Consider Using the N-Word Less

In regards to those top 10 lists, I wouldn't mind them so much if they listed big-ticket ways to help, instead of some of the more wimpy "turn off the water when you brush your teeth" type ones. Top 10 actions that really will make a difference but may be polically risky for a mainstream publication to suggest would include:

Having less than 2 children (or none at all)

Moving closer to work so that you can drive significantly less (or not all)

Eating significantly less meat (or going vegetarian and eating none at all)

Downsizing your house

Stopping the purchase of new objects and buying only second hand

Putting your senators and congressperson's office number on speed dial on your cell phone and calling them every time an eco bill comes up for a vote.

It's a mistake to diminish the value of individual actions in addressing national or global issues. Without widespread changes in our consumption patterns that alert policymakers and commerce that we are abandoning our energy intensive lifestyles, the efforts of much smaller advocacy groups that lobby for better legislation will not be as effective. By now we must all realize that we can't rely on our politicians to provide any real leadership - it must come from us.

Let's encourage everyone to do as much as they can. Change lights bulbs? It's a start, especially if it gets you thinking about everything else you do that is contributing to this growing climate crisis. Those types of individual actions and the change in thinking that occurs when awareness has been raised, will help to produce the kind of widespread changes in policies, products, lifestyles, and attitudes that might give this planet, and all its forms of life, a fighting chance.

Tom Kelly

Individuals drive demand for sustainable products and sources of energy.  Individuals influence family, friends and community by example.  I agree, individuals can, collectively, have a huge influence on positive changes toward sustainability, but I think the main point of Mr. Tidwell's article is that we don't have the luxury of time to wait for everyone to fully embrace a sustainable lifestyle.  We need individuals who are already leading by example AND the government pushing for change, especially from corporations, to tackle this huge predicament we have gotten ourselves into.  Focusing too much energy on changing lightbulbs alone is like trying to get out from under $50,000 worth of credit card debt by making the minimum monthly payment.

I like amc89's list, especially 'Having less than 2 children (or none at all)'.  I just hope there won't be a surge in the 'Quiverful' movement: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20134584/

So while I'd love to see major laws passed to curtail the destructive practices of corporations, I'd also like to see individuals encouraged to do things that matter.  And, yes, changing lightbulbs does matter, though of course I'd prefer to see the list be more like, "live in a smaller house, drive less, and if you can't start on either of those right away, at least eat local and cut your use of electricity in the house you already have." (or something like that).

Reading the comments, I don't think that Tidwell is suggesting that actions by individuals are inconsequential, I believe he's saying that individuals should--or MUST--push for a concerted effort on the national (and really, global) level. Voluntary actions are nice, but our responsibility as citizens is to push our lawmakers to do the right thing...just as the many protesters in the Civil Rights movement did to effect change.

Individuals can and do make a difference. I pushed my city government to sign the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement (they did!), and now City Hall is contemplating changing the building codes for residences to be "greener" than they currently are. This would be mandatory, not voluntary. Which helps the environment as well as the homeowner with lower energy bills...and from what I've read, will increase the value of the home for resale later.

Overall, I agree with Mike Tidwell that more must be done, and it must be done on a larger scale than we've seen to date. Like those who demanded change in the past, we just have to keep pushing.

"There is limited time, don't waste your energy improving your personal carbon footprint or exhorting your friends to do the same. Instead exhort the government to implement beneficial policy."

Sounds fine. Should we then, not take this argument a step further and say this?

"There is limited time, don't waste your energy pushing for less-effective policy measures like incandescent-light bans or CAFE standards. Instead, exhort the government to pass a carbon tax and to increase its subsidies of renewable energy research."

I can understand the argument (focus your world-saving energy where it has the most efficient impact) but I am not sure how the author purports to understand the incredibly complicated mechanism of how social change happens. I suppose we could trust this author's intuition, so long as we accept that that is all it is.

I'm concerned about the environment, loss of biodiversity, and loss of natural habitat. I believe my lifestyle and work reflect my desire to preserve and restore what is left of the Earth's natural environment, though most of the people reading this would probably disagree if they know more about me.

However, I chose to move from an urban area to a rural area. I drive a small SUV for reasons that are not relevant to this discussion. And I really really dislike CFLs. I will not be giving up my rural home, SUV, or incandescent light bulbs as long as others have access to them. Good luck persuading those who really don't care about the environment to voluntarily give up their rural homes, SUVs, and incandescent light bulbs.

Peace.

Now that I know that my actions don't really make any difference, I can finally crank up my thermostat, buy the McMansion and the Hummer I've always wanted, and stop squinting because of these puny fluorescent bulbs.  I'm not screwing in anything under a hundred watts.  After that, I'm signing one of those climate change petitions, because that'll get those darned politicians to finally listen.  

What he is saying, though, is that individual action is not enough. There is something mighty incongruous about calling global warming a crisis and then telling someone the solution is to change their light bulbs. Either it's not really a crisis or changing light bulbs isn't going to matter, so why do it.

Global warming calls for a total restructuring of our economy. We're not going to get there by asking people to please change their light bulbs.

"Now that I know that my actions don't really make any difference, I can finally crank up my thermostat, buy the McMansion and the Hummer I've always wanted, and stop squinting because of these puny fluorescent bulbs."

Go right ahead if it will REALLY make you happy. Perhaps it will diffuse your anger. And then, once your head is clearer, you'll be able to find ways to create real and sustainable change that will protect and restore our natural environment. And you really shouldn't install the CFLs if they cause you to squint. It probably contributes to your hostility. Nor are short wavelengths of light adequate for sound mental health. Both the squinting and harm to mental health probably further reduce your ability to work for real change.

By the way, you might find it difficult to sell the McMansion or Hummer when you tire of them. There is also the cost of upkeep. So think about whether either will really make you happy before wasting your money on it.

thadadkins also wrote:

"After that, I'm signing one of those climate change petitions, because that'll get those darned politicians to finally listen."

According to moveone.org's guide to political activism, it is much more effective to write directly to or call your representatives. They take such input much more seriously if you physically write a letter or pick up a telephone. It is too easy to sign petitions or send emails. They are overwhelmed by such material. You are lucky if a staffer reads it.

Just trying to help you. Have a pleasant evening.

I doubt that people will voluntarily give up their small comforts in order to prevent the Earth's temperature from going up a degree. I think what needs to happen is make people want to change. Offer a hybrid car that people like because it's an awesome car, not just a hybrid. Find some way to offer sustainable energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels.

There are long-term solutions to our climate issues, but asking Joe Schmoe to sacrifice for the environment is not realistic.

The problem is giving up the BIG comforts which is so much harder, economically dangerous on the individual level, and even life-threatening to some.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

Just because a hybrid car uses less gas while it is being USED means very little in regard to how much energy is uses while it EXISTS on this planet. Same with solar panels, CFLs, Energy star products, etc.

Pollution it is mostly associated with how much certain products pollute or how much pollution occurs when electricity is produced or when trash is burned or improperly disposed of. Rarely is the connection made between pollution and product development or pollution and a products time on Earth after you are done using it.

Polluting less means looking at what you do and purchase in a more comprehensive way than what you hear from the marketing agencies. What we buy often consumes energy while we are using it. Some products consume less energy than others. However, to truly pollute less more aspects have to be considered than just the energy consumption during the time you own the product. What you purchase has to be manufactured, distributed, advertised, recycled, and disposed. Materials have to be located, equipment has to be built and moved, the materials have to be mined/harvested, transported around the globe, transformed, melted, shaped, etc. Some products are made from components that are made somewhere else by someone else. Manufacturing, distributing, selling, and disposing anything is a global and rather complicated affair. There are a lot of energy costs in every product and we know very little about those costs.

Products are sold because they are wanted or needed by the consumer and marketing/advertising is focused on the time the consumer owns the product. The fact that there are hidden energy costs is rather convenient from a marketing point of view. Researching those costs is difficult. It takes time, a lot of money, and cooperation by the manufacturer (which is rarely available since a negative outcome of the research will hurt sales of the product). Even the people who make the product do not know the life time energy costs of their products. When you have bought it it is not their responsibility any longer how much energy it costs to return the product components and material into the cycle of manufacturing.

What needs to be looked at is not "product USE energy" but "product LIFE energy". What needs to be investigated is not only how much energy YOU use while using a product, but how much energy it costs SOCIETY to supply you with that product from beginning to end. Don't pat yourself on the back just because the product you use has a benefit while you are using it. That does not mean (at all) that your product is better than other products in regard to product life energy costs. Depending on the product (as well as you) it may even be the opposite. Believing that your product's less polluting effects on the environment are offsetting any negative effects before and after you own this product without having scientific data available is environmental romanticism. If everybody believes whatever they want to believe nothing will change.

Regulations will result in little change if consumers (I hate this word) do not develop critical thinking towards their designed, engineered, and advertised environment as a whole.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

...What needs to be looked at is not "product USE energy" but "product LIFE energy". What needs to be investigated is not only how much energy YOU use while using a product, but how much energy it costs SOCIETY to supply you with that product from beginning to end.

Carbon tax.

As usual, I like Mike's analogy, logic, and premise.  But I was hoping he meant "neutral."

It's true, clearly, that we need sweeping policy, mandatory reductions and targets, renewable standards, all of it - and individual action, too.

And it is also very true that these actions have got to be real - not greenwash for the sake of looking good.  I want to see people (and organizations) talking less about being or hoping to be "carbon neutral" and talking more about what they are doing to reach this unreachable star, and how successful - or not - they are.

Knowing what works and talking about it will make the policy changes we need more likely.

Bill B.

However, the biggest problem is that Tidwell (he will not address it) and certain other "activists" (i.e. segments of the Sierra Club) will not admit that population growth (including illegal population growth in the US, for example) is the defining problem behind our situation. If we could maintain a stable population, we would have an easier time correcting our consumption patterns and living habits.

I can build as many wind mills as I can, but it doesn't matter if we have people (in the US and abroad) still having 5-7 more children. They are all additional consumers who will then have to decide to change their consumptive habits. The market place shows that the new additions to the US consume as much as the existing citizens who are known already for excess (i.e. cars/SUV's, Walmart, excessive meat consumption). This is combined with the problem that in other countries including Africa and China, the consumptive patterns are increasing whether or not the population is increasing.

These are the "difficult" and logical choices that the both the left and the right fail to deal with. It is very unfortunate.

Analogously, the government sets air pollution standards but note it does not try to tell car manufacturers how to meet them. Its job is to create level playing fields. All imported cars also have to meet those standards.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Doing things on the "10 Things You Can Do to Save the Planet" list makes people feel a little better about themselves and the situation because at least it is something positive.  For over thirty years I’ve done what I could to reduce, reuse and recycle.  Using CFLs, running my geothermal heat pump and driving my Prius makes me feel a bit better, but I know it is not nearly enough.  Much to their annoyance, I pester my family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers with global warming information and “take action” emails.  I know that’s not enough.  I send emails to my representatives and letters to corporate executives.  Still not enough.  The sad truth is it will never be enough because it is a struggle with no end in sight.  As long as the population keeps growing and the planets resources continue to be destroyed and consumed without a second thought, the fight to save what is left of our planet will never end.  

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying.  Every single positive action makes a difference, no matter how small.  The key is to understand that the job is never over.  There will always be global warming deniers who find it easier to pretend that there isn’t a problem than to confront it.  There will always be corporations who put profits ahead of everything.  There will always be new clean renewable technologies to discover.  There will always be politicians to convince to do the right thing, despite the temptations from the fat-cat corporate lobbyists.  And there will always be new generations to educate so that they understand the benefits of living with the natural world instead of destroying it by consuming it.

It's like wiping down (not even rearranging) the deck chairs on the Titanic - or whatever the appropriate tiresome metaphor is - while the iceberg looms.  While some folks claim that encouraging small actions - like changing light bulbs - leads to larger actions, I disagree. It is an irrefutable fact that changing every light bulb to a CFL and every car to a high-performance hybrid will do little to change the trajectory we are on.  Much more needs to be done. Instead, changing light bulbs, or combining trips, buying hybrids, etc, lets people off the hook, gives the impression that small actions will make a difference, which is patently untrue, AND prevents us from having a discussion about where we need to and want to be heading to REALLY make a change. The American public deserves the truth: that preventing catastrophic climate change will require some MAJOR rethinking of our society's priorities and our economy's direction.

We do our countrymen and women a great disservice when we (including those of us in the well-meaning environmental community) downplay the real risks and choices that are to be made. Some would argue that we all do this because we don't want to scare people with "gloom and doom" but that is (1) patronizing and (2) shows a serious lack of creative thinking. That mindset assumes that averting catastrophe means sacrifice rather than change. Can we continue along our current path, live our current lifestyles and avoid catastrophe?  Absolutely not.  But who said this society, this lifestyle, this version of the American Dream is as good as it gets?  While there are many who would like us to believe that it is - particularly those who benefit most from our current unsustainable, consumptive lifestyle - we now have an unprecedented opportunity to explore how else we can live and grow and thrive without jeopardizing the lives of our children and the very biosphere in which we all live.  

Let's start the real discussion, get those creative juices flowing and forget about the damned light bulbs.

The question remains though: Who do you listen to if it comes to WHAT to do?

• A democratic government will regulate only to an extent that is acceptable to the majority and this compromise will be weak, too late, and not enough.
  
• Environmental romantics follow whatever feels right and listening to them may or may not have the desired results. Believing and good intentions are not enough!
  
• Scientists need to consider what is popular to be funded when publishing results. It is hard to be independent when your job is on the line.
  
• Sales of mass-produced "green" products are driven by marketing professionals who have a profit in mind, not a clean environment.  We WANT new things; we do not NEED anything new. In most cases, not participating in an activity has a lower impact than participating using a "low-impact" product. In many cases the wise and reasonable use of already existing products may have a lower impact than purchasing new products.

I agree, education is the key. We have to veer away from the thinking held for many generations that the following generations will have it better than this one. We have to teach the younger generation that they cannot and will not have it as comfortable as we thought it would be for us. And to gain credibility we need to voluntarily say good-bye to the conveniences of modern life and live as a role model as good as we can while we talk about the necessary changes. This is hard.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

Unfortunately, most Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that our luxurious and convenient lifestyle is a God-given right and any suggestion to reduce consumption or convenience is un-American.  Europeans live a comfortable lifestyle yet they consume less than half of the energy and produce 1/4 of the waste as we do.  They walk/bike a lot more and ironically they are not a bunch of ignorant, arrogant FATTIES.

Americans understand one language and that is the almighty DOLLAR (which, by the way is being drastically and secretly devalued by the Federal Reserve).  Most Americans will not change one iota until the environmental impacts of climate change begin to impact their bottom line.  This will begin (and has begun) with rising gasoline and other energy prices, which will continue to soar as our country maintains an energy policy based almost exclusively on supply (or lack thereof) of fossil fuels.

What is truly sad is that our collective lavish, comfortable, convenient and arguably excessive lifestyle will be paid for by our children.  Most parents wouldn't dream of racking up thousands in credit card debt, school loans and cash advances ONLY to leave them for their children to repay.

However, that is in effect EXACTLY what we are doing by mortgaging their future by living it up during the great fossil fuel age.  Leaving our kids the unfunded social liabilities of medicare/medicade/Social Security to care for the aging boomers who have lived the most comfortable lifestyle in human history is unconscionable.  The brunt (and costs) of the environmental damage done via climate change will be theirs to bear.  Disease, displaced population, coastal erosion/destruction, soaring insurance rates, economic devastation...the list goes on and on.

So, for those of you who cringe at the idea of changing your habits, vehicle, lifestyle choices, etc. I say GROW THE F*** UP and realize the nature of what you are saying.  Can you imagine the kind of questions our children will ask once they reach our age?  I can imagine the words S-E-L-F-I-S-H and S-H-O-R-T-S-I-G-H-T-E-D might just come up in conversation.

That's unfortunately what it comes down to...about 95% of Americans are spoiled, self-centered, selfish babies who want it all now and the consequences be damned.  Well, to them I say, you shall reap what you sow...

I applaud those of you who are making many changes to reduce your contribution to our planetary mess.  Our culture doesn't make it easy, but those who are committed don't see it as a sacrifice but as a simpler way of life that ironically makes one feel more at peace with oneself and more connected to nature- I hope I am not alone in that  realization?

For those of you offended by this post, I offer no apologies but invite you to do some investigating before you reply. If you are short on time as we all seem to be these days, visit www.youtube.com and type in the search box topics such as "Peak Oil"  "Zeitgeist"  "David Ray Griffin"  "Michael Ruppert" and "New World Order."  I guarantee if you checkout any of these topics your eyes will be opened as never before.

Americans have a fundamental aversion to the truth, whether it be about the collusion of our government in the events of 9-11, the false pretenses of our illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq, and all future actions taken by our government as a part of the inevitable resource wars that are necessary to perpetuate our selfish, lavish lifestyle.  Those who believe what they hear in the mainstream media and wave the flag as if we are "the good guys" need to begin doing some serious reading and research.  America's been at this a long time, going back to the genocide of native Americans, stealing land from Mexico, saddling less-developed nations with debt to subjegate them to our economic and military will, and now our "war on terror" which is a front for a crackdown on domestic rights/freedoms as well as serving as a justfication for further imperial ambitions.  Mark my words; the next big conflict, barring an attack on Iran will be the invevitable contest between US/Great Britain/Japan and their allies versus China/Russia/Venezuela and other allies to stop American incursion into resource rich (oil/natural gas/clean water) areas.

For those curious about the dangers of our fossil fuel over-consumption and dependence checkout Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over" which details the changes that will be inevitably forced upon us as cheap oil supplies begin to slowly and steadily decline as worldwide demand soars.  Like a junkie cut off from his/her fix, we will stagger and go through painful withdrawal as our economy collapses into world-wide recession and the inevitable and necessary reduction in population wreaks havoc on our unsuspecting world.

I'm sure this will elicit some strong opinions.  Someone please post a message of hope b/c I don't see things working out all that nicely.

Let's face it:
We still live in a capitalist society with a free market system. This single piece of truth fundamentally disqualifies Mike's comparison between our current situation with the Civil Rights Act. The equal rights were realized only because it would contribute to the capitalist economy growth. Equal rights provide more quality workers and consumers, good stuff for the economy.

In stark contrast, what we need to do to fight the climate crisis (either voluntarily or by law, we need to consume less) is totally anti-capitalism. That's why I don't believe any mandatory regulations can be realized within the current system since all the politicians are backed by the big dollars. Much more so today than in the 60s. So no Civil Rights Act for Climate. Period.

But we don't want to just complain among each other and sit there watching the world dying either. The only solution I can see is for people in this online community and all others who are concerned about the climate crisis to organize politically and run for public service positions. Call it Green Party or whatever, but all the environmental organizations and individuals should rally under one banner and fight our way into the legislature and administration.

Only then can we change the game rules. Game rules, that's the point. I have faith in American people as a whole. The only reason that 95% of Americans are selfish is because the capitalist system is based on and encourages selfish thinking and behavior. Given the current rules of the game, it's really hard for individuals to contribute to a commonwealth.

So for the new rules, it's not that we have to get rid of capitalism altogether. All the ideas proposed by Mike and the others point toward a restrained captalism, a market economy with limited freedom, a sustainable system. It's a new set of game rules that's fundamentally different enough from the current system that it requires a revolution to realize or a brand new political party in power.

If anybody agrees, we can start the party, hmm, tonight!

Whether you have a hummer or not pales in comparison to the problem of meat and the land and precious resources used to feed the animals we eat.  Its not enough to stop using pesticides in the front lawn, or to buy a hybrid.  People must stop consuming vast quantities of cheap subsidized diary and meat.  Keep in mind that producing cheap food for these animals encourages use of genetically modified soy, and corn which is highly problematic.    

Cattle, and other livestock are arguably the single biggest problem when it comes to global warming, not to mention even more important ethical issues of inhumane treatment of animals.  

The issue of global warming is a sidetrack from the real ethical issues about the environment and treatment of animals and other wildlife.  Like Bush focusing on the hydrogen car as a solution to global warming, it offers an unattainable goal, and masks the real solutions which have to do with real accessible things we can do.   Some of those are pointed to here by Tidwell.  It's sink or swim now.  You simply cannot leave out a criticism of the meat and diary industry when talking about global warming.  

1. Carbon Tax
   
2. Free Public Transit

Changing lightbulbs doesn't really equal a moral mandate. It doesn't require any real social, cultural, or ethical change. As folks have already mentioned, consumption is key, and that's quite honestly a moral issue. And consumption, like it or not, is at least partly tied to numbers (i.e. population). In some way, we need to address these issues head on. It doesn't seem that we're really facing them - either by focusing on minor fixes light switching lightbulbs or on "major" fixes like top-down policy enforcement. We're a culture in need of spiritual focus, an idea that gets co-opted too often by fundamentalists on the right, as well as by new-agers on the left. It's a difficult thing to talk about, but we need to. Environmental problems are tied to ALL our problems, and we can't solve them without dealing with the other issues we face as a society. Some of those issues may be difficult to talk about honestly, like population, like race, like urban-rural differences. Ignoring these sticking points (or allowing only one PC version to be heard), however, will only allow us to perpetuate our problems.

We are not a culture in need of "spiritual focus" (and if there was one, which one should it be?), but a culture in need of scientific education as well as far-sightedness. We need facts, numbers, evidence, .. that can be observed by anyone.

We will not find a agreed upon "spiritual" focus.  This concept needs to stay out of politics and become each person's own business (and not anybody else's). We are so behind here in the USA in this regard.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

A "world-wide" carbon tax for all individuals would be something. But, as a friend of mine said one day: "We would be very close to world-peace if we can agree" to something like a world-wide carbon tax even if it only applies to corporations.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

I agree with Bill B.  Let's talk less about carbon neutrality, since it is basically a myth.  We are not and cannot at present take out carbon from the atmosphere at the levels we are introducing them.  Carbon offsets are investments, not actual carbon fixers. The language does not describe the reality of the activity.  

So talking less about the N word, means talking less about personal behaviors and more about collective action.  Seems to me that is the author's point.  It make's sense.  Of course it is not only in lobbying government, but that is one mainstream and effective process.

Diane MacEachern, www.biggreenpurse.com

i ask anyone who is listening then...is a democracy or our democracy now centered and reliant on the role as consumers?  is it possible still to create social change in other ways?  

if we are left with change being acted upon us as consumers - we have little to say or do with this change.  we choose products which are designed for us.  that is not creative nor does it require our voices.  

whereas political/community action counters this by saying we have power as a voice and as a people that goes beyond what any consumer can accomplish.  i think it is time for the conversation to go beyond green consumerism.  

The questioner was setting me up for the "10 things you can do" answer and I did not give it to him. Instead, I found myself explaining that he could sell his car (it being unnecessary in a city filled with public transit and car-sharing programs), downsize his apartment, and eat less/no meat. Then I encouraged him to vote with his dollars and for political candidates that support good environmental legislation. My recommendations were not new ones to those who read the articles and comments of Grist, but they struck a note with my questioner.

This individual had heard about changing light bulbs, recycling, and so on. But these solutions did not resonate with him. When we share our knowledge of environmental issues and solutions, we owe it to ourselves and our questioners to share knowledge others seek. We must CUSTOMIZE our messages. Furthermore, for much of America, we must elevate our discussion and include the public in more complex debate. By always simplifying our message, we may ostracize many of those individuals who could have the biggest impact: the wealthy, the educated. These individuals expect high level discussion and realistic solutions. They can respond with high level political action and intelligent purchasing decisions.

I cannot deny that individual actions were a good place to start in offering solutions, nor that individual actions can have a large impact, but the time has come to emphasize the role individuals must play in systems level change.

Amanda S.

The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists -

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/

Dave

From Dennis' website:

As President, I will lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments. I will also lead in fighting for clean, affordable and accessible drinking water. I have worked hand-in-hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

.....

The United States under a Kucinich presidency would reverse the unsustainable actions in the following areas:

1. Energy consumption
   
2. Military spending
   
3. Economic and tax policy
   
4. Environmental policy
   
5. Land and water use

This is at the heart of his proposed Works Green Administration (WGA) which would couple a new WPA program to the EPA and NASA in restoring America's infrastructure and providing sustainable energy at the same time. No longer will the Environmental Protection Agency be known as Every Polluter's Ally.

Having made the changes to my own life over the last 35 years, such as biking 30 miles a day to work when I can't telecommute, I'm still offended by environmentalists driving BMWs, etc.

There are so many ways that each of us can make a difference. We have to stop behaving like victims of a consumeristic society and decide to do more with less.

Lorna Salzman

Substituting CFLs for incandescent lighting is only a good thing if the number of lights remains the same. What we really need to do is reduce our usage of artificial lighting, period. We already have all the cars we will ever be able to use. We do not need to buy or make any new ones. The same goes for roadways and bridges and airplanes and airports and wars. We need to fix what we have, and use it judiciously and sparingly, so that it will last as long as possible.

I feel Mike's oft expressed optimism wearing thin in this missive. He knows that rapid anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that it is accelerating. A tipping point, likely several, have been reached and passed. The jig is up. Even if humans were to cease burning fossil fuels immediately, the processes we have set in motion will ensure that the globe continues to warm far into the future, until a new climatic equilibrium is reached. Compared to the climate forcing potential of the ever increasing amounts of methane now seeping from melting "permafrost" and subsea clathrate formations, the remaining half of the fossil hydrocarbon legacy that we have not yet put to the torch is truly minuscule, especially at the declining rates that we can expect to extract it.

Mike is correct. Despite the determined efforts of many dedicated, informed and caring people, there simply isn't enough time to win the battle through education and persuasion. But he is not yet ready to abandon the line, to retreat to a more defensible position, not one of mitigation even, but rather accommodation to certain catastrophic change. We need to refocus. We are not going to be able to "fix" the problem of rapid anthropogenic climate change. Not through cooperation. Not through coercion. It is not going to happen. It is too late. Sorry Al. We must turn our focus to the new reality that we are creating for ourselves. We need to begin planning and we need to begin the transition. Now. Individually, firstly; and collectively where possible. Anything else is tilting at windmills. A similarly misguided effort at fixing problems that are too large to solve is the current tragic drama playing out in the formerly fertile crescent to the annual tune of a trillion or better denominated units of exchange that will now never be available for the really necessary work ahead of us. And we should all know better than to get on that bandwagon. Right Mike?

Being so involved in the green movement ourselves, it is easy to overlook the fact that most people haven't even stuck their toes in the pool, much less jumped in.  Sweeping changes only work when the time is ripe, and a quality force is behind the transformation.  We don't have that right now.  

"The idea of revolution coming from outer conditions, in the industrial field or the so-called reality of economic conditions, can never lead to a revolutionary step unless the transformation of soul, mind and will power has taken place."

-Joseph Beuys

But he doesn't really believe that. He goes on later to slip in very quickly, "When she shops for her next car, there should only be 50-mpg models across the lot, the sort even Detroit admits it can readily build."

WHAT?! If you are going to argue that polluting LESS is not enough, why the heck not call for ELECTRIC CARS? By your argument if "voluntary actions" such as buying an car with an inneffiecient engine is immoral when we can feasibly make more hybrids, then the same goes for electric cars.

The political realities of passing an electric car bill actually have nothing to do with this, either. You made an argument of principle. On that principle, you should be calling for electric cars.

In anticipation of a "political realities" lecture, I would say that the likelihood, of there being "only hybrid cars on the lot" is just as much of a pipe-dream as getting "only electric cars on the lot."

I think Tidwell does the same things the corproations are doing. He gives us half-measures.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

Marylou Noble

Marylou Noble

Education to build mass consciousness is important to begin changing the lifestyles of people--or to empower people to change their reality.  New alternatives are being developed and implemented to help alleviate some of the abuses of natural resources.  The Green Movement is being marketed as a "social status symbol" where driving hybrid cars help begin conversations about the badge of social responsibility.  For some, it may make people feel less guilty investing in the newest technology to contribute to a healthier world.  The focus of this discussion will be on the realities of communities that continue to endure the impacts gross polluters.  

In the article, "Consider Using the N-Word Less" Mike Tidwell touched on an interesting point that deemed a green lifestyle a myth constructed to alleviate the attention on gross polluters.  As political pressure builds to change laws and demand environmental responsibility, the "perception managers" or media spin doctors of public policy alter the message and place the responsibility on the individual.  The root of the problem is that the U.S. consumes too much of the worlds resources.  The individual can choose to consume less and change their appetite; however that goes against the basis of the new world economy.  The corporations seek new generations of super consumers that will buy whatever (good or bad) they produce in large amounts.

It is similar in the EJ movement when the EPA begins blaming the people in the community for their lack of access to energy efficient resources.  The root of the environmental problems in communities of color is that we are being dumped on and consistently exposed to harmful chemicals.  Instead of addressing the major issues, which are the existence and persistence of gross polluters and the inundation of pollution sources concentrated in communities of color, people are blamed for their plight and resources are placed in "civilizing the poor" or teaching them how to live better with it.  While this mentality continues, history will tell us that change occurs when people themselves speak and advocate on their own behalf.  

The Civil Rights Movement went beyond changing lifestyles, it forced those in power to look in the mirror and see the face of racism and inequality.  Those in power had no choice but to deal with the uprising of tens of thousands of disenchanted people.  The movement developed into a powerful assertion for equality and respect as a result of years of oppression.  In the context of the EJ Movement, there is fear that justice is being co-opted by the green lifestyle movement--a change in agenda from fighting for justice to voluntary individual actions because it is in everyone's best interest.  Frustration builds as our communities continue to endure inequality, poor health and bad education, and the green movement appears as a sexy mass market strategy and asks us to join.  Funders decide to only fund those organizations that seek to work on global warming by changing the habits of or providing financial resources to the poor.  Non-profit work then begins to move away from justice and more toward "changing the behavior" and creating green lifestyles in poor communities.  When do EJ communities get to raise the mirror to those in power?

"Take the polluters out of my community so I can breathe, then I will change a light bulb," is a quote that resonates in the mind.  The Green Movement does not seem to hold anyone accountable or demand action.  It is nothing more than a shape-shift for corporations to streamline and develop their products to conserve resources, yet continue to increase their profit.  It enriches the developers of new technology and saves us a few bucks on our energy bills, but that extra money goes to gas.  It is also used as a political platform deemed safe because it has been mass marketed by corporations and sanctioned by the government.  As manufacturers begin to develop more efficient technology they will continue to produce more and make profit, while people continue to consume resources.  The function of the Green Movement is to make people consume more responsibly, not demand equality.

You Can't Vote Your Way to Justice...

The Civil Rights Movement is credited with changing the face of America for the better.  The frustration of years of oppression emerged as a collective force as people of color became conscious of their realities throughout the world.  The Civil Rights Movement was a moment in U.S. history that had its limitations and fell short as intense repression quieted the hopes and dreams of those who fought for a better world.  The backlash is still being felt today as the shapers of public policy are continuing to perfect their management of public opinion.

The Civil Rights Act allowed people of color to go to school with White people and enjoy (in theory) the same privileges as Whites.  The impacts of that law were great, however it did nothing to end inequality and racism.  The reality in our communities is not much different today.  The realm of environmental policy helps to protect communities by creating laws that allow organizations and residents to get their foot in the door.  These policies create some leverage for impacted communities to begin dealing with the problems of pollution.  Changing the laws of this country to help improve the health of people is an important cause that requires our energy as we work to empower people to seek justice.  Changing environmental laws will help to alleviate some issues, however the burden will still exist.  Strong, united communities will serve as a catalyst to changing policy, but more importantly to realizing our own power to challenge the power dynamics that exist within society.

Within the context of U.S. war expansion, neo-liberal ideology, the Patriot Act, anti-immigration, including all the isms and phobias that persist in a post-911 world, our communities are feeling the impacts of both foreign and domestic policies.  This EJ Movement is an important piece that goes beyond civil rights and green lifestyles; it prepares us to demand our right to live in a peaceful world where our health will no longer be compromised for the wealth of others.  Like the "N-word," the "J-word" is becoming a bad word because communities should not be demanding environmental justice; we should be changing our lifestyles to accommodate those in power.

We do eventually need government intervention (as he suggests: "Next time Aunt Betty goes to buy bulbs at the CVS, there should only be climate-friendly fluorescents for sale . . ."); we can't achieve that until there is a consensus in the US that this should happen.

The way to arrive at this consensus is to continue to do what some companies and very few environmentalists are doing now-pushing it into the Mainstream. It needs to be a social concern for a majority of people before we can vote on it and get the government to step in. I hardly doubt that the relatively small group of environmental activists could convince our government to pass any really meaningful laws. We need a lot more people backing this movement. One of the many ways of doing this is to do what Al Gore is doing.

As much as I want to disagree with Al Gore's tactics, he's doing the right thing; he and many others have the right idea. Live Earth slightly pushed the environment into the mainstream. DiCaprio's movie slightly pushes it. The Prius slightly pushes it. Whole Foods slightly pushes it. You get the idea. The more the mainstream adopts the idea, the closer we are to seeing our goals realized.

My point is that the Green Movement MUST go mainstream so we can arrive at a consensus. I think we're well on our way to doing this (aside from all the shameful prevalent greenwash). Let's use the masses. Many of them will only make change if it's the trendy thing to do. They will only vote on it if it's what all their friends on myspace are doing. What I've learned is that some people will never share a concern for the environment the way we all do-for whatever reason. Let's get serious and begin to change our tactics-let's reconsider our role as an "environmental activist."

Pushing the green movement mainstream doesn't mean we have to sacrifice our values. The truth is people don't know what's good for them--we need to lead them however possible. And the old method of preaching and passively making small changes is not working. Our new, first priority goal should be to push the issue to mainstream. Meanwhile all the true environmentalists on the outside the mainstream continue to do our important work: empowering communities, encouraging change among friends and family, doing what we can in our lives, educating in small ways that truly affect individuals. There's no need to stop this. But there is every reason to add the push to the mainstream to our list of priorities.

Given that the mainstream is characterized by superficiality and their almost unanimous tendency to follow trends, let's use this to our advantage. Let's make this movement mainstream. The mainstream will push the markets to green products because they think it's cool. They will vote for environmentally conscious presidential candidate. They will sign all the petitions we ask them to. They will buy into sustainability because it's "the thing" to do. Is it sly? Perhaps. Is it crazy? No.

I know that makes "traditional environmentalists" uncomfortable--I don't like it much either. In some ways it jeopardizes our values. But it makes sense as a real way to achieve our goals. Push environmental activism into that area it has never gone before-the mainstream. It needs to go there before we effectively pass any laws or elect an environmentally concerned candidate.

The time is perfect. We have exactly one year to make it happen before the next election. If we can all make the environment an issue the mainstream cares about by then, we'll have no problem making significant change and achieving our goals. The power lies in the apathetic mainstream--they inherently represent the majority. And that is where our success lies.

If you share my point of view, email me and let's get serious about this. I have the resources, time and motivation to actually make it happen, but I need your help.


Steven S Matt designer and environmental activityist stevenmatt.com one-earth.com

The Federal Government, long known for its lack of action on climate change, has recently released a PR campaign called "climate clever".  You can view the campaign at:
http://cc.greenhouse.gov.au/publications/climateclever-tv ...
The focus of this campaign is on voluntary actions that Australian citizens can make.
It is no coincidence that this campaign is released just months before a federal election.

A grassroots green group "Get Up" responded with their own ad campaign "climate cleverer".  You can view the Get Up ad at:
https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateCleverer&id=126.
The focus of the Get Up campaign is to draw attention to the lack of real action by the Federal Government on the climate change issue, and to encourage citizens to vote for parties with real climate action policies.  I don't think "Get Up" intend to undermine the voluntary actions of individuals, just to draw attention to the government using these actions as a PR campaign to hide their own inaction.
Get Up has managed to raise enough money through donations over the past few days to play the ad during the AFL grand final (Aussie equivalent to the superbowl).

Casting a vote, donating to grassroots groups and being an activist are voluntary actions too... watch the next Australian election to see how successful they are.