No Stimulus Would Be Best for the Environment

As highlighted in previous class readings, I think that the United States is too invested in the idea of economic stability and stimulation. Too many people believe that specific numbers about the economy will directly affect their happiness and well being. The stimulus package restores a sense of calmness back into the minds of consumers. The stimulus also gives funds to environmental issues. The funds are a step in the right direction, but I believe that no matter how much funding you poor into a issue if people aren’t serious about it then the effect of the funds will be canceled by lack of action. The stimulus package is going to bring consumerism back up, thus adversely affecting the environment. I think that without the stimulus package Americans could try to break their addiction to consumerism as well as help the environment. Americans could save their money, increase nonmaterial happiness, and help the environment.

Brittany Stewart

What the Stimulus Package Means for the Environment

I think the stimulus package was a step in the right direction for our government to start seriously thinking about the environment in tandem with economy. The future of jobs in America are in green jobs, not the auto industry or coal mining. Although the plan is not perfect (like the $3.4 billion for fossil fuel research as Drew mentioned) it is a start. If the plan was heaped in environmental spending, it may not have passed through Congress. Some environmentalists think Obama did not go far enough in his spending on clean energy and the environment, however, we need to recognize the parts of the plan (such as the money for smart-grid and clean up) as a stepping stone for a more comprehensive energy bill to be passed in the near future. The stimulus has some beneficial spending for the environment, but it is just a warm-up for what the country really needs to accomplish.

maybe a colorless stimulus

Drew did a nice job of pulling apart some of the environmental provisions listed in the legislation, so in the interests of brevity I won't repeat them. It seems, on the surface, a positive. Perhaps if some of these projects are implemented effectively, especially those that involve reworking old infrastructure to be more energy-efficient, we will be able to recover economically with slightly less environmental impact. Nonetheless, it seems to fall short of what activists are hoping for. The unfortunate relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation seems to be direct. As one increases so does the other, so I have to conclude that no stimulus would be greener than any stimulus.

a light green stimulus

On Tuesday, President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan. What does this new stimulus package appear to mean for the environment?

The stimulus is mostly a continuation of Cornucopian-Promethean thinking, although some of the funds are allocated wisely in term of environmental protection.
Firstly, the $286,869,000,000 for tax cuts is bad for the environment because it further promotes cancerous overconsumption of resources. One of the goals is to stimulate consumer spending, and this is after a decade long binge of consumers overspending. Tax cuts without a serious restructuring of incentives is not a long term solution to the environmental and economic crises.

But in the short term, I like some of the investments the government is going to make in the environment. My favorite is the $8 billion allocated for high speed rail systems, because I would really really like to be able to take the train while I'm back home in Iowa. The $11 billion for smart-grid is also pretty good, except to actually get a smart grid nationwide will cost something like $200 billion. There's also some money for research in renewables, but like I said before, the incentives just need to be restructed - something that puts a price on GHGs. Also many pieces of the stimulus include money for all kinds of efficiency - my sincerest hope is that efficiency money is spent wisely and effectively because I think it would be easy for agencies to lie and waste the efficiency money (counter intuitive, eh?). I like the several billion set aside for old-school style environmental clean-up, but I would prefer that money to clean up environmental problems is along the lines of "polluter pays." Many things are somewhat related to the environment in the stimulus, like money for NASA research.

The worst thing is the $3.4 billion for fossil fuel research, which sounds to me like clean-coal, tar sands, and off-shore drilling.

A Non-Human World Experience

To pick one thrilling non-human engagement is really difficult. There’s a few that spring to mind. The most magical engagement for me happened a few summers ago, my family and I were vacationing on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. On one of the first nights there I went wondering by myself to the Cape Cod Bay. The tide was receding and you could walk on the sand for ages before you reached the water. The sun was setting and it was incredible to see all the colors. As I walked closer to the water and further from the shoreline, there were lots of shells strewn across the sand, I even came across a horseshoe crab. That showed me that by simply wandering around you stumble upon really awesome moments in nature.

Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.

A Non-Human World Experience

To pick one thrilling non-human engagement is really difficult. There’s a few that spring to mind. The most magical engagement for me happened a few summers ago, my family and I were vacationing on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. On one of the first nights there I went wondering by myself to the Cape Cod Bay. The tide was receding and you could walk on the sand for ages before you reached the water. The sun was setting and it was incredible to see all the colors. As I walked closer to the water and further from the shoreline, there were lots of shells strewn across the sand, I even came across a horseshoe crab. That showed me that by simply wandering around you stumble upon really awesome moments in nature.

Humans should concern themselves in saving nature or at least diminishing the effect humans have on the environment. Moreover, I don’t think saving nature should be done haphazardly, but the scale of clean up needed may be hard to do neatly. Humans can’t go back and restore all of the damaged ecosystems and land areas, but we can start to preserve what’s left. Nature is best when humans leave it alone, but that is obviously cannot happen.

Week 3 Questions

The most memorable engagements I've had with the non-human world came last summer when I worked as a Piping Plover Steward. The piping plover is an endangered species of shorebird, and my job was to educate the patrons of the beach about the birds and to keep them out of fenced areas where the birds nested. The main reasons for the plovers' decline is commercial development on beach fronts and human disturbance. One of my duties was to locate nests and build protective barriers called exclosures to keep out predators and humans. In the 10 to 15 minute race to get an exclosure up, the parents of the eggs would be close by performing their "broken wing" defense mechanism. An adult will flap its wings close to the ground and run around a predator so it thinks it is injured--therefore a predator will go after the weak adult rather than an egg or chick. These particular parents were extremely protective and they did their broken wing dance from the time we showed up at the site 50 yards away, to when we ran back to our truck to watch with binoculars if the birds sat back on the nest. While we were erecting the exclosure one parent was flailing right beneath my feet, and flapping its wings on my shoes and legs. It made the process frustrating and difficult, but in the end I was touched by the birds fearlessness of trying to attack something hundreds of times bigger and stronger, for its eggs. After these particular eggs were hatched, I monitored the chicks closely, but realized the parents of the chicks did not need any help in protecting their family.
Some other memorable experiences that I have to mention from this job--
covering a rouge squirrel with (harmless!) pink fluorescent powder, watching plover eggs hatch, seeing a pregnant pilot whale washed ashore, and rescuing a orphan baby plover from the wind and rainstorm.

I think "saving nature" is something people must engage in for the future of our planet, and therefore humankind. Directly contributing to this cause as a plover steward, I felt like I did make a difference in the well-being of this plover population. To save nature on a global scale, however, will take much more. We need to stop human encroachment into the wilderness and the overuse of natural resources. Fossil fuels must be phased out for a world powered by clean, sustainable energy. Humans need to realize that nature was here first, its sole purpose is not to meet the needs of human consumption.
I think this quote by Dave Foreman sums humans effect on nature very well: "Our environmental problems originate in the hubris of imagining ourselves as the central nervous system or the brain of nature. We're not the brain, we are the cancer on nature."

Timeless Wild

What's the most thrilling/magical/enchanting engagement you've had with the non-human world?

This is a really hard choice for me, because 4 or 5 different experiences come to mind. Above the others, I would say that the most enchanting experience I've ever had in the non-human world while I was fishing. It was the summer before college and my father took me to the river a dozen miles from our house. The day was calm, overcast, and warm, just before a light evening rain. In the middle of the stream, water flowing by my feet, wind in my hair, fly rod in hand, I felt connected to nature on a primeval level. The whole experience felt timeless, like the act of fishing was something that always existed and always will be. I caught the fish, and I let them go; it was an amicable game.

And part II, is "saving nature" something we should concern ourselves with? Why, or why not?

Yes, and I would agree saving nature is mostly an exercise in human restraint. If we are to save nature and thus save ourselves, we have to stop the cancerous expansion of human modifications to the ecosystem. I know that this is no longer completely in reason, due to the fact that man-made polution now permeates every corner of the globe, but there is still so much worth saving. We need nature for all of the ecosystem services it provides, in addition to the aesthetic, spiritural, and cultural values nature can provide. In order to save nature for future humans to understand what Earth was like, will require very active measures to increase efficiency and conserve wild places.

Week 3

1. My best experience with the non-human world was probably as a child when I would climb the big pine tree in the backyard. The branches were just high enough to prevent my little sister from following me, and I would go climb, read, or just sit around and think. Eventually I had the courage to climb the whole way to the top and I found an owl's nest. I didn't get close enough to disturb it, but it was an interesting discovery. T wouldn't characterize the experience as thrilling so much as peaceful, and, even though I don't climb trees anymore, being in nature during a nice day is a great way for me to relieve stress.

2. I'm not convinced by our ability to "save nature" through deliberate actions. We are part of nature, and we have a responsibility to reduce our impact on displacement. However, as discussed in the readings this week, collecting a few members of a threatened species, placing them in a conservation zone, and vowing not to touch them isn't particularly natural either.

Response to “Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"

After reading the article “Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It” by Michael Maniates, I would say that I agree with the argument presented. Doing the little things to help the environment just doesn’t cut it anymore. More people do need to focus initiative on taking on a more prominent role in their green actions, but without enforcement I doubt people will get serious. Most people will argue that they don’t have the time or that it involves more effort to play a bigger green role. Without someone forcing individuals to tackle the bigger actions, they won’t. One could argue that people do the little things to clear their conscience, doing a little in their minds is better than not doing anything at all. At this point though, Maniates is correct, the time for doing little has passed and more people need to step up to the plate. People need some nudging though to get started, more would be interested or compelled to do greater things if the United States had more legislation devoted to decreasing our ecological footprint. Legislation would also set an example of what actions are expected in order to start truly making a greater environmental difference.

Brittany Stewart

Response to Maniates

I agree with Maniates argument that the time for easy is over. Now is the perfect moment to take those strides for the environment that were not possible for the last eight years. However, we should realize that not everyone is as passionate as saving the earth as others. If celebrities and politicians can succeed in motivating those who were once indifferent to environmental degradation to recycle or conserve electricity--it is a victory for the green movement. Those people who are passionate about these issues need to be the ones to step up and take on the larger and more widespread goals of the movement. We cannot expect all people to understand and care about the earth in the ways that scientists and activists do. If we can get them to take small steps, that is a great accomplishment. However, we need to ask more of our politicians and international leaders to pass laws and agreements to slow climate change and take the issue of the future of our planet more seriously.

Week 2: Thoughts on "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It"

After reading the posts from last week, I appear to be the black sheep of the group. Accordingly, I think Michael Maniates is largely correct. Easy doesn't fix the problem. I am not advocating that we collectively stop doing the little things. After all, less, even if just a tiny bit less, is preferable when it comes to negative environmental consequences, but these changes are not what we generally refer to when we talk about a lifestyle overhaul. We all laughed a Cameron Diaz, but she's just do exactly what she has been told and passing her wisdom to the rest of us.

So why is green living sold to us in this way? I don't think it's as patronizing as Maniates claims. Perhaps its just one way to get regular people engaged in the process on a regular basis. Paul Revere, Franklin Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all extraordinary innovators who adopted a core mission as their life's work. Similar innovators exist and will continue to emerge in the field of conservation, so as the rest of us pursue other callings, lets support them in the ways that we can.

Alli Gerhart

Drew's Post

"This week I'd like you to read and comment on this piece, which appeared in the Washington Post on Thanksgiving Day last year. The article was written by Michael Maniates of Allegheny College, one of the authors of the "Confronting Consumption" chapter we read a couple of weeks back. What do you make of Professor Maniates' argument?"

Firstly, I would like to say I completely agree with his argument that the time for easy is over. Being told to take shorter showers, use compact fluorescents, drive less, and get a hybrid {next time we buy a car} now borders on condescending. The situation demands much more than that. We should be able to do the small things while also doing the big things. Of course, some people will make careers out of doing the big things {thus, green jobs}.

Reading this article kept reminding me of a quote from President Kennedy when he proposed going to the moon:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

Now it is time, and especially with this political climate, to demand the things that are hard because they are necessary. Nothing good ever came easy.

Response to Question 2

I think Fish's article is largely a confession of laziness, and an attempt to make others like him feel that it's okay to be apathetic to the environmental cause. He is essentially advocating indifference to the biggest problems facing the world today. Fish could have used his blog in a more effective manner by writing about the problems he has with living sustainably, and then educate others on how to combat this laziness.
Fish complains that it is difficult and expensive to live sustainably. It doesn't have to be expensive to live in an environmentally friendly way--environmentalists know that everyone will not be able to afford a hybrid car or install solar panels on your roof. But there are small, simple things anyone can do that add up to a lesser carbon footprint, like using a reusable water bottle or turning down the heat. You can also promote a sustainable lifestyle by telling family and friends ways to help the environment. The phrase "every little bit helps" can really work when lots of people are doing these little actions. Supporting politicians who push clean energy legislation, participating in rallies and campaigns for the environment, and teaching your children about the environment are all ways to live an environmentally friendly lifestyle.

Lauren Krizel

Response to Stanley Fish

I think that Stanley Fish’s piece offers great insight into the fact that many Americans are simply stuck in their ways. Many do not partake in eco-friendly activities because they do not want to change. One could blame the unwillingness to change on the fact that most Americans do not see visible advantages of leading environmentally friendly lives. Most cannot see how their choices affect the environment with their own eyes. As a result, they do not believe that their choice to recycle a plastic bottle really makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.
I agree with Drew’s post that living environmentally friendly in the modern-day US means reducing, reusing, and recycling as much as possible and that a culture change must take place in order to save the environment. In the meantime, while we’re trying to change society’s mindset, I think it’s important that individuals who find it hard to adjust to an eco-friendly life focus on one specific issue and try to stick to it. For example, if someone thinks it’s important to unplug all appliances then they should diligently stick to that and then try to change other aspects of their lives. It’s hard to do everything at once, therefore if individuals can focus at doing one environmentally friendly thing very well and then branching out, they might have a better chance at sticking to their new lifestyle.

Brittany Stewart