Myopia

I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Friedman's article that this country is falling behind in the "green" sector of the global economy. While there certainly has been some enthusiasm in the private sector, especially with regard to hybrid and electric vehicles, overall public investment in research has been lagging behind nations such as China for some time. And when considering the very present threat of climate change and falling resource stocks, green technologies need to be developed and adopted on a huge scale in this country. Failure to do so is simply shortsighted and puts the entire globe on the path to destruction,

The issue of the green sector of the economy is something Thomas Friedman has discussed for quite some time. I agree with his assertion that it represents a great opportunity for the United States to once again manufacture products domestically and offer a wealth of well-paying jobs to a diversity of workers. In a country with unemployment nearing double digits and one with a manufacturing sector that has been battered by foreign competition and outsourcing, such benefits should be embraced. In addition, a less resource-intensive economy that does not utilize fossil-fuels on a large scale frees the United States from scouring the globe for vanishing resources and sending money to unfriendly and undemocratic nations. In this vein, an earlier Op-ed by Mr. Friedman goes as far to say that even if climate change is completely a natural phenomenon, the steps, especially in green manufacturing, taken to reduce the use of fossil fuels and carbon emissions would make the country better off in the long run. So even though present politicians shy away from coercing the American economy into researching, adopting, and using new and perhaps expensive technologies because of short term costs, the economics in the long term favor such moves.

While new technology is certainly an integral piece of the puzzle, it is not a panacea for the problems we face today. So while Mr. Friedman is right that the United States needs to do more to research green technologies and implement them in the short to intermediate term, much greater action must be taken to simply consume less and conserve resources. Though I concede that conservation can be helped by more advanced products and practices, behavior in this country still must change in order to make significant reductions in environmental impact and hopefully stave off the worst of global climate change.

Finally, I would like to agree one of Janelle's points in her response to this Op-ed. It is extremely embarrassing that China's leaders are willing to talk about human-induced climate change while to American politicians it is among the "dirtiest" of issues. For a country that prides itself on having been at the forefront of science and innovation for the past century, this issue should not be taboo. Just because we fear short term costs and profit loss and are uncomfortable with the destruction our lifestyles cause does not give America the right to ignore climate change and dismiss sound research in an anti-intellectual fervor.

Four Letter Words

In his article in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman argues that China is far ahead of the United States in the climate change race, turning the faltering climate into thousands of J-O-B-S while many American politicians just turn it into one big J-O-K-E. I think that this article brings to mind a couple other four letter words that need to be addressed:

R-A-C-E

Throughout the article, Friedman discusses climate innovation as a race. China is in the lead, with more innovation, better legislation, and more jobs. The US is falling behind, as politicians continue to fail to make a climate change bill and most of our green innovations are being used more in China than here.

But I'm not so sure a race is the best way to think about action on climate change. First of all, the competition involved in a race typically drives people to do better in order to win. It pushes people to achieve their best. Clearly, that's not working in this case. Although Americans are not missing out entirely on the green jobs frontier, we are certainly not reaching the standard we could (and should) be, especially when it comes to legislation. It appears that in the case of this "race" we are more inclined to free ride on the backs of those already ahead of us, letting them do the leg work while we sit back and enjoy the benefits.

Therein lies the other issue with calling this a race: the nature of the benefits. In a race, there is one winner who gets all of the prize. That mindset doesn't work so well when it comes to climate change. Whatever country becomes the most green first will not get to live on in perfect harmony while the rest of the world falls to ruin around them. This is one world, and we are all connected. So no matter how far ahead any one country may get when it comes to green innovation, they will continue to feel the negative effects of environmental harm unless the other countries catch up. Unless everyone is winning, we're all losing.

M-A-K-E

So is the answer for every country to throw all their energies into green energy, technology, and jobs? Maybe, but only if it's done thoughtfully. Green technology is still technology and therefore has the potential to have unintended negative side effects. Also growth, green or not, is still growth, and according to Bill McKibben in his book Eaarth is something we need to stop striving for if we are ever going to save ourselves in this environmental crisis.

P-A-C-E

I have to wonder if the pace of China's growth in environmental technologies is too fast. Are they creating green technologies and spreading them virally across the country before they fully research the effects of these technologies? With the size of their population, if just one technology turns out to be more environmentally harmful than they thought, it could be devastating. While I certainly think the United States should be looking more into green technologies, perhaps aiming for the same pace as China is not the best option.

K-N-O-W

So we may want to think twice before sprinting to catch up with China on the green technology front. There is still, however, plenty to be learned from China's policies. One thing that stuck out to me most in Friedman's article is how no-nonsense China is about climate change. As generally more scientifically minded people than Americans, they don't question climate change or think of it as a global problem. They know it is happening, and it is happening now. Before we worry about upping our investments in green technologies, before we increase our green jobs, we need to get more Americans to adopt this mindset. Before we start working towards combating climate change, we need to stop questioning it.

Race to the End of the Earth

When reading this article I couldn't help but be a little surprised. Granted, I don't spend every day watching the news for new clean-energy legislation in the United States but I did not realize that we, as a nation, were so far behind in the "race" to save the planet. However, I did a little further research because I was confused about the Friedman article and whilst doing so, I came across some conflicting views. It's difficult to know who is "right" in this situation or if anyone is right at all. It seems that while the United States is behind when it comes to "above-ground mining" capabilities, we are not behind when it comes to creating green jobs or promoting green architecture and the use of green energy. In addition, although there hasn't been a clean-energy bill recently, the US does appear to have more public support for "living green" than other countries around the world, including China. On the other hand, the Friedman article did point out many ways in which the US is lagging behind in the global attempt to prevent climate change. I agree with Janelle in that much of the developing world's progress may have come from the Clean Development Mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol that allow developed nations to earn "carbon credits" for financing green technology projects in developing nations such as China and India. This suggests that nations like China may only be doing these green programs because they are being sudsidized by developed countries. Although I suppose it doesn't matter why it's getting done as long as it is getting done in the first place.

When talking about climate change, I believe that refering to it as a race between the US and other countries can be both positive and negative. It can be good because as the leading world power, the United States may feel the need to "win" a race for an environmental cause. Unfortunately, our policy makers have clearly not felt that need yet, and instead, they have felt it more important to try to discredit the whole issue. Since everyone loves to win races, it may be that talking about green energy as a race may be an incentive for nations around the world to try to "win" and prevent the appearence of not caring about climate change. As Friedman's article said, China is not pretending that climate change doesn't exist and neither should the United States. With further public pressure, policy makers will hopefully feel the need to have the US take it's place as a leader in the global fight against climate change. Contrastingly, the idea of a "race" could take the emphasis off of clean energy and put it on increased technology instead, whether that technology is good for the environment or not.

I agree that climate change should be addressed through technological innovation and a refocusing of the economy's priorities on "green" manufacturing. I believe that technological advances could be a saving grace for the future of the planet. However, it is not enough to just be changing the focus of manufacturing. It is the entire economic system that needs to change, not just the product of the current system. Overall, it will take a lot more than just reusable plastic bags to save the Earth but for now, a focus on green manufacturing could be a sizable step in the right direction. If it is necessary for the US to be in a race, it would be better for us to lose the race to save the Earth than to win the race to the end of the Earth.

Losing the climate game

While I agree with Freidman that the United States’ lack of effort to combat climate change is frankly embarrassing, I think he also ignores a key point about China’s development. This is the Clean Development Mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol, in which developed countries can earn carbon credit by paying for green development projects in the developing world. The majority of CDM projects take place in China, which could be another explanation for their apparent motivation to switch to green technologies.

Even if China’s development is fueled by CDM, however, the fact remains that if fighting climate change were a game, the US would be losing. We seem to operate under the assumption that it is not real, or that if it is, there is nothing we should be doing to fix it. When the rest of the world is taking climate change seriously, this makes us look delusional and shortsighted. While it is not necessary to view climate change as a competition (“whoever lowers carbon emissions the most wins!”), being the odd one out should give us pause to reconsider our values.

Much of the way the international community regulates the environment is inherently competitive, however. For example, the Kyoto Protocol ties environmental impact to the economic market, which is by definition competitive. Under this system, lowering your impact gets you more than bragging rights; it carries an economic benefit as well. While the principles behind the Protocol seem solid, it has not lowered global emissions but rather seen an increase.

This suggests that market-based approaches toward green technology cannot be our only method for reducing our environmental impact. The change will have to come in the minds of citizens, policymakers, and businesses for any action to gain momentum. To effectively address the problem, we will not only need to switch to green technology, but also consider our consumption, lifestyle, and trading patterns.

The most embarrassing part of Freidman’s piece is not that China is surpassing us technologically, but that they are willing to talk about climate change while our politicians avoid the issue. The fact that China, the commonly cited example of climate indifference, can address the issue politically while the US seems unwilling to do so is a mark of shame for our country, its values, and our political system.

On Your Mark....

The United States has always been a step ahead. It is out of this country that the iPhone the hybrid car and the paper bag materialized. However, in the recent scope of climate change the US is taking a back seat. The US has yet to pass an energy-climate bill while other countries such as China have already begun implementing new energy saving policies for manufacturers. Despite the United States’ capabilities and resources, they have taken a step back and have begun to let others win. The country that had prided itself so much on innovation has now turned its back on that value and is waiting for others to make a change.

While climate change is affecting the whole world, some countries, like the United States do not seem to grasp the severity of its effect. The United States has the brain power and the financial ability to help combat the problem with new technologies and legislation but has not been using their full potential. Meanwhile, countries like China, have taken on a new role-the innovator. Friedman turns the issue into a race between nations, with China having a considerable lead on the US. The race should be incentive for the US to get more involved in the issue. A race is a contest, or competition to achieve superiority, and based on the US’ past it would seem that the country likes to win races. However, in this particular one it is lagging far behind. The race should be motivation to push harder, move ahead, to prove one’s self over its competitors. The same is true in this race. The US should be striving to win. The race should propel it forward to develop technology and legislation that can push it forward in the environmental reform realm.

However, it seems as though this race is having the opposite effect. This race on climate change is promoting the US back seat approach. Although, climate change is a global problem affecting every human on this planet the US is putting the responsibility of change on other countries. As long as other countries have taken the concern under their wing and are making changes, the US has little desire to do so. The climate change race has allowed the US to sit back and watch as other countries speed pass. Friedman points out that China and the EU countries have been making changes and the US has yet to make any of those same changes even with the technology available to them. This race has had the opposite effect for the US, instead of propelling research and implementation forward, it has stalled the country into false security that other nations are taking care of the issue.

Friedman addresses the need for change playing on the economic value of “green” manufacturing and technological innovation. Unlike other authors, Friedman outlines the importance of climate change innovation for the economy to attract an audience in a different way. Rather than just informing readers that climate change needs to occur for the sake of the environment, he relates to the status of the US in the global fight for the environment. Friedman constantly reiterates the fact that the US is at a disadvantage and is being left behind, while China is creating jobs and taking the “lead role in the next great global industry.” The economic approach through adoption of programs such as Mike Biddle’s illustrates the value in “green” manufacturing and innovation further than just saving the environment. This approach allows the public to understand and see the other long term advantages from responsibly responding to climate change.

The argument also puts today’s economic crisis in perspective. Taxpayers wonder where there money is going and in what ways their taxes come back to them, it is important to show them hope. Technological innovation and “green” manufacturing gives taxpayers a peace of mind that their money is helping create jobs presently and promote long term change. While it is concerning that they do not see the immediate effects of the money they work hard for, it is hope that this technology and research will combat this from happening again in the future. Friedman’s approach also gives taxpayers hope that the US is still a key global player and a winner in the race. They do not feel let down and as if they are missing out on technologies available in other countries. It is a sense of security that the US still has and will continue to have a prominent role in the world.

Further Action

In his piece, Michael Maniates hits the proverbial nail on the head. I believe that he is absolutely correct in his criticism of the mainstream belief that modest changes in consumer choices is sufficient to reduce the environmental impact of our way of life in the country to a level that is sustainable. Clearly, just picking the low-hanging fruit when it comes to consumption habits in this country is not enough, as evidenced by our recent class exercise of calculating our environmental footprint. Instead, Americans certainly do have to change our lives, be it through widespread implementation of the advanced green technologies, a drastic cutback in consumption habits, or more likely, a combination of both of these schools of thought.

Overall, the article sums up the inability of our society to make the steps that are necessary, which include the widely discussed simple changes, but also sufficient. The general public has shown to be resistant to these actions that must be undertaken, from conservation to consumer choices. As such, the problem must be addressed from both sides. Widespread education programs are a must to ensure that Americans who may likely be insulated from the damage global climate change may very well wreak on this planet in the near future are made to understand the nature of the problem and the role they need to play in mitigating the worst of these effects. On the other side, policymakers must put into place regulations that make the move towards more efficient technologies, processes, and consumer habits (such as in transportation) the economically viable and thus the only rational choice for the entire country. While this would undoubtedly require politically unpopular decisions to be undertaken, with greater awareness such policy may become instead those of the majority.

Finally, I do believe it is important not to completely dismiss the small steps many have taken towards reducing their impact on this planet. While they may be small, such decisions may in fact be the first in a line that result in support for the revolution that needs to take place in the developed world. Such individual action can be used as a way to build momentum for the environmental movement as a whole. Of course, further action must be encouraged.

Saving the World Outside the Box

Michael Maniates’ article, “Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It,” points out one of the critical flaws of the typical approach to environmental challenges. In looking at the problem, we assume that it will be impossible to make large changes to our economic and social systems, and so rather than trying, we try to work within the very systems that caused the problem in the first place.

It is our economy that drove us toward environmental degradation, since profits are valued above all else and the Earth’s resources are seen as free for the taking. Our society chose to value this higher than living in communities, sustainability, and the beauty of the planet on which we live, and did nothing to stop the spread of degradation.

To tell people that they can lessen their environmental impact through simple, everyday choices at the store is ludicrous. Environmental advocates who operate under this assumption seem to think that “less bad” is the same as good. A light bulb that is energy efficient is less bad than a traditional bulb, but it is still using energy. A new building that is LEED-certified is less bad than a typical building, but it still consumes resources, requires energy to light and heat, and disrupts ecosystems. Environmental consciousness requires that we think critically about whether we can light our homes with one fewer light bulb, get by with one fewer building, and other, similar choices. These choices do not go on our grocery lists; they drive at the heart of our mindset about what we should and should not do and what does and does not matter.

Ironically, the push for “green” products can even have a negative environmental impact. Examples of this include people who decide to throw away their Windex to buy Simple Green, buy a recycled fiber t shirt that they don’t actually need, or install a new, efficient dishwasher when their old one worked just fine. Producing these things requires resources, and updates should come from necessity, not to supplement life with unnecessary “eco friendly” products.

The focus on environmental steps that do not require much effort downplays how serious the environmental challenges really are. If the problem can be solved by taking shorter showers, it must not be such a big problem. However, the environmental challenge is enormous and complex, and requires an overhaul of our culture, economy, and thought process if it is going to be sufficiently addressed.

Confronting the environmental challenge is not going to be easy, but it is important to remember that the results will be worth it. Environmental consciousness can help us build a society with values that actually make us happy, unlike the current system that values profits and consumption, which do not increase our happiness and degrade the world around us. Perhaps, if we are willing to face the actual threats to our survival, we will emerge happier, more complete, and ready to take our civilization into the future.

Teaching America to Walk

Ask any American on the street what they can do to help reduce environmental harm, they will probably ramble on to you about recycling more, shortening their showers, or actually remembering to bring to the store the hoards of reusable bags they have collected. It's unlikely anyone will talk to you about switching to alternative energy or reducing their consumerism. Most Americans will point to the simple solutions, the everyday little changes that anyone can make. And these are the same types of answers that even some top environmental leaders are selling to us. The argument that little things are all we need to do to make a difference is certainly compelling. We like the idea of all the small individual things adding up to a meaningful whole. We also like the idea of not having to do too much individually. Words like "simple," "easy," and even--god help us--"lazy" are permeating the environmental movement from all sides.

But this isn't a simple issue. And the solution will by no means be easy. So, as Michael Maniates argues in his article in the Washington Post, Americans need to stop being so lazy and take some real steps towards reducing our environmental harm. Furthermore, environmental leaders should expect us to be capable and willing to do what is necessary to reduce our environmental harm enough to stop climate change, not just slow it down. On this point, I certainly agree. Baby steps are not going to get us where we need to be on time. We need leaps and bounds.

I do not, however, think it's as simple as environmental leaders changing their message and asking more of the public. Maniates brings up several historical examples of when Americans were able to band together behind a strong leader to really change an issue: the Revolution, World War II, and the Civil Rights movement. Although these moments definitely show that Americans have the power to rally behind a cause, I'm not sure they can be applied to environmental issues.

The first reason for this is the nature of the environmental problem. In all of the examples above the issues were very tangible. Revolutionaries were feeling the oppression (and taxation) of England. Events like Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust were obviously harmful. African Americans had to deal with discrimination every day of their lives. Moreover, the results of taking action against these things was relatively immediate and obvious. In other words Americans are great at banding together towards resolving a problem when it is something that that is obviously hurting them and when they will be able to see results from taking action.

At this point in environmental degradation, neither of these facts hold true. Most people aren't feeling obvious negative effects in their everyday lives. Except for maybe a little change in weather (or a freak snowstorm), life goes on as normal. And the effects of making a big change in our lives wouldn't be evident to us--they would first occur up in some mysterious, far off atmosphere and then eventually trickle down to causing changes on earth.

The second reason I'm not sure that the comparisons work is that we live in a different age now. A high speed, multi-tasking, constant stimulation kind of age. Arguably, we have less focus in this digital age than we used to. We like the solution to environmental problems in 140 characters or less. We want to do our part quickly, and then move on to the next thing.

So although I agree that everybody needs to put more effort towards stopping environmental change, the tricky part is going to be convincing the American public of how much this really matters to their lives (and getting them to listen long enough to do so).

The Issue of Indifference

I think that the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is indifference. There are plenty of venues out there for working towards alleviating environmental problems, if enough people cared enough to seek them out. The keyword here is enough. There are certainly some people out there who care a lot about the environment, and are working tirelessly towards making it a better place. But there is also the other extreme of people who can’t directly see the effects of environmental degradation, and therefore don’t believe it affects them. If more of these people cared, then we would have more fighters for the environmental movement. And there are the people who do care, but have so many other things to do or think about than helping the environment. If these people cared more, maybe their other obligations suddenly wouldn’t seem as important.

Although there are certainly many other huge issues facing the environmental movement, having fewer indifferent people would help us move towards overcoming these problems as well. More environmental stewards could help spread information to people who just don’t know the magnitude of this problem. Politicians would have an incentive to actually take action against environmental degradation if enough of the public cared for it to be politically beneficial. Also, more people would care enough to make even small changes in their lifestyle, potentially leading to a huge decrease in our harmful effects on the environment.

Stanley Fish is a god example of somebody who doesn’t care. As he says in his article, he believes that our actions are harming the environment, he just doesn’t care enough to do anything about it. Although his wife is trying to get him to make small changes in his lifestyle, he won’t be convinced. The environment is an inconvenience in his mind. It’s people like this who will be our biggest problem to tackle in the environmental movement.

"I will act as if what I do makes a difference"

Upon reading this article, I was automatically reminded of a quote by William James that was introduced to me in high school. At the time, the teacher who quoted James did so with reference to the genocide occuring in the Darfur region of Sudan. She mentioned that US policy had, since the end of World War II, followed this quote every time genocide had surfaced, from the Bosnian Kosovars, to the Tutsis of Rwanda, to the Kurds in Iraq, and even to the native Tibetans. I realized after reading Maniates' article, that this quote can be applied as well, to the environmental issue facing the world today. If it is not yet clear, the quote I am refering to is also the title of this post, "I will act as if what I do makes a difference." Just as my high school teacher suggested in applying this quote to US lack of intervention in genocides around the world, I believe it can also be appropriately applied to the US public's lack of intervention in the environmental crisis.

Certainly, the mass public has some concern for the environment or there would not be such a market for "green" products. But that is exactly the problem. There is a market for green products, and as well watched "The Story of Stuff" last week, we all are aware that it is the exponentially growing market that has become a huge environmental issue in the United States today. Therefore, the very things we do to help, such as buying clothing with "green" logos and replacing all of our lightbulbs, and purchasing the paper copies of "green" books, is contributing to the economic problem at the root of the environmental crisis almost as much as it is helping to solve that problem. I am not suggesting that we should not be buying "green" items or replacing our lightbulbs with more energy efficient ones; I am simply supporting Maniates' point that these small steps do virtually nothing to help. Buying more stuff, no matter how "green" it is, is still just buying more stuff. The books and websites that Maniates mentions give consumers the false idea that the small, easy, things they are doing can actually help save the planet when in reality, much grander steps need to be taken. Granted, the average person does not have the ability to pass policies that can actually cut carbon emmisions by 80%. However, the average person does have the ability to get together with other average people, and pressure their state representatives to help pass those policies.

Although the puplic surely knows that they have this control over their congressmen, it is not easy, or cost-efficient, to begin an environmental protection group or a lobbying firm. Many people wish to just stay out of the political arena altogether and hope that other people will do the hard work for them while they go and purchase their efficient lightbulbs and reusable grocery bags. Overall, the mass public, rather than taking the initiative to lobby, would prefer to take shorter showers and simply act as if what they are doing is making a difference. In addition, the congressmen, in attempting to please their constituency, can vote to impose taxes on paper and plastic grocery bags, and in doing so, they fulfill their need to act as if what they are doing makes a difference as well. The sad reality is that while everyone is acting like they are making a difference, the planet is suffering the consequences of knowing the truth. I agree wholeheartedly with Maniates when he argues that "easy" in not enough. Mostly, I feel he did a great job in suggesting that it is not the government's fault for treating us like children, because most of the public is entirely willing to continue being treated that way simply because it is so easy. He argues that we are "grown-ups" and that we do have the power to make a difference if we stop acting like we already are making a difference.

If people would begin to realize that they are not helping to solve the problem by obsessing over scraps of paper, they may begin to actually make a difference. Overall, it is easy to save a dollar here and there by reusing water bottles, but it is much harder than that to reverse the damage done to the environment. Therefore, rather than saying "I will act as if what I do makes a difference," we need to catch up with reality and say instead, "I will do what really makes a difference."

Giant Leaps

The United States prides itself on making things easy, the convenience of frozen food for a “homemade meal,” the self-check out at supermarkets to speed the process and the movies-on-demand feature virtually on every television. People in this country look for efficiency and speed with minimal effort, unfortunately that attitude has been passed down when faced with solutions to the environmental problem. Like Maniates states, the “easy” solutions are given to the masses. It is the small steps that are being promoted, like recycling or turning off your lights. It is only on a rare occasion that a suggestion so long term and lifestyle changing is brought to the forefront of public inspection.

Manietes recognizes the easy solutions that people are offered and points out the grand effect these solutions promise. However, he brings audiences back to reality: little effort will bring about little changes. The easy solutions will not stop the hole in the ozone layer from expanding and it will certainly not lessen the amount of carbon emissions. The only way the damage to the environment can be stopped or reversed is by major upheavals. The American public is being underestimated and treated like a child. Authors of self-help books give the public on the surface solutions. While these solutions should be implemented and adopted to spread to younger generations, the notion that these small steps are enough is not one that should enforced. Consumer consciousness will not save the planet, nor will it make a significant difference.

The public needs to be informed about the severity of the problem. They can no longer be underestimated and fooled that small easy steps will make a substantial difference. In order for change to occur, information must be disclosed and presented to the public in a way that they can understand. To a certain extent, authors and scholars need to scare the public about the horrendous state of the environment. They need to tell them the hard steps and the lifestyle changing activities that need to happen to see a change. The problem can no longer be hidden behind spiral light bulbs and reusable grocery bags. The environmental movement is on the rise and must be taken advantage of. The easy path is no longer acceptable, the small steps will not do enough to help; the easy path has been taken long enough and there is minimal to show for it.

Like Maniates explains we are ready to be held accountable. It is time we learn about the devastation we have caused to the planet and change our lives drastically to reverse what we have done. We have driven our planet to a place where there is no longer easy steps to help it. We must expect to be told the truth and handle the grim situation of the environment. We must expect our leaders to tell us the whole story and the hardship that we will face to fix it. It is no longer acceptable or tolerable to think that small choices in our daily lives will make a significant impact. It is time to be treated like adults and pay for our actions that have caused the gradual depletion of our planet.

Politics as Usual

What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment today? Why?

Simply put, the greatest threat facing the global environment today is the lack of political will to put into force concrete steps towards changing the way in which we interact with the environment and addressing the issue of human-generated climate change. As a single phenomenon, climate change obviously is the most pernicious threat as it has the capacity to alter, in at least some appreciable manner, environments everywhere on the planet. It is the paralyzed political system(s), however, that is allowing such shifts to occur at an accelerating rate.

While the present and potentially future inaction of humans to deal with this issue can be laid at the feet of both individuals (i.e. consumers) and national governments and international organizations, it is the latter that is deserving of greater blame. Individuals, in general of course, have proven in the past to be utterly unwilling to make compromises for the purposes of environmental protection that have even the appearance of an economic cost or a loss of convenience. As such, a solution to carbon emissions and resource use must instead come from the top-down.

Unfortunately, binding emissions targets have proven elusive at both the international and national levels as governments refuse to make what they believe to be promises that will hinder their economies and prove unpopular with a largely indifferent populace or surrender what they feel is a right to live as the developed world has for the past century. In the United States, this means that governments are unwilling to take actions such as allowing for gasoline prices (through taxes) to climb to levels that seriously encourage conservation or create a robust emissions regulatory framework. Unless this country and the other nations of the world choose to enforce solutions on their economies and markets, grassroots action will fall short and the planet will be doomed to sever environmental changes.

On a final note, this inaction in the United States represents a missed opportunity. While it may be cliche to say, it is entirely reasonable to believe that clean energy, encourage by responsible policy-making, could become a lucrative industry for the American economy. Furthermore, steps to reduce or even eliminate fossil fuels would definitely serve the interests of the country, removing the need to secure access to vital energy resources internationally.

The Population Problem...

What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment today? Why?

It is nearly impossible for me to select just one challenge facing the global environment that I find to be the most pressing. In reality, I feel that it is a combination of many problems that is thr truly pressing matter. If an indifferent populace, global warming, shrinking Rainforests, unsustainability, or decreasing clean water and air were all individual problems, with no relation to one another, the overall global environmental problem would be much less daunting. The terrifying truth is that all of these problems are very interconnected and therefore, they continue to perpetuate each other. For instance, the shrinking Rainforests decrease the planet's ability to absorb carbon dioxide which then leads to an excess of greenhouse gases leaking into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect caused by these gases increases global warming which, in turn, leads to rising sea levels, resulting in less clean water. A population of indifferent people certainly does not help the situation and leads to further unsustainability as people use more resources than the planet can support.

However, there is one problem that I feel is a cause of many other issues facing the Earth today. That problem is the exponentially growing population of humans. Before human population reached 3 billion people, the Earth still had more than enough resources to sustain humans of the present and future generations of similar size. As technology advanced and population began to rise, the stress put on the environment from double the number of humans began to show. The population continues to grow today and it is reaching nearly 7 billion people. I believe that each aforementioned issue will only become more severe as the human population grows until the planet can no longer sustain life. Despite the fact that more humans means more brains to create technology, it also means more mouths to feed, more homes to heat and cool, more buildings to build, and in general, more natural resources to use. Additionally, more people, who continue to have children at a fertility rate of over 2.1 children per woman will only further the population problem which will then continue the cycle of resource over use. Thus, I feel that population is the most pressing matter facing the global environment today. A population of 8 billion environmentalists could still be much worse for the planet than a population of 5 billion indifferent people.

As it stands now, the population is growing but at a slower rate than it was 30 years ago. Modern predictions suggest that the population will "peak" within the next 50 years and then begin to decrease as the planet succumbs to environmental stress and resource depletion. With the advancement of birth-control technology and family planning advocacy throughout the African continent, the population may begin to level off sooner rather than later. Ideally, family sizes will begin to shrink until the population is sustainable at a constant level without increasing past the point of resource exhaustion. Only time will tell if and how the population problem is resolved. What is clear to the environmental science community today is that if the population were to continue growing at its present rate, the Earth would not be able to support human life for many more generations. While this is a sobering thought, it is necessary to make it a well known fact and so raise awareness about the issue.

Overall, I feel that the population problem is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment today. While each environmental problem has its specific effects on other issues, the problem of population increase will only continue to further each of these individual challenges until life is totally unsustainable. Therefore, although the planet faces many daunting prospects of further resource depletion, the increasing population is the true root of the environmental degradation. Without solving this problem, the Earth has little hope of recovery.

Too Little

The fact that the environment is in a gloomy state is no shock to most people. The media is surrounded with facts that polar ice caps are melting, that global warming is on the rise and that if nothing is done soon the situation will get worse until the planet is uninhabitable. Media outlets do not hesitate to spread the word of the deteriorating state. However, only a select few people have gotten a better grasp on the issue. While there is media coverage surrounding the situation to help understand the full scope of the issue further research must be done. There is not education readily available to the public to fully illustrate the challenge facing the global environment.

Although, most people that have access to a TV, or a newspaper or the internet have heard of the dire environmental condition, whether it be talk of the rise in global temperature or the picture of the stranded polar bear on a block of ice, most people do not look further into the situation. They take the situation for face value. After that image is seen or that news piece read, the education stops there. The idea is put into their mind but it is up to them to learn more on their own. Education must be more readily accessible. While it is the first step to inform, the second, third and fourth step must be taken to educate.

Education must start at a young age. The situation of the environment is not improving and the only way to salvage what we have done to our planet is to teach those who will be living on it tomorrow. Environmental issues must be brought up at a young age in the public education system to constantly stress the impact of the problem. Education at a young age also allows for time to change. A young child has the rest of his life to change his lifestyle and potentially make a small difference. An older person is more likely to be set in their ways and resist change.

Education must not only include information of the problem, but what caused it and what can be done to curb the impact or stop it completely. It is understood that the education has more pressing issues, when children are living the system with a low reading level and minimal math skills, but rather picking one subject or another, the environmental challenge must be incorporated into the curriculum. Readings must include literature on the environment, and along with learning about the human anatomy students need to learn the make up of our planet. The environment must become a partner subject with the subjects already being taught.

Education too late is becoming the biggest challenge facing the global environment. Without proper education, the issue will continue to be looked at on the surface. The problem of the deteriorating global environment must be put into the perspective of young children in order for significant change to be seen for the future.

An indifferent truth

What, to your mind, is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment? Why?

I think that the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is indifference. Our disconnect from nature leads us to feel that the environment is something outside of us, that it doesn’t matter if rivers are clean, air quality is acceptable or the temperature stays the same, because we will continue to survive. Humans created bubbles to live in with houses, cars, and air conditioning. Our bubbles lead us to think that we live in houses, cars, and buildings, rather than on a planet with limited resources, as interconnected parts of everything around us. All of the environmental problems we face can be linked back to the fact that we just don’t seem to care that we are capable (and seemingly willing) to destroy our home.

If people learned to recognize that the environment is not just about trees and polar bears, but our own survival and habitat, we would certainly stop doing whatever came easiest to get ahead. We would consider the environmental costs to our actions before the profit or convenience that could be gained. After all, no one would let someone burn their furniture because they promised to pay them for it, because that furniture is seen as essential to normal life. Our atmosphere is just as important to normal life, but getting someone to recognize that fact can be more difficult.

There are lots of threats on the global environment, but the one thing that has to happen before any of them can be solved, and hence the most pressing challenge, is indifference. Even if we stop climate change, clean up the rivers, and control air pollution, if we as a species remain indifferent to our environment, a new challenge will rise to threaten our home because people will continue to act without considering the costs.

It is easy to argue that emitting less carbon dioxide to save a polar bear puts the interests of the polar bear above those who may lose their jobs and the inconvenience of changing our lifestyle. However, it is harder to argue that making sure we can always live here is less important than a convenient, relatively cheap lifestyle. I really believe that the environmental problems we face would be solved if we could show people just how important they really are. We need to end the indifference while we are still lucky enough to live here.