Conscious Thinking

As someone that distinctly identified with the "Social Green" classification drawn by Clapp and Dauvergne, I found Homer-Dixon's article to be both true and despairing. As a development student, it is hard to reconcile the fact that it is our duty to inform developing nations that they, in fact, cannot attempt to emulate our countries as models lest the planet be wholely subjected to doom and gloom - which therefore makes us hypocritical. As some of my peers have highlighted in their posts, however, it is significantly easier to talk about this apocalyptic foreboding than it is to discuss its remedy. Homer-Dixon's identification of the contradiction between the need and desire to develop and the realities of why that would hurt us is clearly stated. While Homer-Dixon does not offer much in the way of recommendations, I could make some simple suggestions that seem so easy yet will never come to fruition due to capitalist interests.

Stop making water bottles. These waste astronomical amounts of petroleum and natural gas, but the people that own these resources have a vested stake in making sure they are sold. Also, a ban on plastic bags would force people to either fare without them or really start remembering their reusable ones.

Halt the production of cars that don't receive a certain MPG efficiency. Right now it's not enough for the President to say that by 2025 cars must reach a certain amount of efficiency. 2015 is probably even too much leeway. Automobile companies must be pressured to adapt.

Curb marketing efforts. It's very ironic that tons of students sit across from our classroom studying in the Kogod School of Business learning how to manipulate our minds. We're surrounding by billboards, posters, images, and noises all telling us to 'consume, consume, consume,' but overconsumption has indisputably hurt our planet. It's shocking to consider how many pairs of shoes every person I know has despite the need for only one. The government could shape policy regarding how much advertising is allowed in public places, but then it risks being labeled fascistic for regulating business "heavily."

What Homer-Dixon doesn't take the time to do is inform us that these are all things we can personally do while hardly doing anything. This is similar to what was discussed last time, and I don't advocate this as an approach but part of a larger idea. In addition to not using water bottles, opting for a bike or the use of the bus instead of an automobile, and not buying that extra pair of jeans, people are actively thinking about these issues - which is how they will be solved. We need to get everyone to start collectively thinking about and working on solutions.

Though Thomas Homer-Dixon does make an interesting point about the inability of the global economy to continue growing, I would be inclined to disagree with him. His main focus is on humanity’s inability to face environmental and resource constraints, which will in turn cripple economic growth however I believe humans will be able to adapt to new challenges like they have done in the past. Many of his key examples also neglect to take into account this type of human adaptation. For example, he uses China’s recent restrictions on rare-earth metals to exemplify the type of increased environmental impact that will happen with a decreased supply of these elements. The author believes that the opening of new mines on less concentrated deposits will increase the amount of pollution and negative impacts on the environment but this is not always the case, especially when talking about rare-earth metals. Though China is the worlds largest producer of rare-earth metals there are many other countries such as Australia who have substantial deposits. These countries also have incredibly more stringent mining regulations then China, especially with concerns to the environment. Therefore opening new mines with stronger environmental protection policies could prove more beneficial than the continuing operations and overexertion of mines with practically non-existent safety and environmental regulations.

Homer-Dixon also goes through greats lengths to describe how a decreased supply, and an increased cost of oil will cause increased use of natural gas and coal products. What he neglects to mention is how there also exists the possibility of increased uses of non-greenhouse gas emitting energies that can rival the energy production of fossil fuels such as nuclear energy.

Though I do agree whole-heartedly with the statement that economic growth is a necessity to the increasing of worldwide standards of living, I disagree with the negative outlook that Homer-Dixon has. The human race is incredibly adept in its ability to adapt and change, a fact proven throughout history. The current environmental challenges are no different. Humans will find alternative energy supplies, and alternative means to continue growth as a species.

The Premise of Infinite Growth

Thomas Homer-Dixon articulates a contradiction in belief: that states (and the world economy overall) must always economically grow, but that this economic growth inherently requires a greater consumption of resources to sustain and propel itself. Elementary logic provides the dilemma: how can a planet with finite resources sustain continual (let alone exponential) growth?

Homer-Dixon entitles the notion that economies must grow "conventional", which most would agree with. But where does this notion come from? Why must economies continually grow?

Obviously the world functions within a capitalist system. Capitalism denotes that the total value of a state, its capital, can increase. Those Clapp and Dauvergne title "market liberals" believe that the free market, necessitated by laissez faire policies of the state, allow private industry to be more efficient and thus maximize the capital of a state. Similarly, "market liberals" believe that capital gains and corporate profits serve as incentives for innovation and entrepreneurship, allowing individual citizens of the state to enhance the total capital of the state through the accumulation of their own capital, or value.

So, in essence, each state seeks for its citizens to maximize their own capital and thus the state's total capital - the state seeks growth. But capital is a bit of an abstract term. It stands for value, but what exactly is that? Its really whatever we want it to be! Anything from hospitals to tanks, from land to transportation. So really value is power in all its forms. The power to impose one's will and shape the world and one's life to one's desires. But if a state already has sufficient value, already provides what its citizens deem necessary and the people (theoretically the essence of the state) are content, why must a state enhance its value? Only two answers come to mind: more people will be in the future than currently exist (population growth), or the state must compete with other states' values to maximize its effect on the geopolitical landscape (realist competition).

We see in Japan that population growth has stopped and that, for some years, Japan has had a population decline. Yet its economy still grows; moreover the prospect of a stagnated economy still disturbs onlookers. It remains that competition fuels this anxiety.

Back to the original dilemma: the conventional wisdom of "infinite growth" versus the stark reality of limited resources. As any dilemma must be resolved, one might ask: which of these will give way first? I contend that the notion of state competition must give way. The "social greens" Clapp and Dauvergne discuss desire equity of resources and opportunities among those countries currently considered "developed" and those considered "developing". But so long as states project a realist, Machiavellian image of the world in which they must fight for their slice of the pie rather than increasing the entirety of the pie, the myth of essential growth will pervade, and humanity will continue to believe a foolish notion that sustained growth is paramount over finite resources.

Time to Step Up

Professor Maniates’ article published on Thanksgiving of 2007 clearly outlines how greater action must be taken in order to salvage our most prized tangible thing, the Earth itself. I was appalled to learn that sleazy authors would publish titles such as “The Lazy Environmentalist” in order to profiteer and in turn undermine a real movement. If people aren’t knowledgeable enough to comprehend the problem in its entirety, than they shouldn’t be published on the topic. Unfortunately, this book is representative of the overarching system, wherein people purchase books that inform us that our atrocious consumption is not *that* bad but instead should be telling us not to buy more of anything without great skepticism. I’m personally having a hard time reconciling the bike frame I intend to by. My last frame was bent in a fashion that can’t be repaired, and as much as I would like to get a new one, I am putting in extra effort in order to find an old one that will suit my tastes. I couldn’t justify buying a new one when it’s indisputably more sustainable to buy an old one. Nonetheless, I will still need to purchase new components for the bike I’m building, which isn’t a sustainable approach if you consider that I don’t need a bike when I can use my skateboard to get around. But then again, even my skateboard isn’t made to last forever, as evidenced in the explanation of industry in ‘The Story of Stuff.’ Planned obsolescence is a huge problem that perpetuates our viscous cycle of consumerism. To theorize an end to, however, is much harder to do than identifying the problem. I personally support the idea of heavy government regulation, but in the eyes of most politicians, this is un-American and detrimental to society in general.

I commend Professor Maniates for taking such a bold stand on these issues that have become of secondary importance thanks to partisan politics and religious blundering, among other things. I personally am ready, as an adult, to take part in the hard work he mentions as imperative to saving our planet.

Easy Solution: Vote

Every little bit counts. This is one of those sayings that I tend to believe. Making sure to recycle, using energy efficient light bulbs, turning the lights off when not in the room, etc. These are all simple ways in which we can individually do our part in the fight against Global Climate Change. Mr. Maniates, however, is 100% correct when he says that these are not the 'be all, end all' solutions to our environmental problems.
GCC is not something that can be solved by the individual actions of the people because, lets face it, the majority of the people will not take the individual actions necessary to confront this phenomenon. There is, however, one simple action that can indeed have a large impact on GCC and that is to vote. It means that during each election cycle, we, the people must vote for those candidates who acknowledge the existence of GCC and are ready and willing to do something about it. We cannot continue to ignore it because it would be 'bad for the economy' or even worse cause 'global warming doesn't exist'. Global Climate Change is here and it is real and in the long run it will be worse for the economy if nothing is done about it.
The only way for us to curb Climate Change is through government action. This includes the regulation of carbon emissions, the signing and ratification of Kyoto (even if China doesn't), increased funding of alternative energy projects, etc. The government is the only entity powerful enough to solve this problem. But the people are the only the entity powerful enough to elect the government.

I like Mr. Maniates' point that political and environmental elites spoon feed consumers near-marginal revision of daily habit as antidote to rapid environmental degradation. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment delineated humanity's crisis quite starkly: "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted." So why hasn't such a foreboding message provoked more passion, change, or at least a greater consciousness of our species' mortality from elites or the masses?

The advent of the 24 hour news cycle has given physical manifestation to political consciousness. Even those apolitical typically arrive at relevant information regarding the whole of human activity either directly or indirectly from the media. And the media intrinsically provides narratives, or stories. Now examine possible solutions for an issue like global warming: regulations on every type of corporation from Monsanto to Merrill Lynch limiting degradation caused by both production and the product itself. But within the media-provided narrative of the free market and capitalism as intrinsically good - providing the developed world with competition, liberty, and prosperity - regulation and government interference cause immediate anxiety, especially when global warming skeptics cannot even confer the need for such regulations.

My point: the story we tell ourselves about our own existence and historical process - as the "land of the free" that defeated both fascism and communism through its economic liberty - now comes at odds with perhaps our most plausible next steps: limiting the corporation and redefining economic freedom. The debate on global warming and the government's role is, in essence, a debate on the nature and role of the government of the United States itself. Any politician does as Mr. Maniates recommends intrinsically takes a definitive side in this debate - something no good politician will do if he or she can spare it. And with the media preoccupied with the economy, war, and the horse-race of politics itself, why should any politician throw their hat in a ring that has no crowd such as the environment?

I think that Maniates makes a good point in that for serious change to take place more drastic action needs to take place, however I do not think that anything more then little steps will actually occur. Our society has acquired a taste for the consumer world that we live in and have grown accustomed to the way in which we conduct our lives. Nothing more than small steps will truly be effective in changing the way people live and work. As Maniates mentions our society has been able to make drastic changes however in all the examples the US was facing a more tangible opponent than climate change. In both the Revolutionary War and WWII, as well as the Civil Rights Movement it was much easier to point a finger at exactly what the problem was, and the threat it posed to the health of the nation as a whole, but in the case of climate change this is proving much more difficult.

Because the country as a whole has refused to act in the drastic manner that some say is necessary then it really is acceptable in my opinion to work at the issue in a simple manner that involves the least amount of change. Besides even Maniates admits that these small steps will in fact work to some extent. That being said I do agree that trying to tackle environmental problems will take more work than just recycling and that more dramatic changes in our transportation, energy, agricultural, and industrial systems is necessary.

unknown painting by Alexis Rockman