Reversing Consumer Culture Is Tough, But It Needs To Be Done

By saying that the current environmental situation demands "cultural transformation," Eric Assadourian means just that. The culture of consuming that seems to be permeating even the remotest of places, must move toward a culture of sustainability. Like he says, we must begin to learn that more stuff does not necessitate happiness and endless growth is not a realistic goal in a finite world.

I think Assadourian's transformative plan is bold, extreme, and ambitious, but most importantly, I think it is necessary. If everyone in the world lived like I do, we would need about 4 planet earths to sustain us. I find this to be extremely alarming. If we continue consuming the way we do now, we will most certainly strip the earth of its ability to sustain much of anything. This definitely calls for some sort of shift and the holistic transformation of this consume or die culture through education, business, government, media, social movements, and sustainable traditions that Assadourian suggests, seems to me to be the best option. One aspect of culture transformed would not be enough. Although it will most definitely be very difficult, calling upon all of these different institutions is the only way to achieve the change necessary to even try to reverse the damage that has already been done.

Consumerism shifts

In The Rise and Fall of Consumerism Cultures Erik Assadourian discusses how consumerism has ingrained itself in today’s culture and the environmental impact it has on the planet. The idea that consumerism is bad for the environment is not a new concept. Neither is the statement that consumerism has become part of our everyday culture. However, the way he talks about addressing the issue of consumerism is worth discussing. Assadourian suggests changing the cultures of the world from ones that glorify consumerism to ones that focus on environmental sustainability and equity. His basis for this concept is that culture is what helps humans derive meaning form the world and understand how they fit into that world. If we are able to change this process of meaning making to be more environmentally friendly then people would feel obligated to act in more sustainable ways to achieve more self-worth.

Assadourian says that the way to achieve this shift in cultural meaning is through paradigm shifts. There are a variety of different tools that cultures use to shape human behavior and each culture responds differently to these tools, which is why Assadourian does not give a specific step by step plan for cultural change. Each culture is different and there for needs to make changes in their own way in order for the change to be effective. Certain taboos or rituals that work in Europe will not necessarily be effective with Americans. While some people may get frustrated that he does not elaborate on what specific steps to take to achieve this cultural shift, keeping his concept broad makes it more applicable across the world.

However, Assadourian does point out what areas need to be addressed and in what order. Firstly, he says that actively destructive behaviors need to be discouraged. Under this category he includes eating junk food, smoking and car dependency. Luckily there are already some movements in place that work to counter smoking and eating junk food. The issues of car dependency and owning big houses will be tougher to address because they do not have the health effects that smoking and junk food have. However, that does not mean that these issues cannot be addressed in an innovative manner.

One of the points that struck me the most is his discussion about public versus private consumption. In this section he includes everything from public transit systems to libraries and public gardens. I found the fact that he mentioned libraries really interesting. I wish that he would have given his thoughts on the kindle and other e-readers in this part of the section. There is a clear environmental case for libraries when you are looking at the use of tradition books; however, are libraries really more sustainable then e-readers. I would be interested to see some research on the topic because there are a lot of factors to consider. For example, the energy costs of the library building versus the energy costs of the e-reader. And then there is also the production of books for the library versus resources used to produce e-reader books. What is the greenest way to read a book? His last point is that the goods that are still produced should be cradle to cradle that way buying new products does not necessarily mean using more resources, because what you are buying was already part of a product before. While the steps that he outlines are a step in the right direction everyone should remember that culture takes a long time to change and therefore other steps need to be taken to address the environmental situation.

The Feasibility of a Carbon-sucking Machine

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140513014/this-machine-can-suck-carbon-out-of-the-air

I have chosen to cover an innovation of University of Calgary’s professor David Keith. Keith and his company, Carbon Engineering, have invented a machine that actually sucks carbon out of the air. National Public Radio recently shed light on Keith and his invention: its origins, its role in green technology, and its feasibility.

David Keith’s unnamed carbon-sucking machine has its basis in long-existing technology. The machine addresses the problem of carbon dioxide, released from things like fossil fuels in combustion engines, polluting our air. Essentially, the machine begins with a solution that reacts with and solidifies carbon dioxide. Carbon solids are then put in a kiln, where they can be captured in their pure form and used in other ways. The ashes of the carbons can regenerate the original solution. Carbon Engineering asserts that this machine is far more feasible and affordable than they initially expected. Keith has received funding from Bill Gates, and he is testing to see on what scale he can operate the machine.

If feasible on a grander scale, this is an effective form of action to reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. But the use of this machine alone does not solve the problem of air quality. Innovations like this one must be coupled with stricter regulation of fuel economy and conservation by individuals (using bikes and public transportation, car-pooling, etc). Especially in urban areas, where air pollution is concentrated, multi-faceted solutions to air pollution are critical. This action comes from a crucial actor in the environmental policy field -- the scientific community. This machine is replicable, especially given that David Keith has connections to the business world. As scientific research becomes victim to congressional budget cuts, striking deals with the business community is an important key to making sure this machine is replicable. David Keith’s innovation gives me a sense of hope; it is encouraging to know that this kind of research is being done.

The Clean Car Peace Treaty - Here's Hoping

NPR’s online publication covered a story in April of this year about the “clean car peace treaty,” or CAFE standards on fuel standards, which are specifically intended to reduce green house gas emissions. While these standards have not been covered in the media nor further discussed by President Obama or his administration since their announcement in April, they are due to take effect in January of 2012 and are really a monumental step for the federal government to take being that the state of the environment and the issue of climate change have largely been under-prioritized in recent years. According to the article, “White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards,” the standards were issued by a collaboration of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, which received remarkable cooperation from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in creating a single national fuel standard for vehicles. In addition to conserving an estimated 1.8 billion barrels of oil, the standards are also estimated to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by motor vehicles by almost a billion tons over the life of new models. Once the standards take effect in 2012, automakers are responsible for improving green house gas emissions and fuel economy by 5 percent each year.

 I think that while these new standards for car emissions are not going to have hugely dramatic effects on the United States’ carbon footprint, the notion of creating standards with the support of the industry responsible for ensuring those standards are met is a step in the right direction towards reducing that carbon footprint. As we’ve discussed in class, the “American lifestyle,” which since the birth of the auto industry has centered on the notion of a car for every nuclear family, is the most consumptive (and destructive) in the world. While reducing vehicular emissions and working toward “cleaner energy” will not necessarily rectify or reverse the overall negative impact that our American lifestyle has on this planet, in a decade where the environment is discussed so infrequently by politicians this “clean car peace treaty” holds at least the potential to pave the way for future standards on greenhouse gas emissions not only in the automobile industry but in other industries as well. I think it is an effective form of action because being that these standards were laid out and will be enforced by agencies of the federal government, they have real potential to bring about large-scale changes to our nation’s environmental impact. I think that the action is replicable in the sense that similar standards with plans to reduce emissions by a certain percentage each year could be applied to individual businesses themselves, especially with respect to factories and refineries, etc. This article does give me a bit of hope, especially after our class discussion on how the United States brought about the end to CFCs , that the United States could once again take an active role in the global effort to combat climate change.

An Island Made of Trash

The sad reality is that we all, whether we try to or not, generate waste. The dilemma, of course, is what to do with it. Now, some people have unconventional strategies: Art. While others have downright unacceptable ones: Backyard Trash Burning. But for the rest of us that are neither creative nor destructive, the majority of our trash (that is hopefully not recyclable or compostable) ends up in landfills or is incinerated. These landfills - I happen to live not too far from one - are sore on the eyes, smell awful, and often times because money is politics, collect trash from hundreds of miles away. But because society needs a place to put its trash (no it doesn’t just disappear) landfills are somewhat of a necessity until we find better alternatives. Though we could of course, and have the capacity to, make many more things compostable and recyclable. In the meantime, an interesting alternative is turning a landfill into a nature preserve!

Semakau is a landfill off the coast of Singapore that in 2005 became a nature preserve and community-gathering place. It was engineered to keep waste confined to the island and away from the water, has a built-in leachate treatment plant, and is home to over 700 types of plants and animals as well as several endangered species. Don’t get me wrong; I am not promoting the formation of hundreds of “trash islands” but I do believe this to be an environmentally conscious approach to trash that, well, already exists. Not to mention, it attracts many visitors and in the process, I imagine, raises their awareness about environmental responsibilities.

This government initiative cost SG$610 million and took ten years to complete. It is believed that Phase I of this project will meet Singapore’s waste disposal needs until at least 2045, at which time Phase II would be optional. Furthermore, Singapore has challenged itself to increase their recycling rate to 70% by 2030 and is working towards zero landfilling. Given the size of Singapore, roughly 3.5 times that of D.C., it makes sense that they are going to such lengths.

I believe this example can be replicated under the appropriate conditions. Singapore appears to have taken all the necessary steps, and time, to insure it would not be an environmental disaster, though I can imagine some countries would not. However, this sort of innovation and government action gives me great hope as to what we are truly capable of inventing, in an environmentally friendly way, to solve our needs.

Urban Farming Solutions

When calculating my carbon footprint after the first class a few weeks ago, I was surprised by the amount of space "services," like food shipping and transportation, took up in my pie chart. I never realized, before doing that calculation, how much just purchasing food shipped from far away affected my personal footprint. For this post, I did some research on urban farming and found a great article about how this trend could be an important solution to the massive amounts of carbon emitted during the process of produce shipping. The New York Times article I chose called, "Rooftop Garden Climbs Down a Wall," not only describes an innovative urban farming solution, but one that is coming out of the economic realm.

The article discusses how a Rochester, New York sheet metal manufacturer, Barthelmes Manufacturing Company, and inventor George Irwin have teamed up to create an urban farming product called "edible walls." These "walls" are metal panels that can be filled with soil and seeds and hung vertically on a building's exterior walls. They are not only used as space-saving gardens where families can grow and then eat their own produce, but they also serve to help insulate a building in order to save on both heating and air conditioning costs and energy consumption in general. This solution is a particularly effective action because not only does it have multiple "green" benefits, but "edible walls" can be produced at a very low cost for the manufacturer. This is especially important because it gives businesses in other places an incentive to do the same and invest in urban farming products, making it a very easily replicable solution.

This particular solution does give me hope because many arguments against moving to more environmentally sustainable practices claim that the move would harm productivity and be extra costly. "Edible walls" made up 15% of this company's revenue when this article was published and they are neither expensive for them to produce or for the consumer to buy. This article helps to show that maybe the seemingly permanent producer-consumer relationship and environmental sustainability can somehow be fused together for a significant change in lifestyle.

The link to this article is as follows: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/business/energy-environment/19WALLS.html?ref=urbanagriculture

Bacteria provide create energy

I found an article on BBC that discusses a potential new energy source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14976893). Researchers at Penn State University found out that certain bacteria can release extra electrons which can then be used to produce energy. I admit that I am not a biology or chemistry major, so I am not sure exactly how the science operates. However, the article says that fuel cells based on this model can used to harness electricity. This can be an effective response to today’s environmental situation because it provides needed invention in energy supply. The need for electricity and substances to power electricity is one of the biggest factors contributing to environmental degradation. I personally feel that since the rise, and stagnation, of solar energy not much progress has been made in the new energy source research (this just maybe due to my limited knowledge on the topic). In today’s world we are focused on innovation of methods we already have; however, I feel that invention can make much greater leaps in the right direction.

This article also shows me that research and scientific academia are still a viable source for the solution to our environmental problems. Much of the focus on the environment has been about the economy and government; however, I still believe that scientific research can contribute to how we address the problem. Science is at the core of measuring environmental impacts. Should it not also be at the heart of the solution.

I am cautiously optimistic about the fuel source suggested in the article. The idea seems great and if it works properly could be a real step forward. It could potentially provide an alternative to coal burning power plants or other conventional energy sources. However, the project is still in its infancy. Large scale testing has not been done and costs are still high. Researchers say that they are looking into ways to cut costs and make their product marketable. However, the example of solar energy has shown us that bringing down costs and marketing a product effectively can take a long time. I would also like to see more research behind the potential environmental impact of such cells. For example, what is the byproduct of these fuel cells? What is the environmental impact of creating these fuel cells? What is the lifespan of a fuel cell? I am glad that research on alternative energies is progressing, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

In his piece for the Washington Post, Michael Maniates chides the environmental movement in America, criticizing its focus on the ease and simplicity of solving environmental issues. Maniates argues that the challenges we face are not simple, and their solutions should not be treated as such.

Disseminating information on environmental degradation and conservation is a difficult task indeed. Scientists and policy makers must at once stress the urgency of environmental threats, while making conservation efforts seem accessible to average Americans. For many middle class families, especially in "red states," economic concerns, not environmental, define everyday life. Americans often feel far removed from environmental degradation unless they are enduring a natural disaster. Unfortunately, many of these families would look at Maniates' article and see an extremist point of view. I myself grew up in Oklahoma, where convincing people to recycle is enough of a task, let alone convincing people to bike instead of drive SUVs, compost trash, cease the use of styrofoam, etc. Many Americans need an introduction to green life, and books like "The Easy Environmentalist" provide just that. Yes, the problems are huge and interconnected. No, merely reducing the rate of environmental damage is not enough. But one must note what the situation would be like without the cumulative effects of small actions.

The key to accomplishing real goals in environmental policy is making incremental changes. Individuals, households, businesses, and governments must find it to be in their interest to gradually reduce their environmental harm. On an international level, this is evident in the O-Zone Hole and CFC regime of the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Countries agreed to make incremental changes, gradually reducing the production of Ozone killing materials. Individuals, too, must make incremental changes in their lives in order to become greener world citizens.

Convincing the American People to (Really) Go Green

 In “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” Maniates argues that the highly commercialized green movement, which seeks to fight climate change through the simple, everyday actions of individuals, is not an effective enough strategy to make a lasting impact on climate change. I agree with Maniates’ assertion that we must rely on our politicians to create legislature to set stricter guidelines for our nation’s carbon emissions, overhaul our systems of production and work with the governments of other nations towards a global movement for environmental action. However, I also share my classmates’ concerns over the fact that while our politicians possess the power to enact real change, they will have no motivation to do so unless the American people undergo a significant change in attitudes toward the issue of climate change. According to Gallup polls, Americans are actually becoming less concerned with climate change now than they have been in the past.[1]  

The real question is: How do we change the minds of the American people? How do we draw attention to an issue that many Americans cannot even admit is a real issue? This is where I may not be so quick to demonize the commercialization of the green movement as many of my classmates are. From where I stand, while producing reusable plastic bottles and tote bags with corny environmental puns is obviously not an effective way to reduce waste in and of itself, I do agree with the concept of creating marketing strategies that equate being “environmentally friendly” with being “cool,” because if it’s the attitude of the American people that needs changing, effective marketing is probably the best way of bringing about such change in a society that is so consumer-driven. I think that what lacks then is a connection between marketing a “greener” lifestyle to change attitudes and the notion of applying the necessary political pressure required to create real change.  

---

[1] Pugliese, Anita, and Julie Ray. "Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat." Gallup. 20 Apr. 2011. 17 Sept. 2011.

Corporate Responsibility and the Obsession with Consumption

Maniates’ article is unique in that it criticizes the latest fad, “Going Green.” An endeavor he claims is not only insufficient in combating environmental issues we collectively face, but also the notion of “easy” and “simple” ways to “save the environment” should be found offensive. Environmental degradation will only end when people change every aspect of their life and their demands of policymakers. But the notion of change is horrifying to many; the idea of altering the way we eat, speak, and consume is uncomfortable to most. But what should be even more unsettling is the idea of massive floods, prolonged droughts, and numerous hurricanes. I agree with the bestselling authors that ditching plastic bottles for reusable ones or going a little out of ones way to recycle are great, though minute, ways of helping to decrease one’s carbon footprint. But I am of the same opinion as Professor Maniates, these incremental changes are not enough, the focus should not solely be on biking to work and believing you did your part in the fight against climate change, but about massive demonstration, a wake up call that if the U.S. does not change every way in which it operates, there will be no hope of a future, or a desirable one at least. A revolution should be started, and not a Green Revolution like the 1940s (please no!), but a fight for Life revolution. One thing I would like to point out about the "Going Green" fad is the irony behind it, as it openly promotes consumption. Companies pump out canvas bags that read “I’m not a plastic bag” and Starbucks releases “new” reusable mugs for every possibly consumer, some with curves, some with a handle, some with grip, the fact is it’s all just more junk we do not, but are told to need. Therefore I think the question in the environmental effort, and one that Professor Maniates does not mention, is not only the role of the average Joe and the Government, but the responsibilities of the corporation, the businessman, the lobbyists who push for oil pipelines and limits on the life of light bulbs. Until we stop giving into the "American Dream," trying to acquire every new tangible good that exists, environmentalism will always be on the back burner to consumerism. Despite it being four years since the publication of this article, not much has changed. Hopefully something or someone (or everyone) soon does.

It's More Complicated Than That

Maniates' overall argument in his piece, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," is both powerful and convincing, but, in my opinion, lacks validity in one very crucial aspect. While I believe he is correct in identifying that mainstream environmentalism only stresses relatively easy and cost-effective consumer fixes, such as recycling your plastic bottles or riding your bike to work, I do not think that all of the blame should be centered on leadership.

He's right, political leaders are doing a terrible job at taking any sort of major initiative with respect to the environment, but as always, their decisions and priorities are based directly on those of their constituents. This may be cynical of me to say, but I don't think that very many Americans seriously do ask the question Maniates says they do - "What can I do to make a difference?" Some, including myself, may have good intentions and actually do want to make changes in their lives to better the environmental circumstances, but there are just as many that don't really care and wouldn't be inclined to vote for someone looking to use their tax money to fund environmental programs.

While political elites certainly aren't giving the grave environmental mess at hand the attention it deserves, Maniates points the finger too far in one direction. For better or for worse, politicians are merely doing what they have always done, appealing to the biggest concerns of those who give them their jobs. It's just unfortunate that the severely declining state of the global environment is still not one of those big concerns.

Can we really make difficult changes?

The main point of the Maniates article is that the little steps that people take to live a greener life are not going to solve the environmental problems we face, and I agree. However, I think that the real solution to these problems is not going to come from the people. If the only way to save the planet is to wait until the general public makes the difficult choices to truly be green then, I’m sorry, but the world is doomed. People are accustomed to a certain way of life and they are not going to completely give that up to tackle climate change. The Maniates article uses the examples of fascism and the American Revolution as proof that Americans can make difficult choices; however, climate change is a different monster. Americans have difficulty conceptualizing climate change and understanding its impact. Fascism and the Revolution could be linked to a person, which makes them easier to combat in theory. For example, Hitler was a symbol of fascism so Americans could get behind the idea of hating Hitler and wanting his downfall. The downfall of fascism was linked to Hitler’s downfall. What person or regime are we going to bring down to end climate change? What common enemy are we going to untie the American people behind? Many scientists say the American life style is the biggest contributor to climate change. How would the American people respond to a speech from the president saying that the biggest enemy the U.S. faces today is, ourselves? I am thinking not too well.

Yes things need to change at a more drastic rate, but the change needs to come from the international and national governing bodies. People need to be forced to make the tough decisions. For example, the elimination of CFCs. The general public took steps to cut the use of CFCs however, these individual and national steps did not go far enough. The Montreal Protocol was needed to make true progress in limiting CFCs. International regulation is the key to making the drastic and lasting steps needed to combat climate change.