual and the role I play. It is clear that individual action will not solve the current crisis but the class has made me eager to be involved in a movement to end our current trajectory. To help influence the notion of what it means to be an American. To continue spreading the idea that exponential growth is meaningless, that being too big is something to avoid not desperately seek to achieve. I am scared, I’ll admit. I hate the thought of chaos on the horizon - flooding, droughts, hunger, thirst, death, poverty, disease – I really wish it did not have to be this way and I condemn those who sustain it. But, I will continue to be optimistic, to have conversations, to lead by example, to promote, and to never stop learning about this subject that effects each and every one of us. My apologies if this post has no direction, or lacks coherency, but that is precisely how I am feeling, it is too soon for me to fully digest what I have learned because it is so multifaceted. One thing I am certain of though is that climate change is real, the world is drastically changing as a result of human interference, and in order for it to not result in our demise, we need to change, and soon.

There are no limits to the environment

When I decided to take this course I thought that there was one basic set of principles for solving the planet. Those principles were focused on using less of pretty much everything. However, throughout the course of this class I have learned that there are a variety of different ways that environmentalists propose for answering environmental issues. I knew beforehand that issues of climate change and biodiversity would require different answers but I felt like they would follow the same trend of shrinking human impact. While naturalism is a major trend in environmentalism it is not the only trend. Some people, like Thomas Friedman suggest that the solutions to our problems lie in technology and the flattening of the planet. Leopold suggests that we need to change the way we think about the environment in order to create a difference, he suggests using ethics. McDonough talks about the importance of design and the need to redesign the way that humanity interacts with the environment through products and life activities.

The environment is everywhere and impacts everything that we humans do. Therefore, whatever sector you work in there is a chance to help improve the environmental situation. Whether you work for the government or a small textile mill in Switzerland or are a small farmer in Africa there is an opportunity for you to make decisions that will impact the planet in the future. In order for there to be a global change in the situation a big change needs to be made by a large number of people. However, this does not mean that a large change in the way of think cannot come from the ideas of one farmer in Africa. No idea should be counted out simply because it does not come from a governmental official or an environmental scientist.

As a peace and conflict resolution student I have learned that every sector provides an opportunity for peace-building. This course has made me think that same way about environmental progress. You don’t have to dedicate your life to environmental causes; as long as you take environmental principles into consideration your job can make this world a greener planet.

And it's all our fault

Scientists have known for over 150 years that CO2 degrades the environment. Since the 1970s, scientific research has been inundated with a variety of studies from a variety of sources that climate change is real, that we caused it, and that we are already suffering the consequences. Yet, somehow, very little has changed. In his article for The Guardian, Damian Carrington lays out a few reasons why this is the case. The following serves as my modest amendment to his analysis.

The intersection of science and politics is – at best – a muddled affair, and at worst an absolute disaster. As Professor showed us last week, the Republican Party has found a way to take a scientific reality and politically mythologize it. 2002’s “Winning the Global Warming Debate” laid out a way for Republican politicians to present climate change as something debatable. It also laid out a way to block any meaningful environmental legislation by pulling the jobs card and the “it’s just a theory” card. In a political debate, politicians will always win over scientists. Brainiacs rarely make convincing, effective victories over this well devised rhetoric (see also our current president).

The American media is also playing its role in preventing a green revolution by doing what they do best – perpetuating a non-issue. Scientifically, climate change isn’t truly up for debate. But watching America’s relatively fair and balanced news sources, it is something that is hotly contested among scientists. Giving equal weight to both sides of climate change science removes the urgency of the issue. Drastic changes are necessary to our infrastructure and our economy. But we are still debating the question of whether we even need to take such measures. Talking heads

Individual complacency, too, hinders the capacity for real environmental protection. As Thomas Friedman describes in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, “green living” has become a trend, not a radical movement. Corporations take advantage of the green trend and the disunity of environmentalism. There is no single standard on what makes a product “green.” What companies have done is cover their packaging with pictures of leaves and the earth and call it environmentally responsible. Many consumers will give into the marketing strategy, buy the leafy water bottle, and call it a day. In this way, the American idea of green living isn’t a revolution. It isn’t retreat into an island civilization. The American idea of green living is buying 1-use bottled water that was made with 25% less plastic than the other guy’s 1-use water bottle.

A Good Start

In his article, "Why is it so hard to stop climate change?" Damian Carrington outlines what I believe to be three (actually 4) of the biggest obstacles to an effective fight against climate change. He says that a lack of low-carbon energy sources, too much reliance on fossil fuels, and not enough political leadership and too much focus on the current economic crisis are standing in the way of effective action. He lumps politics and economics together into the same category and although they are related, are two separate things.

He stresses that leadership is focusing too much on how to recover from the global economic crisis, but does not talk about how general consumer culture and "bigger is better" economic creeds drive the continued use of inefficient and dirty energy and the propping up of those industries by political leaders. He fails to discuss two of the biggest variables, businesses and corporations producing products and the human consumers who purchase them.

One other aspect that I believe Carrington fails to discuss is human population. He does not examine humans as consumers who drive a produce and purchase cycle and he also does not examine humans in terms of their sheer numbers. Global human population just recently passed 7 billion, which means more human environmental impact than ever before. Increased population is partially fueled by increased food supply, which also means that we should take into account the industrial food system when talking about climate change. Clearly, the colossal problem that is climate change cannot be blamed on just 3 or 4 contributing factors. The whole global system has become so complex that to cherry pick just a few and examine them in six short paragraphs fails to explain the whole picture. Carrington starts the discussion on a good note, but it is just a start and most certainly begs for further analysis.