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.