Zhu: A new way of thinking
Zhu: A new way of thinking
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Non-environmentalists at Yale complain about us environmentalists taking away their trays, and our encouragement that they turn off their lights. But we, the environmentalists, have to suggest timidly to annoyed friends that they carry out those actions.
We get scolded for asking people to not waste food, and we question whether our actions have any real effects. Perhaps the most disheartening thing is that the great progress that has been made amounts to so little. Climate change recently ranked dead last in a Pew Research Center poll on what Americans perceived as priority issues, behind even the vague term “moral decline.”
Believe me, it is hard to be an environmentalist.
But this is not a rant. I want those days to be past, and I prefer this, my Earth Day (and every day), to be anxiety-free.
Instead of frustration, I couldn’t help but feel intrigued when a friend said that people act only in their own self-interest and in the short-term. There really are no incentives to change behavior for the environment, especially here at one of the wealthiest universities in the most powerful country on Earth. To be honest, he said, climate change simply will not affect Yalies that much. Environmentalists usually cringe at these statements. But what any successful environmental movement really needs to do is to move past our prepared counterpoints and responses. We must stop arguing and dictating and start understanding why people think this way.
Understanding brings us beyond environmentalism and ultimately exposes us to the fundamental characteristics of society that favor overconsumption, materialism and individualism. Environmental degradation is only one of many harmful by-products. Only by focusing and changing these fundamentals, not the symptoms, can we make real progress.
We must constantly question what seems standard and natural in society: private car ownership, the suburbs, food waste, industrial agriculture, constant economic growth. We need a vision, the possibility for a changed American society, to enter the public consciousness.
Gus Speth, the outgoing dean of the School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, in his new book, “Bridge at the Edge of the World,” emphasizes this strategy. A veteran of the environmental movement, Speth realizes that the environmental problems that have steadily been building since the 1970s cannot be solved within our current societal structure. He emphasizes that corporations must be held legally accountable to society, and that the cult of GDP growth must be replaced by a focus on improving education, health and living standards.
Under heterodox economic models that incorporate human health, working hours, feelings of well-being and the environment, our GDP has been falling since the 1970s. We must challenge materialism and consumerism as sources of happiness. Within the context of climate change, the need for this drastic overhaul of American society is greater than ever. A green world can only happen with a fundamental restructuring of our how society works.
Thirty-nine years ago, Senator Gaylord Nelson and a nationwide coalition of activists, outraged at lead contamination, DDT poisoning, polluting power plants, freeways and the loss of wilderness, organized a nationwide teach-in about environmental problems, leading to the inaugural Earth Day. Though some progress has been made to offset new environmental problems, many of these problems have persisted.
By functioning only on an issue-to-issue basis, the environmental movement can provide only temporary solutions. The electric car was possible in the early 1990s, but the project was axed. Superfund, the governmental treasure chest for cleaning up contaminated and toxic sites, ran out of money in 2003. At Yale at least, people are tired of climate change and carbon emissions. We have become complacent, resigned to letting STEP turn off our lights for us.
The idea of a completely different society and the existence of a multitude of alternatives in the future is liberating, soothing, energizing. For this Earth Day, I hope people take some time to reflect on the idea of a changed society in the future. It doesn’t even have to do with environmentalism. Just imagining a world with a new conception of what is natural, what is standard and what is the norm will be the first step in a long road ahead. We must renew environmentalism.
Charles Zhu is a sophomore in Jonathan Edwards College.
Comments
None 2 years, 9 months ago
What do I mean when I say environmentalism is taken over by spiritualism.
The argument of anti-materialism,i a spiritual argument.
Personally I'm not especially materialistic but - you have a commenter who sees much good in the material things we have and he is of course right.
You will find that a great many environmentalists are against,what is essentially on principle (read spiritual arguments)sequestration of carbon for example.
The earth has found thousands of ways to sequester carbon, why can't we sequester carbon at least for a while until we have other options.
I have talked to many 'professional environmentalists' they almost always fall back on moral and spiritual arguments. You introduced Gus Speth in your article, he essentially says we can't improve the environment without changing our society.
That may be true about the distribution of wealth but it is not anywhere near being close to be true about an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
We could significantly reduce greenhouse gases over the next five years by shifting twenty percent of our vehicles to a lower carbon fuel such as natural gas. It would have a more immediate impact that carbon taxes. By the way a natural gas vehicle is more carbon effecient than an all electric one. 50% of electricity in the US is created via burning coal.
By the way much unused and vented natural gas is a greenhouse gas. So burning it is a greenhouse freebie.
There is a great abundance of natural gas in the world.
On paranoid days I wonder if it isn't the oil and nuclear industries that most benefits from carbon hysteria and its role in keeping energy prices high.
More to the point, by the time your kids reach high school, solar energy cells will reach the productivity threshold to take the next step in greenhouse gas reduction. They are not that far now.
Pfizer is a single drug company that spends approximately $200 million per week on research and development of drugs.
Nowhere near that sum is spent in new energy technology, most is spent in field development.
As college student it may seems an odd bit of history, but there was a big movement to breakup IBM in the late 70s and early 80s because it was so dominant in the computer world.
Big mainframes nearly all run by a single company - this is similar to where the energy industry is now - a few players countries, companies, wheeler dealers, determine, the type of energy, and the price we have.
It will change, shortly,maybe even very shortly.
It will change the world just as computers and the Internet did, be part of that change.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Mitchell,
I completely agree with you that changing society for the sole reason of saving the planet will never work. I keep and trying to emphasize this point of going beyond environmentalism, that environmental degradation is only one of many negative by-products of the current society we live in. Likewise, my environmentalism is one of many reactions to what we currently have, not an end in itself.
As for your claim about environmentalists being hijacked by spiritualists, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Nowhere did I mention anything even remotely spiritual, unless you believe economics, human health, or politics belong in the spiritual domain.
And finally, I am very very familiar with Bjorn Lomborg - he makes a forceful argument. But I think a better place to look at scientific issues are in the original research conducted by thousands of scientists rather than one person writing a novel for the general public. In fact, the latter is perhaps more appropriate for those seeking a political agenda.
And I am also very grateful that for the most part we have been able to keep this discussion civilized.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Advocating changes to our systems, behaviors, or perceptions does not imply a return to "natural" life - e.g. not eating winter fruits from Chile. But take a moment to think - do we really need another 56" flat screen TV for the superbowl when that 50" one is only four year older? When those making minimum wage cannot afford driving to work (gas= $4/g), are there any alternatives in many parts of this country? What will be the individual solutions when our current systems rely on ever increasing consumption by the people and promote maximum profits of the industry?
Yes, given 50% chance people will do "reasonable" things. Chance of doing "unreasonable" things? Is it not true that the current economic meltdown all started from "reasonable" thinking of a few in the Wall Street when they saw a chance of maximum profit?
Labelings such as "environmentalist" or "idealism" only serve to separate people and to box ideas as theirs vs ours. It is safe to assume that most of our citizens do care about the environment and the Earth; when challenged, they hopefully will choose to behave reasonablly in accordance with their reasoning. When this happens every day, not just on Earth day, our society, people, and their behavior will evolve. Let's all act conciously and responsibly, environmentalist or not.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Science is not a democracy. You simply can't say that "most scientists agree" without acknowledging that there are serious concerns raised by several prominent scientists about the reality, severity, and source of global warming.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Earth Day, to me, means an opportunity to express thanks for all the ways that capitalism makes our lives and environment cleaner and healthier.
I'm thankful for the automobile, which has cleaned our streets and highways of animal feces, which is both foul and filthy itself, and that attracts flies that spread it into our homes and workplaces.
I'm thankful for the automobile also because it allows us to travel in a cleaner environment than we had when we traveled on horseback or in buggies. Modern automobiles cool or heat the air immediately surrounding their passengers, making these passengers comfortable and, in summer, less sweaty and stinky.
I'm thankful for air-conditioning that keeps our interior environments not only comfortable but more healthy, as it allows us to better keep insects out of our homes, shops, factories, and offices -- and also, in humid places, to dramatically reduce the growth of mold and mildew in our homes.
I'm thankful for indoor plumbing. (The anti-polluting properties here are too obvious to spell out. Ditto for disposable diapers -- yet another product for which I'm most grateful.)
I'm thankful for the inexpensive soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, dental floss, toilet tissue, and plastic bandages and other first-aid items that make it possible for us to de-pollute our persons regularly.
I'm thankful for electronic appliances, such as those that (along with modern detergents - for which I'm also thankful) allow us to clean our used clothing and dirty dishes -- clean these more deeply and more thoroughly than was possible in the past without spending multiples of the time on such tasks that we spend on these tasks today. These appliances enable us to recycle our clothing and our dishes for many reuses.
I'm thankful for electricity for making these appliances possible - and for enabling us to light our home without dirty candles, and for enabling us to heat our homes without coal, wood, peat, or other filthy substances.
I'm thankful for plastics, which very effectively and at very low costs allow us to keep bacteria confined. A plastic storage bag, for example, keeps food bacteria confined to the interior of the bag.
I'm thankful for refrigeration for retarding the growth of bacteria and, hence, keeping our foods cleaner and healthier.
I'm thankful for chemical fertilizers that increase the productivity of the earth's soil, and thereby helps to prevent malnutrition -- which, in turn, better enables each of our bodies to succeed at fighting off diseases that are more likely to sicken, or even kill, malnourished persons.
I'm thankful for factories (and the fuels that power them) that make possible things such as modern textiles -- modern textiles that enable even poor people in market societies to own many changes of clean clothing.
I'm thankful for modern insecticides and cleansers that help to protect us from bugs and bacteria that would otherwise pollute our environments.
I am, in short, thankful for private-property markets that are the main driving force behind these (and many other) anti-pollutants -- a force so powerful that we today enjoy the incredible luxury of being able to worry, should we so choose, about very distant and very speculative forms of environmental problems such as species loss and global warming.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
I didn't know species loss was speculative(?)
Yalies are smart, so let's look at some simple facts that aren't political and are roundly agreed up... then we can see if a conclusion can be made.
Conclusion? Some Greenhouse effect is good.
But wait! There's this pesky little piece of data:
Since the dawn of the industrial era, ATMOSPHERIC carbon dioxide has risen from about 280 to about 380 parts per million.
There is therefore more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere....
....then what's the conclusion?????
I would argue the logical conclusion is: The earth will get warmer! And humans play SOME part in this!
The question becomes: how warm is too warm?
None 2 years, 9 months ago
There are some people who don't think the moon landing was real either... "there's no wind on the moon, why is the flag moving?!?!?!"
There will ALWAYS be scientists who seek to say the opposite of the consensus. Look at any scientific paper...there will be a critique following shortly. Scientists can't even agree upon something as mechanistic and open to empirical data as the intricacies of the visual system
None 2 years, 9 months ago
A little one-sided, Veritas, maybe.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Why is this a new way of thinking? It is the same environmental utopianism that alienates the mainstream.
Earth Day was conceived of to inspire awareness and appreciation of the environment. Flights of fancy into a green world where individualism and materialism have vanished strike me as lacking awareness of reality in addition to the Earth.
SEED magazine published a great Earth Day article on environmental issues and decision science: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_last_experiment/
Baruch Fischhoff, a decision scientist at Carnegie Mellon, says, “Biases are intriguing; they make great stories. But people generally do reasonable things if they’re given half the chance.”
Let's give people a chance to engage their Earth.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
Perhaps the problem is many folks have grabbed the mantle of environmentalism when they are really selling a form of religious fundamentalism.
Gus Speth has made a great contribution to the environment, which I would never diminish but his call for what is a 'Toga economy' is both out of step with, society and reality and more importantly completely unnecessary
It seems to me to be pretty much the same anti-materialism call of the mullahs of the Christian right and Islasmic right.
So if we are to give up our fruit in winter - after all we didn't always have it - is this really going to be better for the people of Chile?
There are many solutions to improving the environment. It would helpful if those that have high-jacked environmentalism - that's right - started to look at real solutions.
What if you discover which you likely will upon scientific inquiry, that much of recycling today is carbon intensive not reductive.
Yesterday's renewable resource is today's high pollution wood burning stove. But they still seem to be burning brightly in green Vermont.
And oh yes Nuclear power, Gus, and Al Gore, and others say it's a go.
The carbon fixation will be gone soon.
Ten years from now you will be able to take credit for the technologies that took care of it - but the need for eliminating direct poisons from the environment will continue.
Start worrying again about them, and you will make a real contribution as an environmentalist and do the service we all need.
And of course consider becoming a vegetarian it will do a lot more for global warming that worrying about your food tray.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
The problem is that real solutions, those that progress on an issue to issue basis, are only short-term solutions. If we restructured society, solutions will arise easily and obviously. I agree that people generally do reasonable things if they're given the chance, but "reasonable" is situated within the current socio-cultural paradigm. Reasonable is relative.
Due to editing (my own fault as I originally submitted an article that was way too long), my point about examining what seems natural and standard in our society, even apart from the environment, was not as strong as it originally was. Its about trying to go both beyond and deep within environmentalism. Its about having faith in a society that places people above profits, a better society. I am sad that idealism, today, has such negative connotations. Even as a simple mental exercise, I have found that imagining an ideal world can be extremely uplifting.
Mitchell, I don't know if we should give up our fruit in the winter. In fact, my article does not imply any of the direct examples you gave. The examples you give are great in terms of how to practically apply this vision. But my point is that this vision still needs to be developed.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
I can't believe that out of all the issues you thought climate change should be ahead of, you picked "moral decline."
None 2 years, 9 months ago
I just traveled to Reno for a special event. Reno gets snow for about 2-4 months a year, TOPS. But the fear and testosterone based marketing of the auto and energy industries, combined with the egocentric society we live in (have fun at all costs) over rides all 'people will do the good thing' perception of life. Why, By count, the hotel parking lot was 27 out of 30 vehicles 4,000lb plus Trucks and SUVs. There was no snow for miles, in April.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
You're fighting a lost cause here Charles...Environmentalism will never be a priority because it requires to much heavy lifting and requires, as you said, a fundamental change in thinking. Aiming this call at Yale students is particularly empty; Why on earth would a Yale student, whose parents have benefited so much to our current paradigm, seek to change it?
You could have a preponderance of evidence that would suffice for any rational person, but people who have no desire to change will still hide behind an increasingly thinning veil of cynicism to justify themselves.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
It is true that it is not clear what are the real precepts of today's environmental religion, maybe Chilean Fruit will make the cut, and it will be okay to eat it here in New Haven - guilt free.
Personally, I don't think so because fundamentalism is so powerful today among people who claim to be environmentalists.
I saw the roots of environmentalism in the 60s and 70s, the spiritual hippie movement and the advancement of science movement.
Today those are the branches of environmentalism still.
Science is certainly here but the power is with the spiritualists.
That is the basis of your article and Gus Speth's 'new approach'.
And why not love Mother Earth, I do? It is after all an easy sell.
There is no evidence however, that social and economic justice would lead to a less trampled environment, the opposite would be far more likely.
Concern for the environment is still relatively new as we've learned that our systems are intertwined.
But as it is being discussed and legislated today we are living in an hysterical bubble, not different than the Tulips, or Y2K, or real estate mortgages.
You are at Yale,(the rest of us) we need you to not be so trusting of consensus. That doesn't mean we don't acknowledge our problems, but a hundred problems - are best dealt with by 10,000 solutions.
It isn't good enough to step out of the corporate box or the capitalist box if you land in a new one, equally restrictive.
There may be good reason to envision a different society or economic structure.
But don't do it in the name of saving the planet, you won't change the economy and you certainly won't save the planet.
We need smart folks like you to find practical solutions, get started please.
None 2 years, 9 months ago
If you are really interested in finding out more about global warming and other environmental issues, you should read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist:
http://www.amazon.com/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0307266923
This is only for readers who are interested about the scientific issues rather than about promoting a particular political agenda.
Or login with:
OpenID