The End

Having taken a few other environmental science classes in high school and earlier in college I felt coming into this class that I had a decent grasp on the state of the world’s environmental problems. While certainly not the only issue, I think that we can agree that Global Climate Change is currently the most pressing of the environmental issues that we face. What I did not realize, however, is exactly how urgent this issue is. I was definitely in the boat with the people who thought that this is something that we have time to resolve. But thanks to IEP, I now realize that GCC really is an issue that needs to be addressed ASAP. It is not something that we can wait another decade to take care of.

The problem, though, is that I still am not sure on what is the best way to go about change. Is this something that can be done through technological innovation that allows for continued economic growth? Or do we need to radically change society’s thinking especially with regards to economic growth and consumerism? I feel like these were two of the main themes of this course, yet I don’t feel they were answered. Before this class, I was on the side of technological change to stop global climate change and stimulate economic growth. After taking this class, I realize it would probably be best to radically alter how we think about consumption and growth. The problem, however, is that I do not see this as a realistic option. My dilemma then becomes how to reconcile this and unfortunately I still do not know the answer. Because I do not like to make decisions, my proposal is to combine technological innovation with an attempt to curb consumption and still strive for economic growth, but tempered growth. I think the notion of growth is key to getting most people on board and we do not have the time and means to radically change society’s way of thinking. But I do think that we can change our consumer habits over time. As a result I guess the biggest thing that I have taken away from the course is that Liberals, Institutionalists, Bioenvironmentalists, nor Social Greens have a realistic answer to GCC on their own. But if we can combine the best aspects of each group’s thinking, we may just be able to save this planet.

a great surprise

To be blatantly honest I had very low expectations for the class and only took it because it was a block class that fulfilled necessary credits towards my SIS major but I found myself really enjoying the class. IT exceeded all my expectations and overall turned out to be a wonderful experience. Though I am generally very skeptical of the statistics, data, and analysis provided by many environmentalists, I thought that the class did a good job of providing an even and fair perspective of environmental issues. What I also enjoyed was that the class was more than simply arguing, “something must be done” but rather was devoted to finding out exactly what that something should be. From the class I received a much more open view of environmental issues. I also gained a new respect for the sheer magnitude of these problems. One thing that I did not get from the class, thankfully, was a pessimistic outlook towards the environment. Undoubtedly change will happen in our environment, but I think that humans can adapt to face the challenges of our world.

Overall I really enjoyed the class. Though I do not think I held the same views as the majority of the class I think that as a whole we managed some very interesting and education discussions. We also managed to keep them quite civil which is an impressive feat when talking about a topic as emotional as the environment. I would like to thank professor Nicholson for providing such an open forum for environmental debate and I think the class was run in a perfect manner for facilitating the divided opinions with regards to the environment.

Sad for it all to end

International Environmental Politics has been an amazing experience, and I will walk away in May having learned more from that course than many others I have taken at American University. My only regret is that I somehow managed to put off this class as an SIS major requirement until my last semester; the knowledge I gained would have nicely complemented much of my other coursework, which has largely been focused on Latin America and development. This misfortune is slightly upsetting because much of the development coursework I have done has largely been devoid of the environmental aspect of the field, which becomes a crucial consideration in light of what I've learned in IEP, and particularly when I reflect on the quote about needing to curb carbon emissions by 80% by 2025 (or is it 90%, at a different year? I've heard it so many times I can't remember it properly!). Now I have to synthesize my development background with the knowledge of the environment that I gained through IEP. Other valuable aspects of the curriculum have been the discussions we've had regarding international regimes related to climate change, and particularly the international conferences, as well as the discussion of food.

I am also taking Professor Nicholson's class on food and agriculture on Mondays. These courses have nicely complemented each other, and I love Professor Nicholson's teaching style. If anyone has the opportunity to take the other course, it has been an exceptional inquiry of why the current food system doesn't work. Think about those two classes we had about food and magnify the issues! Occasionally some PowerPoint slides overlapped, but this never bothered me - in fact, in often drilled home the point and helped me remember Nicholson's point even better. Between these two classes, I have really confirmed my desire to work in the field of social justice as related to the environment. For this confidence, I truly owe Professor Nicholson, and also Peter, a huge thank you.

I've also decided to share some reflections about Powershift 2k11 below, which I partially attended this week.

Well, actually, I only attended one portion of it, which was the WeatherizeDC city canvass campaign, in which I served as a canvass captain in charge of 10 Powershift delegates from all over the country that were eager to get their hands dirty with some activism. I intended to go see Bill McKibben speak, but grew fearful that I might leave depressed and thereby ruin a fun Saturday evening. He did, however, quasi-optimistically "tweet" that our generation might just be the one to stir up the change we need. I was more interested in the activism aspect of Powershift, but unfortunately will be able to participate in some of the activities tomorrow due to class. In the future, I would definitely encourage everyone interested in these social movements to go to Powershift and be more involved than I was!

So far, I have enjoyed reading Cradle to Cradle. I am definitely in favor of the concept of using technological innovations to help solve our environmental problems. I certainly support the idea of “upcycling”. However, one immediate question that I had about the book was the about the physical book itself. How are Durabooks made? As I understand it, the synthetic paper of a durabook is made out of recycled plastic. But I am curious as to how this is made from recycled plastic and if there are any environmental ramifications.

Another criticism of the book is that it seems to embrace the notion of capitalism and consumption, when these two factors have led to the dire environmental situations we face today. In the short run, however, I feel that we must use capitalism to our advantage when protecting the environment. The adoption and use of cradle to cradle thinking spurs innovation which in turn drives the economy. Olivia mentioned that one of the drawbacks to C2C is that it will take time to fully integrate it into our industries. While, I don’t disagree with this, I do think that the adoption of C2C will happen much sooner than ending our consumption habits. As we are in a dire situation, especially with regards to climate change, I think it is important to come up with solutions sooner rather than later.

Yet at the same time that I support the development of C2C, I think there needs to be a shift away from the consumerism that is engrained in our psyches. Not only is this damaging to the environment, but I think it is also a detriment to our happiness. A combination of changing our habits/ how we are socialized and a move to C2C production will hopefully allow us to accomplish our goals of mitigating environmental disaster as much as possible.

Right Track? I Guess...

Is the Obama administration on the right track when it comes to energy? I would say yes but with reservations. It is on the right track, but much more could be done and there are some aspects of this announcement that I do not really favor. To begin with the negative, I do not support increase in domestic oil production. I understand the need for increased energy security, however, I do not think this should be accomplished through increases in oil production. It is time to move away from oil, foreign and domestic. With regards to natural gas, I echo Kenny’s skepticism in that I do not see it as a viable long-term alternative to oil.

As to what I found positive, I like the emphasis on alternative fuels and increased energy efficiency in automobiles. I do not see personal automobiles going anywhere anytime soon, so it is imperative that we find new ways to power them and increase their fuel efficiency. At the same time, I do understand that the construction of new hybrid/electric cars can have serious environmental impacts. But this is just another aspect that needs to be improved upon. Finally, what I liked most about this announcement was the public/private partnership. Leaving it to the market to solve today’s environmental problems will simply not happen. But at the same time, we will not be able to solve these problems without the private sector. That is why we need the world’s governments to push private industry to become more environmentally friendly. In my eyes, public/private partnerships have the capacity to do just that.

Overall I think that Obama is doing a satisfactory job with regards towards the country’s energy security. Obviously the number one factor when talking about energy security is significantly cutting down imports of foreign oil and he seems to understand this. I also like that he has not completely shot down nuclear energy even after the incident at Fukushima. I also think his focus on trying to develop biomass fuels for the military is right on track as currently the DoD is the largest oil consuming government body in the WORLD. That is an issue, not only towards energy security but also with regards to any and all efforts to attempt to cut back on oil consumption. Obama also emphasized the importance of more energy efficient cars, which is also right on track with my energy goals for the nation. That being said I’m sure many will claim that this is no where near enough and that we must do something more drastic, but the American people will not be able to respond to something more drastic and these steps are exactly what are necessary to gradually decrease our energy dependency on fossil fuel products. It is not a shift that can possibly happen overnight; therefore I believe Obama is taking it at the right pace and with many of the right goals in mind. However I do not necessarily agree with the idea that natural gas is truly cleaner than standard petroleum and that burning it over oil is a step in the right direction. Granted the boom in US natural gas production has helped to decrease gas prices in the states but I think that more alternatives should be looked at before we deem natural gas to be a cure-all for US energy. I would also like to see an increase in nuclear power in the plan. Obama did not completely shoot it out of the water but he was lacking in a clear plan to get nuclear power going again in the US. Nuclear plants take an immense amount of time to build because of the number of safety features that need installing and therefore we need to start now if they are to be used effectively in the future.

Republican Rapscallions

Obama's speech given at Georgetown seems to finally affirm one of his progressive planks that helped him garner the youth support that pushed him into office. His dedication to curbing oil consumption is imperative to combating climate change, but like any politician, he set deadlines way into the future that could arguably be met in a shorter amount of time with more heavy-handed policies. While these theoretical policies would be undoubtedly less popular, and particularly with his anti-environmental rightist opposition, they would be much less easier to undo. For example, Obama set the goal to purchase only fuel-efficient government vehicles by 2015, but if a Republican wins the election in 2012, this ambition could easily be reneged on. I'm thinking specifically of a paralleled story of Carter installing solar panels on the White House only to be removed by Reagan when he took office.

Another aspect of the debate between the right and left regarding energy is how to prevent, and then curtail any environmental regression the Republican-majority house may permit to happen. Just one among many examples is Senator Vitter's intention to promote domestic drilling, particularly in Alaska, as well as block certain EPA anti-pollution regulations. This second stipulation made my jaw drop - why would these policies exist if it weren't agreed on that they should in the first place? The thought occurred to me that perhaps Senator Vitter's true ambition would be to go down in the history books as a martyr at the hands of some radicals such as Earth First, but this suggests that our bureaucratic and highly partisan system can sustain itself long enough for this debate to develop any lessons worth publishing in a history book. I'm inclined to think that because of these weaknesses of our political system, as well as the long list of cons related to capitalism,there will not exist an opportunity to analyze the contemporary history of the United States in light of the way things are now.

One final thought rests with a particularly succinct and sarcastic tweet from political pundit Matty Glesias: "The good news about Obama's new energy policy is that even if it were better, it still wouldn't pass congress."

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

I think both FoS and Grist's website exemplify what's troubling with the climate change debate, and the discourse of anything political (at least in the US) right now: we, as voters, are not presented an agreed-upon set of facts with which we can debate and arrive at informed decisions. Instead, elites in politics, business, and media have for various reasons obscured our debates, even what we believe factually, to steer our opinions towards one of two rather specific and incomplete views. FoS's intention is perhaps the only clear argument presented on that website, that climate change is not due to humanity. Grist's website, on the other hand, systemically delineates one thing: that climate change is entirely man's doing. While I commend FoS's statement that they are merely trying to foster discourse, their vehement disposition and one-sidedness would best be fit for one that wants to disprove climate change as a product of humanity and merely needs ammunition. Similarly, Grist's website is a virtual arsenal for the stereotypical Democratic partisan preparing for a night on the town with Bill O'Reilly. I characterize them in these extremes because the culture of debate and organization of power that they represent is unfortunately not far from my minimal hyperboles. To the critical, both websites should provoke skepticism. To partisan, even the ideologue, one website stands as the paragon of truth and freedom, and the other the archetype of tyranny.

The purpose of these two websites is to present very differing perspectives on global climate change. On one side is the “Friends of Science” web site dedicated to disproving the global myth on climate change. Its purpose is to promote the idea that the earth is truly not undergoing any sort of climate change, especially none that is man made. It goes into detail by attempting to disprove any sort publicized information regarding global climate change. It presents facts and figures that represent its views that the earth has been hotter, that any climate change is naturally occurring, that the UN truly does not believe climate change to be man made and finally that computer models representing changing trends in the earths temperature simply are not accurate.

On the other end of the spectrum lies the website “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic.” It takes into account all of the facts spouted by those who do not believe in climate change and attempts to disprove them and argue against them. It too displays facts and charts that appear to disprove the claims of the Friends of Science and others like it. How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic lists practically every argument made by the other side and picks it apart piece by piece.

Quite frankly both websites make me skeptical. They are both incredibly polarized and find no room in the middle ground. Friends of the Science writes about climate change believers as if they are all over zealous protestors who do not understand the world at while, while How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic portrays any skeptic of global warming as, essentially, a moron. In my opinion if you really want to change people’s minds and promote either side softer language is necessary. I also find all the data portrayed on both sites rather shady. If one site has a temperature graph that shows cooling, and the other one that shows rapid heating up clearly one or maybe even both are faulty. Also data can be put into graphs to show any perspective desired so graphs should always be looked at skeptically anyways.

Though interesting, I think both sites are made only for those who already share their beliefs and not to sway the beliefs of others. They are both so overly forceful and non understanding towards the other perspective that neither can really be taken seriously. Also I wasn't a fan of either websites layout and I think they could make some definite improvements in the design of their respective pages.

destroy false information!

These websites, both previously unknown to me, both serve to facilitate a dialogue about climate change, which is very important in this age due to rampant skepticism among United States’ conservatives. Who is right, and in which regard, is yet to be known, and each website exhibits its own set of strengths and weaknesses.

Friends of Science initially struck me as an aesthetically pleasing website that served as a platform for a conspiracy theory. I was confused at first because, upon reading more of their scientific beliefs, I was presented with a new argument to an old problem of which I was familiar, the premise being that the sun is the driver of climate change and not CO2. As I read more of their myth-debunking, I thought to myself that the site was probably a puppet organization accepting massive amounts of money from powerful lobbies in order to divert focus from the true root of the problem. However, my harsh criticism was slightly alleviated when I read their “About Us” section explaining their nonprofit nature. After that, I became confused about who truly becomes the authority when it comes to acknowledging the problems and how to solve them. I found the FoS website to be encouraging because it openly promoted a roundtable conversation on the global issue while providing cohesive explanations of their platform. The site also does a good job of sharing the sources from which its claims are made.

Grist’s website, “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” is in principle an excellent idea that gets carried away with extensive science-speak that turns the website into more of a burden than a resource. The formatting is uneasy to navigate, which an overabundance of links, although each argument that an ignoramus might make is clearly broken down. There was no counterargument to the FoS site’s claims, which leads me to believe that, due to its lack of mainstream or academic mention or credibility, FoS is probably promoting the wrong agenda. This is unfortunate because the site is designed much better and easier to engage as a resource. I look forward to hearing Professor Nicholson’s insight on the FoS site.