Thad Miller, Columbia grad student

Thad Miller is studying for an MPA in environmental science and policy at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

Happy October! Just a quick follow-up to yesterday's entry to start things off: This morning at 9:30 a.m. (EST), the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will debate the science behind and possible solutions to global warming, according to Environmental Defense. I'll have to check that out and mention it in my presentation this morning!

I've been thinking a lot lately about how we define "progress." This was brought on by reading Valuing the Earth, edited by Herman Daly and Kenneth Townsend, and Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. [Editor's note: Read a review of Cradle to Cradle.] For a society, "progress" means getting more and more (and more...). As my classmates and I have been learning in microeconomics this semester, a consumer will always want more. It seems that even when we get what we want, it makes us happy for a short time and then we want more yet again.

Now, I must admit, I am certainly not immune to this culture, as I have been told I have a small obsession with my CD collection. However, now I am thinking of one good in particular that seems to be turning up around every corner -- the Hummer. Why? I am totally baffled at the thought that anyone would want to purchase such a thing. I even saw one with an American flag across the back windshield -- consuming more means you're a better American these days, right? Even if you're guzzling more gas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil, I suppose.

Besides bashing an individual's choice to purchase a Hummer, what about the bigger picture? Take GNP. This is supposed to indicate how well we are doing. My main gripe here (and one expressed in Valuing the Earth) is that under the current system, pollution adds to GNP and therefore supposedly increases our well-being. For example, say a coal-burning power plant is spewing various gases and particulates into the air as it produces electricity. This adds to GNP -- we are better off. Then the citizens living near the plant develop asthma or some other ailments and need to go to the hospital or visit the doctor or purchase asthma inhalers. Again, all this adds to GNP -- the more inhalers we buy, the better off society is, right? Am I the only one to whom this makes no sense? These things should subtract from GNP, not add. Either that or we need a new indicator for our well-being.

That being said, I am not calling for an end to economic activity or growth. Why must our activity pollute the air and water and poison living things? There must be a better way we can make things, as Cradle to Cradle argues. I refuse to believe that such an innovative society does not have the know-how to produce goods that don't harm the environment. I think it's just a matter to trying -- and caring.

"The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation." -- Albert Einstein (as quoted in Cradle to Cradle)