Going Green: Taking it one step at a time

Although it was written in November of 2007, the arguments in Professor Michael Maniates’ article “Going Green? Easy doesn’t do it” are still relevant to our world today. The only difference is that the environmental problems that plague our society seem to be getting worse while the pace of our actions seem to be the same, if not slower and more apathetic.

The fact is that going green is considered “trendy” nowadays. It’s everywhere but with most trends, people want an easy way out. The minute and easy little steps that they can do to seem like a friend to the planet is their way of participating and being a part of the green movement with as little effort as possible. Is this ideal? No, it is not. We want people to care about the environment. We want them to take real action and not be complacent with just doing what they think if their fair contribution. We want people to rethink their consumer-oriented lifestyle. However, we also do not want to overlook the importance of doing the small things. Constantly reinforcing those habits in a way that produces discussion of the environmental issues is a good thing.  A lot of people do not have the time or money to be as environmentally friendly as they would like to be. In the short run, it costs more to be environmentally friendly sometimes than it does to just blindly consume and throw away the finite resources available. Our problems seem to extend much further than just not doing enough.

As mentioned in my previous post, the privileged few on this planet that shameless consume far more than their “fair share” of this earth do so in blissful ignorance; ignorance of the scope of the environmental problems that we, as humans, are contributing to the supple world surrounding us.  Ignorance, not the coddling of the masses by environmental elitist, is the root of the problem. How can people demand more drastic action if they are not properly educated on it? In a country where people still doubt the existence of global warming, trying to force drastic action on the public is not going to change much. People need to possess the desire to change the way we consume and dispose of things.  At the same time, they also need to be properly informed on the issue. Unfortunately, it could take a lot of time before that happens and time is a luxury at this point. 

Reduce, Reuse, Revolution

Modern environmentalism is faith based.  The daily activities involved in "being green" - recycling your bottles, packing your lunch in reusable tuppleware, unplugging your cell phone charger, etc. - are like a kind of mantra, or prayer: something we do over and over again with a belief that our small individual actions will spur into motion some force much larger than ourselves.  In his article, "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It", Michael Maniates point out that there is little basis for this belief.

"The hard facts are these: If we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of the growth of environmental damage."

Emulating the piety of the modern urban - sub-urban environmentalist doesn't cut it if our intentions are to actually change the way we impact the natural world.

This raises the question, if "being green" the way we see it today is not enough then what is enough?  What actions or changes do we have to make in our lives and our societies to meet our own needs without exchanging the health of the environment or the potential of future generations?  The truth is that "being green" seems to be easy because it fits in the existing systems of production and consumption.  For example, rather than making the exceedingly painful shift to a fully renewable energy economy we will instead encourage our population to turn the lights off when they depart for an evening out; rather than restructuring our cities and towns to be more walkable and bikeable we will ask people to buy Priuses.  Unfortunately it is the production-consumption system itself that is at the root or environmental degradation, and no amount of recycling will pull 7 billion people back from the brink.

The kind of changes we would need in order to see positive environmental change are, as Maniates calls them, fundamental.  Reducing our impact on the environment will mean reforming our agricultural system, overhauling our transportation systems, and most importantly of all, letting go of the doctrine of never-ending economic growth.  Fundamental changes like these amount to changing the rules of a game that has been in play since the Industrial Revolution.  Some people and societies are very good at this game, and for obvious reasons, would be annoyed if the rules suddenly changed.

There are powerful interest groups, and there is our own deep-seated, albeit supressed, aversion to unconfortable change that create extreme inertia.  It is inertia that is the true enemy to the environment, and by extension, to ourselves; and it is inertia that we will need to overcome to be true environmentalists.

Time to pull out the big guns

I have to agree with Mr. Maniates that it's time for the greener ranks of our population to be empowered to do more and for the coddling to stop. The ordinary citizen should be encouraged to do more than recycle here and there or buy a light bulb. But the everyday person can only do so much, and it's time to start looking at the more radical violators more sternly.

While there have been initiatives to encourage people not only in the U.S. but other countries to be far more environmentally conscious about their choices and development, but it's hard to argue for greener policies and development while there is little regulation and punishment for violates here in the U.S.

U.S. legislation on the environment is already some of the weakest in the developed world, and we severely lag behind many other nations in the development and encouragement of greener industrial practices, and we have to look at our political/economic system as a major cause of environmentalist woes. When California decided to take matters into it's own hands and wanted to enforce stricter standards for emissions, they found themselves in court against the Federal government, which was very clearly acting to defend the more egregious offenders of the stricter standards, American car markers. With how deeply corporations have embedded themselves within Washington politicians, a green-conscious citizen has little to no voice to make their concerns heard.

Furthermore, the environment has not become a political issue, and a toxic one at that. A vote for one party or the other has become a vote for either jobs or earth, and when the article was written, the job market was starting to look gloomy. Four years after the 2008 crash, unemployment is uncomfortably high and job security is not guaranteed. It's easy for one side or the other to say 'screw the planet, we need to get people back to work.'

Because our, and increasingly the world's, economic system relies on constant expansion and growth, the notion of paying more to be environmentally conscious is a poor business choice. with countries making a 'race to the bottom' to secure their place in the markets, things like the environment are business expenses that can be pushed to the side to ensure profits. Companies who are trying to become more green do not yet have enough incentive to make a real impact. So there is huge demand to maximize profits and little motivation to try and be environmentally conscious.

What we need is hard-hitting legislation which puts a corporation's existence on the line if they do not follow green practices. Clearly fines have only so much impact, so raise the stakes and force the company to disband if they are found in violation of strict laws. To do this, companies need to be distanced from lawmakers. Trade with a country needs to be dependent on their business practices. We have one of the largest consumer bases in the world, use that in our favor. Our economy can be far more effective than our military when it comes to changing the globe.

Anti-Climactic at Best

Without being too partisan, the first thing I am struck by is the absence of a definitive Romney environmental agenda.  Candidates always have an issues section.  In Obama's 'Energy and the Environment' is third on the list, right below 'Jobs & Economy' and 'Education'; in Romney's 'Energy' is one of 12, and you have to delve into the other sections, like 'Regulation' and 'Tax' to find mention of the environment.  This is indicative of the candidate's vastly different ideas of what the environment is, and what that means to American voters.  

Romney is to some extent at a disadvantage, while Obama can point to specific initiatives he has implemented throughout the last four year, Romney must tactically focus his campaign on attacking those initiatives.  However, that doesn't explain the lack of environmental agenda altogether.  Romney plan for the environment is strewn throughout the other issues sections because that's where it fits best in his platform at large.  Environmental regulations, environmental taxes, investment in green technology, all represent market inefficiencies contributing to jobs lost, national interest neglected, and a declining international position.  If it's possible to be pro-Carbon, then Romney is trying to brand himself as such by, "elimina[ting] regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration's costly and ineffective anti-Carbon agenda."  Pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American; the environment is to be respected but not to stand in the way of a free and efficient marketplace.  The only traditionally environmentalist moment in Romney's platform is short: "As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment..." quickly followed by, "be[ing] mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers.  

To note Romney's lack of environmental platform, however, is not to say that Obama's is perfect.  Obama's 'Energy and Environment' section of his website points to a few environmental priorities for his adminitration: clean air, clean coal, and a diversified fuel economy.  However, none of these, including the "All-of-the-above" plan, offer any concrete steps to achieving these goals.  The one tangible initiative Obama's platform does cite is the America's Great Outdoors program.  AGO has actually had an effect on granting more authority to land trusts in the US, and channeling funding towards programs that get Americans better connected with nature.  It's not necessarily as to the point as a committment to halt offshore drilling might be, but I think it has value nonetheless.  So much of environmental politics over the last decade has been focused on energy and climate change that relatively little effort has been directed towards fostering the connection between Americans and their surrounding natural environment.  The AGO report from 2011 states that nearly 80% of all Americans find it "difficult to connect with nature" in their lives.  That's an important figure for a nation that's trying to determine how willing it is to protect its natural resources and secure a sustainable future for generations to come.  

Philosophically, Romney and Obama are miles apart on their ideas for the future of America's natural environment.  The former sees what has become an obstruction to a free market economy, while the later sees a chance to stimulate new economic opportunities and encourage exploration.  Neither of them have the well-definied conservation initiatives that I would like to see as an environmentalist, but perhaps that's too much to ask for during an election season.  

The Politics of the Disappearing Environmental Platforms of Presidential Candidates

As we have come to see in our discussions over the past couple of classes, the environment is seen as a dirty word and issues related to it can be controversial debate. Perhaps it is attributed to the fact that people do not want to face the reality of Earth as a container of finite resources. Perhaps it is because people do not want to believe that their lifestyle is directly contributing to the destruction of our only planet. Ignorance is bliss and most Americans would rather consume millions of pounds in plastic a year than face the true nature of the state of our environment. Whatever the reason, environmental issues do not receive the same level of severity or priority as economic and social issues. 

This trend is not exclusive to the American public. As potential representatives and decision makers for the American people, the platforms of presidential candidates reflect what is most important to the public. Thus, it is not surprising to me that at first glance, the energy and environment (or in Romney's case, just energy) platforms of President Obama and Mitt Romney are not as comprehensive as compared to their opinions on America's economic or foreign policy. 

In terms of key differences, President Obama’s platform seems constructed to please both sides of the environmental and economic debate while Romney’s platform seeks to utilize the environment to strengthen the economy rather than protect it for future generations. Examples of the dual appeal of President Obama’s platform includes his desire to invest in Green technology and subsequently create more jobs through this industry highlights as well as his initiative to improve fuel efficiency of passenger automobiles. Romney’s plans to exclude carbon dioxide from the Clean Air act and streamline the process for companies to conduct “pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas” reflects his desire to get the economy booming first and then maybe think about the repercussions for the environment. 

Both candidates seem to agree that the United States should reduce its reliance on foreign oil (Read: Middle East) by developing its own source of energy. To President Obama, this means developing the clean-coal industry and investing more money in developing green technology. To Romney, it means doing things like forging partnerships with neighboring countries such as Canada in order to construct ta pipeline that would deliver Canadian oil to the United States. Both have different solutions to the problem but at the very least, they agree that America's desire for energy is growing and we need to look at substitutes if we want to continue living our extravagant lifestyle. 

In general though, it seems as if the platforms of both candidates will do little to drastically change the way Americans consume and dispose of products. The major points that President Obama is pushing in his environmental platform is extremely lenient compared to how huge America's carbon food print is compared to the rest of the world. I think that he is completely bowing down to the automobile industry by giving them until 2025 to double the fuel efficiency of passgener automobiles. It is not as if the technology does not exist for that. The automotive industry can make more fuel efficient cars, it just chooses not to at this point. Giving them 13 years to improve the fuel efficiency of their cars means that we are allowing people to put even more toxins into the environment for the next 13 years before we decide to even think about changing things. Scientists have already said that it is too late to keep the Earth in the state that it has been in for thousands of years but if we follow President Obama's plans then it will definitely be entirely too late. 

Romney's platform fares no better. In fact, it seems to be even worse than President Obama's platform for the sole reason that he does not seem to even act as if he cares about protecting the environment for future generations. Looking through Romney's page, all I see are sentences related to the economy, profit, jobs, deregulation, and streamlining processes for corporations. Romney even states that green technology will hold us American companies back in the international market place. As someone else in the class pointed out in their blog post, Romney's platform does not include the word "environment". It is just simply "energy" and this makes sense because he is solely focused on how America can possess, use and develop more resources for obtaining enough energy to fuel the American economy. 

Ideally, I would love to see both candidates take this issue more seriously. President Obama should be more strict in his policy initiatives and use the power of the government to force industries such as the automobile industry to be on par with the rest of the world in terms of fuel efficiency. I would like to see Mitt Romney change his mind about green technology. While it may be costly, it should not be seen as a disadvantage for American companies competing in the global marketplace. Furthermore, he should not go through with his policy of excluding carbon dioxide from the Clean Air Act. That is only further deluding the American public.

Presidential platforms aside, what ultimately matters is that the American public needs to demand more action from their representatives. You never know when you have a good thing until it's gone. Unfortunately, we do not have another planet to escape to when things go badly on this planet... well not yet at least. 

Presidential Energy (and Environment?) Plans

As Adam already stated, the most striking difference between President Obama and Governor Romney's platforms is all in the name.  Obama's explicitly references the Environment while Romney's platform does not.  This is not to say that Romney plans to disregard the environment entirely; he does, however, place a much stronger emphasis on sustaining and expanding the carbon-based energy sector to create jobs.  His two stipulations regarding environmental regulations concern me.  The first is that he will "ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process," which is mildly concerning because it suggest to me that the government will have to bear some of the costs of companies complying with environmental regulations, which could lead to more lax implementation and lack of impetus to create new ones.  At the same time, it could also lead to higher compliance, which would be a very good thing.  His second point, however, is that he would "amend [the] Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview," which is quite a bit more concerning considering present issues regarding carbon emissions.

Another obvious difference between the two platforms is the emphasis that each puts on green technology. The Obama platform includes multiple stipulations regarding electric cars, low carbon fuel, clean coal, renewable resources, etc. while the Romney campaign only supports "basic research" into alternative energy funding, not even alternative energy itself.  One gripe I do have with Obama  is that it still places a heavy emphasis on fossil fuels which I understand, but I would like to see an emphasis on relieving our dependence on oil in general rather than just foreign oil.  That said, I find Obama's merging of energy and environmental concerns far more appealing than Romney's pure emphasis on energy.

Romney and Obama with respect to Energy and the Environment

The first stark difference between the two candidates is how the frame the issue. On Obama's page, he labels the section Energy and the Environment, whereas Romney simply calls it Energy. Obama's page has multiple bolded phrases and sections outlining his commitment to the symbiotic strategy he espouses, one where we do not have to choose between the environment and the economy (and thus energy). Romney's position clearly demarcates the environment as a secondary priority to energy and the economy. To quote, he says: "As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers." He also references the president's environmental initiatives as hindering he growth of the economy and energy. He has a clear bias toward job growth, a fair bias to have in our economically tougher environment. 

As an environmentalist, I would personally like to see the growth of a green movement in both parties like we see in Europe and other parts of the world. A vote red or blue would not mean a vote for or against the environment. I believe both candidates can do more to foster the growth of green industries and support subsidies for those companies, as the R&D and technology is expensive. Obama's camp should invest in more intelligent investments, as a number of his projects were hefty failures, and Romney, the self proclaimed champion of working Americans, should incentivise alternative fuel exploration and stop reliance on foreign resources.
-Adam