The 70s were a turning point for environmentalism and when most of our environmental legislation in the United States was pushed through. However, since then it seems our concern for the environment and our desire to do good by it has significantly fallen. Why? Though some may argue it's because our concern isn't great enough and that we'd rather let the establishment win, I believe the true reason is that we have not found a unifying cause and a core leader to guide us through this movement. The biggest problem with environmentalism is that it tries to encompass too much: climate change, environmental justice, sustainability, renewable energy, etc. As such, separate mini-movements have evolved out of each issue and each is fighting its own battles. Instead of one great force trying to cause a paradigm shift, you have mini-battles being raged everywhere and no one knows where to start or what to do. Not to mention these are all wicked problems and thus fixing one may cause another to become even worse. Additionally, no great leader has emerged for the environmental movement. When it came to Civil Rights, you had great people emerge to lead: Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, just to name a few. The environmental movement has not had that and therefore has fallen short of its goals because it cannot organize itself efficiently. If the environmental movement was able to unite behind one great cause as one force, the change we need would start to show itself. However, as it stands our best hope is to focus on local, grass roots movements to make changes in their areas and hope that, collectively, that will cause change worldwide. This is why we must think globally but act locally.
What does the awareness of ecological problems to the public do? Why would the government make the public aware of such problems? Why was it important to start earth day? Is there a measurable variable to see its impact?
Even if the public is aware of these issues, does that mean they are going to care enough to do something about it? In America, we don’t see a shortage of any resource, so when we see that there’s environmental problems, it’s more difficult to believe because Americans do not see it hinder their daily lives. So, why would they be concerned? We hear about forests being cut down, polluted water, exponentially depleting natural resources, and over population. But, I have not seen it. However, because I choose to be educated on the issue, I know that it’s out there. I’ve noticed that those who tend to care of environmental issues and sustainability are outliers looking to convince the world leaders that there needs to be significant change. While talking is important, are lobbyists fighting for environmental problems that way other lobbyists fight for the oil industry?
Environmental problems and sustainability issues seem to be a multi-faceted problem that requires a multifaceted solution. It’s not just government subsidies and recycling programs. There is serious thought to consider the rights and privileges we may have to forfeit in order to keep the human population alive. What does that look like? Is it a one child policy? A limit on food and energy consumption? All the solutions seem to lead to a dystopian world where people have less rights in name of “human survival.”
I just hope I don’t see a dystopia in my lifetime.
The idea of sustainable development first appeared in the 1960s as environmentalists started discussing the impression of the economic growth that the world was experiencing on the environment. Since this time, there have been many different definitions of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” but the definition that is most widely known derives from the Brundtland Report, also known as the “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. In this report, sustainable development was defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs.” In this definition, we can understand that sustainability stands for determined efforts in today so that the needs of the future generations are not compromised.
I do agree with the video that was posted on BlackBoard. I do think that in order for this sustainability to be achieved, it is important to complement economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection all together. All three of these elements are interconnected, and combined they are crucial to the wellbeing of all individuals and societies on the planet Earth. However, the determined efforts for sustainability have somewhat have been lost since the concept was first established. There have been incentive policies to restore health to our ecosystem but there are still many negative externalities present in our environment like our polluted water, climate change, growing population above the carrying capacity, the energy return and more. There have been organizations created like the Environmental Protection Agency who is responsible for creating regulation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the only problem with this is that only individuals involved in this organization know the severity of the problems in sustainability. The everyday individual does not understand it, although they do hear it but do not experience it first-hand. If everyday individuals were involved, and understood the severity of this issue, this could be the genuine revolution needed in this paradigm shift for sustainable development.
The world today is vastly different from what it was before environmentalism had taken its toll on earth. Since the early 1970’s, the issue of the environment has suddenly evolved into a widespread issue. Humans are no longer living in a world where the environment is stable but much rather becoming unrecognizable and diminishing before our eyes. Since that time, the world's population has almost doubled, and rates of energy consumption and resource depletion have increased significantly. The awareness of environmental issues brought about by the Environmental Movement has modified many traditional attitudes. Most importantly, it has become very clear that many of the Earth's resources are not limitless and are being mismanaged. There are laws to prevent pollution, protect species, and mandate recycling but in order to solve these environmental problems, do we need to make these laws and regulations stricter? No matter how many solutions we try to come up with, I believe the biggest solution is personal change. If people realize how much damage they are doing to the Earth, they can become educated on the problems and then minimize them. Earth Day is one of the solutions that has drastically made an impact on the world by creating the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Act. It remains one of the largest events and will continue to grow in the future bringing more attention to environmental issues.
Living in the postmodern era, we dwell in the centre of ramifications left by the previous modern era whereby in that modern era, urban planners planned for a future that was economically oriented rather than socially (and environmentally/ecologically) oriented. Due to that capitalistic world view, nature wasn't considered a vital construct but rather just an alternative element to gain wealth. The foundational issue of why the notion of sustainable development becomes essential begins at this point where the natural world starts to be considered an endless well for economic growth rather than the habitat of all life on earth. Once the economy and the growth of the economy became the social norm, nature was virtually there to appropriate for the sole purpose of economic growth and thereby was completely overused and exploited by mankind. Eventually people became aware of the many dangers this destruction posed not only on the human species but on the entirety of the planet. Sustainable development then began becoming a more colloquial term after the WCED composed the Brundtland Report. However, due to the fact that term "sustainable" is extremely pluralistic it is, in itself, an entire project that requires many disciplines to accurately even formulate a single definition. Although many governments have made immense efforts to further the goals of a sustainable development platform, I believe it is quite clear that capitalism doesn't exactly pair well with the indispensable notions of sustainable development. This new idea of green capitalism is of course a fabulous one but clearly isn't 100% tangible due to underlying factors. Just as the idea of Marxism and/or communism is that everyone has and is equal, once put into practice there are obvious voids. There is no doubt that globalization in this postmodern era has only sped up environmental and ecological degradation. However, due to globalization we can better, more evidently see the effects of over production, pollution, depleted natural resources, etc. and with the goals of sustainable development, eventually halt and reverse the many harms we have done. I truly believe the major key to unlocking the success of the revival of our planet is understanding that economic growth is an impossibility theorem (as we do live on a finite planet with finite resources) and economic development is a much more discernible approach. When economic development is then paired with scientific knowledge and social understanding, there lies the foundation for what sustainable development can offer our planet earth.
Yang Peidong Economic progress is always a critical for every country and the whole world to improve living standards and eliminate poverty. However, as a cost of economic development, the environmental degradation is becoming increasingly serious and gaining international attentions. On this background, the term “green economy” is created. Green economy [is] one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities (UNEP, 2011). Green economy mainstreams the ecological resilience to the economic development. This idea emphasizes on the resource efficiency, which means allocating limited resources in the most efficient way and maximize the production as well as minimize waste and pollution. Many measures used to achieve this goal include taxes, subsidies and trading schemes, through regulatory policies, including the setting of standards. However, the progress of green economy still face a lot of challenges and problems. Firstly, as the definition of green economy aren’t united, and there are at least eight different definitions in recent publications. For example, despite the definition provided by UNEP, Green Economy Coalition succinctly defines green economy as "a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet." Secondly, a clear “top-down” framework to promote the green economy is lacking. Thirdly, assessment of green economic performance has many disadvantages, such as the lack of clear objectives, and the link between assessment and decision-making, as well as disparities among various institutions. It is still a long path to strive to attain the goal of mainstreaming the environmental protection to economic progress.
Xin Jiang Since the dawn of human, there has been a relationship between man and nature. The development of human society can not be separated from the transformation and reconstruction of the natural environment. We oppose the idea of extreme environmentalists who regard people as the cancer of the earth, but we must also admit that the earth does not only belong to human. The development of human must be in harmony with natural development. At least, we should consider the impact of human activities on the environment to achieve sustainable human development.
Since the 1970’s, due to the unremitting efforts of J.S.Morton, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt and Dennis Hayes, the economic activities at the expense of environment and resources have been moderated, which greatly promoted the process of environmental protection. However, this is far from enough. After 1980’s, the environmental problem is improving, and the policy of environmental protection is, as it were, successful. The flexible environmental protection policy under the democratic system has provided various ways to solve the problems. But it has also brought some negative effects to the environmental protection work.Because the flexibility results in imperfect laws and policies. What’s more, the current mass production and consumption of economic operation, and the pursuit of excessive packaging and other psychological value is generally considered to be reasonable. if all of us blindly pursuing this kind of consumption culture, ten more earths can’t help us anymore.
Over 40 years ago, environmentalism began to take its course into the concerns of people. We started to realize that the harm humans were causing on the planet is going to make it unlivable at some point. However, even with all the efforts of groups and individuals and the environmentalist movement, the environment still seems to be suffering today. I think one of the biggest limitations to the growth of the environmentalism movement is in the acts of self-interest and economic growth. In order for us to make an impact, it would have to be global and accepted by all countries, especially large producing countries. However, due to the competition in the global economy, many are too afraid to take losses to receive environmental gain. This is because there is not a common, mutual understanding that there is a NEED for attention to the harm we are causing on the environment. Also, saving the environment does not give us immediate benefits like increasing our production does. When acting in self-interest, it becomes difficult to see long-term environmental benefits, but rather focus on GDP and country growth. However, I do not think it is all bad. As we can see from the timeline, there continues to be improvement, with many new programs not showing impact yet. And while 40 years seems like a long time ago, it is a small measure to the amount of time our planet took with no regard to the environment. It is difficult to erase the harmful effects of many generations before now. I still believe there is hope in technology and environmentalist groups that could create another momentum like there was 40 years ago.
1970 was definitely a turning point for environmentalism; not only was it the year of the first Earth Day, it was also the year in which The Environmental Protection Agency was created. In 1970, the main environmental concern was air pollution. That same year, The Clean Air Act was passed which regulated the amount of carbon emissions were released into the atmosphere. Since then, we have encountered an increasing amount of new and worsening environmental issues. As we all probably know, humans are the cause of them. I agree with you Professor, when you said that thinking we are “made in the image of God” caused us to believe we hold the most value on this planet. Humans are notorious for exploiting nature, acting upon our own self-interest, and not thinking about the negative externalities we create. Economics plays a huge role in our current environmental state. Consumerism is the driving force in which our capitalist society is based upon. The fundamental basis of capitalism is the idea that we have the freedom to buy and sell goods, and in order for this society we created to work we must keep growing. As we know, natural resources are renewable but depletable (water, trees, etc.) and at our current growth rate we will reach a point where we won’t have enough resources to withhold the population. This creates a dilemma because how will we maintain economic growth without destroying our planet? This is where the term “sustainable development/growth” comes to play. The term implies that we continue growth without depleting our resources. Is there such thing as sustainable growth? In today’s world, we are currently experiencing the repercussions of the environmental and economic decisions we have made. Climate change, the melting of the polar ice caps, increasing natural disasters, ocean acidification, deforestation, etc. are just a few of the effects human activity has caused. As you said, we missed our chance for a paradigm shift because we don’t care enough. I agree with this because it seems to me that we (especially Western societies) don’t care unless something is directly affecting our day to day lives. I still have hope that we can create a paradigm shift at some point, but we as a society have to decide where we place our value: the economy or the environment.
The notion of sustainability and a green economy is in many cases widely accepted and strived for amongst individuals and countries alike. In the later half of the twentieth century nearly all countries strived to enact laws or attend conferences aimed at lessoning pollution or setting future goals. The idea seemed simple at first; however, the decades following the origin of this movement saw increased production and more powerhouse economies. I believe that it is illogical to believe that any countries will intentionally decrease potential economic growth for the environments sake. In present day society we take too much and don’t give back. Our consumption will likely not decrease, so we must implement more sustainable practices in order to preserve the environment. Since the United States was in fact the leading country in environmentalism, it is up to us, and other developed countries, to take the big steps and set the path.
The audio clip states, “we can never free nature unless we free our prejudices with each other.” In this sense I understand that it is necessary to treat the earth as equal with us, however, how must we do that when there is still inequalities amongst individuals and nations? I believe that sustainability and the future of our environment can bring humanity together and allow both human kind and nature to evolve. Sustainability needs to incorporate both a global focus with inclusivity for all. While this may call for social, political, and economic changes, I believe those should be the minor focus. Instead, noting both the common good and personal gain that new practices could bring is a simpler movement. Also, in order to continually progress, countries need a strong economic foundation that will support any new changes. These past fifty years have encompassed both economic and environmental advancements simultaneously, so it is possible for the future to hold both as long as the intention and focus is in the right places.
Considering that one of the greatest social movements on the subject of environmentalism occurred over 40 years ago is a big red flag. As a global society, we should have a focus on the environment in its entirety. Exploitation of nature has no prejudice. Everyone is affected, all of human, animal and plant life. I feel that in today's society, we need a large agency with big business behind it in order to push a focus on environmental protection. We are a supply and demand society. As demand continues to be driven up, supply will be met; therefore using many resources which in turn causes production to be driven off causing many negative externalities on the environment. The statement "we can never free nature unless we free ourselves of all the prejudices that we have and those that dominate our relations" is a valid one. If the economic environmental visions of the 70's weren't pushed, I feel that we would be in even worse of an environmental standing today. We need to band together as a green-capitalist society and focus on being sustainable as well as productive.
Consumption is definitely a huge affliction in our supply-demand economy so it is clear that we need to find methods that will not be as harmful to the environment. We can not focus on sustainability as a microcosm. We need to do this on a global spectrum. In order for these types of actions to occur, we need vast political acceptance and a declaration that the issue is prevalent and must be taken care of. I feel that as a global economy, many nations can use each other's ideas and influence in order to work together to push the importance of sustainability and maintaining the environment. Let it be known, if the environment were to be completely disregarded, it would have a huge affect on the economy because many types of production would come to a halt and in turn, would cause the economy to crumble.
The moment we live in today is different from and similar to the moment in which environmentalism became popularized. While there have been significant achievements towards sustainable development, more strategies to unite economic, ecological and social-cultural contexts must be implemented to maximize proposals seeking to address our triple crisis. One of the most convincing arguments for sustainable development is that global resources are depleting so fast (including foods and drinkable water) that there is a threat to human existence and lives in the face of orthodoxy. It is now more important than ever to examine the ways goods are consumed, manufactured, and distributed. Climate change’s threat to the world we live in is another plausible rationale for adopting more sustainable modes of living. Environmentalism will continue to be a huge part of repairing the Earth because this is (currently) the only world humans can sustain life.
Though we as individuals are not always in charge of national or international policies, we are driving forces behind change when we live in the ways we would like to see the world. We also hold much power to help jumpstart sustainable changes in our communities and personal lives. Viewing the world through human or social lenses helps us identify pressing problems, identify solutions and correct those issues. Even as we understand that capitalism is just as much of a transactional way of life as an economic system, we have started to critically think about our consumption practices and act as global citizens. This is necessary to achieve sustainability because we have to understand this global epidemic is bigger than ourselves and our countries.
The way the world has shifted since the creation of earth day over 40 years ago is very interesting. As we see in today's society the importance of environmental preservation is higher than it was decades ago. That is a direct result of firsthand evidence on how much the growth of our species civilization has impacted the environment. As we see many nations are pushing for green initiatives as well as big companies. I think the biggest argument is how many natural resources are depleting at a rapid rate. We see forests being torn down, national wildlife struggling to survive. Many countries have a hard time getting drinking water.
Economics plays a huge role in the environment because as we continue to innovate and find new ways to transport and manufacture we are instituting high supply production in order to combat the increasing levels of demand. As international trade has become more efficient and easier this takes a toll on the environment because of the pollution caused by factories, transportation, etc. As well as the constant need for resources in order to produce products for our consumption. I believe that environmentalism and economics go hand in hand and that environmentalism is one of the biggest movements we will need to repair the earth.
As years have passed I have seen the green movement occur more heavily in places such as academic institutions which I think is very important due to today's students being tomorrows leaders. I am a firm believer that although one voice may be small, it has enough impact to make a movement.
Liyuan Zhang The Earth has undergone tremendous changes over the years from the very beginning. From the scientific observations, the environment on the surface of Earth cannot meet the requirements for the survival of animals until late Neoproterozoic Era (850-542 million years ago). And then, it is found out that an oxygenation happened in the Ediacaran oceans around 635-542 million years ago. Ever after the earliest life forms come into being, there are many other changes happen to Earth. Other than the geographic changes brought up by nature, there are changes done to Earth by human activities and behavior.
On one hand, the carbon dioxide emissions by the burning of the fossil fuels has made the planet much warmer. In addition, there is drained rivers around with less water for the ever-growing population. And there is the plastic production due to the new materials developed by technology. These are all examples that human activities for the society and nature.
In a nutshell, the sustainable development of the nature and Earth is actually the long-term development for human being. Though it could be a long way to go before such awareness to be built, yet it is necessary to do so.
The 70s were a turning point for environmentalism and when most of our environmental legislation in the United States was pushed through. However, since then it seems our concern for the environment and our desire to do good by it has significantly fallen. Why? Though some may argue it's because our concern isn't great enough and that we'd rather let the establishment win, I believe the true reason is that we have not found a unifying cause and a core leader to guide us through this movement. The biggest problem with environmentalism is that it tries to encompass too much: climate change, environmental justice, sustainability, renewable energy, etc. As such, separate mini-movements have evolved out of each issue and each is fighting its own battles. Instead of one great force trying to cause a paradigm shift, you have mini-battles being raged everywhere and no one knows where to start or what to do. Not to mention these are all wicked problems and thus fixing one may cause another to become even worse. Additionally, no great leader has emerged for the environmental movement. When it came to Civil Rights, you had great people emerge to lead: Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, just to name a few. The environmental movement has not had that and therefore has fallen short of its goals because it cannot organize itself efficiently. If the environmental movement was able to unite behind one great cause as one force, the change we need would start to show itself. However, as it stands our best hope is to focus on local, grass roots movements to make changes in their areas and hope that, collectively, that will cause change worldwide. This is why we must think globally but act locally.
ReplyDeleteYes! The more we act locally, the more it spreads globally!
DeleteDeShawn McLeod
ReplyDeleteWhat does the awareness of ecological problems to the public do? Why would the government make the public aware of such problems? Why was it important to start earth day? Is there a measurable variable to see its impact?
Even if the public is aware of these issues, does that mean they are going to care enough to do something about it? In America, we don’t see a shortage of any resource, so when we see that there’s environmental problems, it’s more difficult to believe because Americans do not see it hinder their daily lives. So, why would they be concerned? We hear about forests being cut down, polluted water, exponentially depleting natural resources, and over population. But, I have not seen it. However, because I choose to be educated on the issue, I know that it’s out there. I’ve noticed that those who tend to care of environmental issues and sustainability are outliers looking to convince the world leaders that there needs to be significant change. While talking is important, are lobbyists fighting for environmental problems that way other lobbyists fight for the oil industry?
Environmental problems and sustainability issues seem to be a multi-faceted problem that requires a multifaceted solution. It’s not just government subsidies and recycling programs. There is serious thought to consider the rights and privileges we may have to forfeit in order to keep the human population alive. What does that look like? Is it a one child policy? A limit on food and energy consumption? All the solutions seem to lead to a dystopian world where people have less rights in name of “human survival.”
I just hope I don’t see a dystopia in my lifetime.
The idea of sustainable development first appeared in the 1960s as environmentalists started discussing the impression of the economic growth that the world was experiencing on the environment. Since this time, there have been many different definitions of “sustainability” and “sustainable development” but the definition that is most widely known derives from the Brundtland Report, also known as the “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987. In this report, sustainable development was defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs.” In this definition, we can understand that sustainability stands for determined efforts in today so that the needs of the future generations are not compromised.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the video that was posted on BlackBoard. I do think that in order for this sustainability to be achieved, it is important to complement economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection all together. All three of these elements are interconnected, and combined they are crucial to the wellbeing of all individuals and societies on the planet Earth. However, the determined efforts for sustainability have somewhat have been lost since the concept was first established. There have been incentive policies to restore health to our ecosystem but there are still many negative externalities present in our environment like our polluted water, climate change, growing population above the carrying capacity, the energy return and more. There have been organizations created like the Environmental Protection Agency who is responsible for creating regulation such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the only problem with this is that only individuals involved in this organization know the severity of the problems in sustainability. The everyday individual does not understand it, although they do hear it but do not experience it first-hand. If everyday individuals were involved, and understood the severity of this issue, this could be the genuine revolution needed in this paradigm shift for sustainable development.
The world today is vastly different from what it was before environmentalism had taken its toll on earth. Since the early 1970’s, the issue of the environment has suddenly evolved into a widespread issue. Humans are no longer living in a world where the environment is stable but much rather becoming unrecognizable and diminishing before our eyes. Since that time, the world's population has almost doubled, and rates of energy consumption and resource depletion have increased significantly. The awareness of environmental issues brought about by the Environmental Movement has modified many traditional attitudes. Most importantly, it has become very clear that many of the Earth's resources are not limitless and are being mismanaged. There are laws to prevent pollution, protect species, and mandate recycling but in order to solve these environmental problems, do we need to make these laws and regulations stricter? No matter how many solutions we try to come up with, I believe the biggest solution is personal change. If people realize how much damage they are doing to the Earth, they can become educated on the problems and then minimize them. Earth Day is one of the solutions that has drastically made an impact on the world by creating the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Act. It remains one of the largest events and will continue to grow in the future bringing more attention to environmental issues.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the postmodern era, we dwell in the centre of ramifications left by the previous modern era whereby in that modern era, urban planners planned for a future that was economically oriented rather than socially (and environmentally/ecologically) oriented. Due to that capitalistic world view, nature wasn't considered a vital construct but rather just an alternative element to gain wealth. The foundational issue of why the notion of sustainable development becomes essential begins at this point where the natural world starts to be considered an endless well for economic growth rather than the habitat of all life on earth. Once the economy and the growth of the economy became the social norm, nature was virtually there to appropriate for the sole purpose of economic growth and thereby was completely overused and exploited by mankind. Eventually people became aware of the many dangers this destruction posed not only on the human species but on the entirety of the planet. Sustainable development then began becoming a more colloquial term after the WCED composed the Brundtland Report. However, due to the fact that term "sustainable" is extremely pluralistic it is, in itself, an entire project that requires many disciplines to accurately even formulate a single definition.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many governments have made immense efforts to further the goals of a sustainable development platform, I believe it is quite clear that capitalism doesn't exactly pair well with the indispensable notions of sustainable development. This new idea of green capitalism is of course a fabulous one but clearly isn't 100% tangible due to underlying factors. Just as the idea of Marxism and/or communism is that everyone has and is equal, once put into practice there are obvious voids.
There is no doubt that globalization in this postmodern era has only sped up environmental and ecological degradation. However, due to globalization we can better, more evidently see the effects of over production, pollution, depleted natural resources, etc. and with the goals of sustainable development, eventually halt and reverse the many harms we have done.
I truly believe the major key to unlocking the success of the revival of our planet is understanding that economic growth is an impossibility theorem (as we do live on a finite planet with finite resources) and economic development is a much more discernible approach. When economic development is then paired with scientific knowledge and social understanding, there lies the foundation for what sustainable development can offer our planet earth.
Yang Peidong
ReplyDeleteEconomic progress is always a critical for every country and the whole world to improve living standards and eliminate poverty. However, as a cost of economic development, the environmental degradation is becoming increasingly serious and gaining international attentions. On this background, the term “green economy” is created. Green economy [is] one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities (UNEP, 2011). Green economy mainstreams the ecological resilience to the economic development. This idea emphasizes on the resource efficiency, which means allocating limited resources in the most efficient way and maximize the production as well as minimize waste and pollution. Many measures used to achieve this goal include taxes, subsidies and trading schemes, through regulatory policies, including the setting of standards. However, the progress of green economy still face a lot of challenges and problems. Firstly, as the definition of green economy aren’t united, and there are at least eight different definitions in recent publications. For example, despite the definition provided by UNEP, Green Economy Coalition succinctly defines green economy as "a resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of the planet." Secondly, a clear “top-down” framework to promote the green economy is lacking. Thirdly, assessment of green economic performance has many disadvantages, such as the lack of clear objectives, and the link between assessment and decision-making, as well as disparities among various institutions. It is still a long path to strive to attain the goal of mainstreaming the environmental protection to economic progress.
Xin Jiang
ReplyDeleteSince the dawn of human, there has been a relationship between man and nature. The development of human society can not be separated from the transformation and reconstruction of the natural environment. We oppose the idea of extreme environmentalists who regard people as the cancer of the earth, but we must also admit that the earth does not only belong to human. The development of human must be in harmony with natural development. At least, we should consider the impact of human activities on the environment to achieve sustainable human development.
Since the 1970’s, due to the unremitting efforts of J.S.Morton, John Muir, Theodore Roosevelt and Dennis Hayes, the economic activities at the expense of environment and resources have been moderated, which greatly promoted the process of environmental protection. However, this is far from enough. After 1980’s, the environmental problem is improving, and the policy of environmental protection is, as it were, successful. The flexible environmental protection policy under the democratic system has provided various ways to solve the problems. But it has also brought some negative effects to the environmental protection work.Because the flexibility results in imperfect laws and policies. What’s more, the current mass production and consumption of economic operation, and the pursuit of excessive packaging and other psychological value is generally considered to be reasonable. if all of us blindly pursuing this kind of consumption culture, ten more earths can’t help us anymore.
Over 40 years ago, environmentalism began to take its course into the concerns of people. We started to realize that the harm humans were causing on the planet is going to make it unlivable at some point. However, even with all the efforts of groups and individuals and the environmentalist movement, the environment still seems to be suffering today. I think one of the biggest limitations to the growth of the environmentalism movement is in the acts of self-interest and economic growth. In order for us to make an impact, it would have to be global and accepted by all countries, especially large producing countries. However, due to the competition in the global economy, many are too afraid to take losses to receive environmental gain. This is because there is not a common, mutual understanding that there is a NEED for attention to the harm we are causing on the environment. Also, saving the environment does not give us immediate benefits like increasing our production does. When acting in self-interest, it becomes difficult to see long-term environmental benefits, but rather focus on GDP and country growth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not think it is all bad. As we can see from the timeline, there continues to be improvement, with many new programs not showing impact yet. And while 40 years seems like a long time ago, it is a small measure to the amount of time our planet took with no regard to the environment. It is difficult to erase the harmful effects of many generations before now. I still believe there is hope in technology and environmentalist groups that could create another momentum like there was 40 years ago.
1970 was definitely a turning point for environmentalism; not only was it the year of the first Earth Day, it was also the year in which The Environmental Protection Agency was created. In 1970, the main environmental concern was air pollution. That same year, The Clean Air Act was passed which regulated the amount of carbon emissions were released into the atmosphere. Since then, we have encountered an increasing amount of new and worsening environmental issues. As we all probably know, humans are the cause of them. I agree with you Professor, when you said that thinking we are “made in the image of God” caused us to believe we hold the most value on this planet. Humans are notorious for exploiting nature, acting upon our own self-interest, and not thinking about the negative externalities we create.
ReplyDeleteEconomics plays a huge role in our current environmental state. Consumerism is the driving force in which our capitalist society is based upon. The fundamental basis of capitalism is the idea that we have the freedom to buy and sell goods, and in order for this society we created to work we must keep growing. As we know, natural resources are renewable but depletable (water, trees, etc.) and at our current growth rate we will reach a point where we won’t have enough resources to withhold the population. This creates a dilemma because how will we maintain economic growth without destroying our planet? This is where the term “sustainable development/growth” comes to play. The term implies that we continue growth without depleting our resources. Is there such thing as sustainable growth?
In today’s world, we are currently experiencing the repercussions of the environmental and economic decisions we have made. Climate change, the melting of the polar ice caps, increasing natural disasters, ocean acidification, deforestation, etc. are just a few of the effects human activity has caused. As you said, we missed our chance for a paradigm shift because we don’t care enough. I agree with this because it seems to me that we (especially Western societies) don’t care unless something is directly affecting our day to day lives. I still have hope that we can create a paradigm shift at some point, but we as a society have to decide where we place our value: the economy or the environment.
The notion of sustainability and a green economy is in many cases widely accepted and strived for amongst individuals and countries alike. In the later half of the twentieth century nearly all countries strived to enact laws or attend conferences aimed at lessoning pollution or setting future goals. The idea seemed simple at first; however, the decades following the origin of this movement saw increased production and more powerhouse economies. I believe that it is illogical to believe that any countries will intentionally decrease potential economic growth for the environments sake. In present day society we take too much and don’t give back. Our consumption will likely not decrease, so we must implement more sustainable practices in order to preserve the environment. Since the United States was in fact the leading country in environmentalism, it is up to us, and other developed countries, to take the big steps and set the path.
ReplyDeleteThe audio clip states, “we can never free nature unless we free our prejudices with each other.” In this sense I understand that it is necessary to treat the earth as equal with us, however, how must we do that when there is still inequalities amongst individuals and nations? I believe that sustainability and the future of our environment can bring humanity together and allow both human kind and nature to evolve. Sustainability needs to incorporate both a global focus with inclusivity for all. While this may call for social, political, and economic changes, I believe those should be the minor focus. Instead, noting both the common good and personal gain that new practices could bring is a simpler movement. Also, in order to continually progress, countries need a strong economic foundation that will support any new changes. These past fifty years have encompassed both economic and environmental advancements simultaneously, so it is possible for the future to hold both as long as the intention and focus is in the right places.
Nicholas Arciszewski
ReplyDeleteConsidering that one of the greatest social movements on the subject of environmentalism occurred over 40 years ago is a big red flag. As a global society, we should have a focus on the environment in its entirety. Exploitation of nature has no prejudice. Everyone is affected, all of human, animal and plant life. I feel that in today's society, we need a large agency with big business behind it in order to push a focus on environmental protection. We are a supply and demand society. As demand continues to be driven up, supply will be met; therefore using many resources which in turn causes production to be driven off causing many negative externalities on the environment. The statement "we can never free nature unless we free ourselves of all the prejudices that we have and those that dominate our relations" is a valid one. If the economic environmental visions of the 70's weren't pushed, I feel that we would be in even worse of an environmental standing today. We need to band together as a green-capitalist society and focus on being sustainable as well as productive.
Consumption is definitely a huge affliction in our supply-demand economy so it is clear that we need to find methods that will not be as harmful to the environment. We can not focus on sustainability as a microcosm. We need to do this on a global spectrum. In order for these types of actions to occur, we need vast political acceptance and a declaration that the issue is prevalent and must be taken care of. I feel that as a global economy, many nations can use each other's ideas and influence in order to work together to push the importance of sustainability and maintaining the environment. Let it be known, if the environment were to be completely disregarded, it would have a huge affect on the economy because many types of production would come to a halt and in turn, would cause the economy to crumble.
Nicholas Arciszewski
Meredith Bowman
ReplyDeleteThe moment we live in today is different from and similar to the moment in which environmentalism became popularized. While there have been significant achievements towards sustainable development, more strategies to unite economic, ecological and social-cultural contexts must be implemented to maximize proposals seeking to address our triple crisis. One of the most convincing arguments for sustainable development is that global resources are depleting so fast (including foods and drinkable water) that there is a threat to human existence and lives in the face of orthodoxy. It is now more important than ever to examine the ways goods are consumed, manufactured, and distributed. Climate change’s threat to the world we live in is another plausible rationale for adopting more sustainable modes of living. Environmentalism will continue to be a huge part of repairing the Earth because this is (currently) the only world humans can sustain life.
Though we as individuals are not always in charge of national or international policies, we are driving forces behind change when we live in the ways we would like to see the world. We also hold much power to help jumpstart sustainable changes in our communities and personal lives. Viewing the world through human or social lenses helps us identify pressing problems, identify solutions and correct those issues. Even as we understand that capitalism is just as much of a transactional way of life as an economic system, we have started to critically think about our consumption practices and act as global citizens. This is necessary to achieve sustainability because we have to understand this global epidemic is bigger than ourselves and our countries.
Mark Shkreli
ReplyDeleteThe way the world has shifted since the creation of earth day over 40 years ago is very interesting. As we see in today's society the importance of environmental preservation is higher than it was decades ago. That is a direct result of firsthand evidence on how much the growth of our species civilization has impacted the environment. As we see many nations are pushing for green initiatives as well as big companies. I think the biggest argument is how many natural resources are depleting at a rapid rate. We see forests being torn down, national wildlife struggling to survive. Many countries have a hard time getting drinking water.
Economics plays a huge role in the environment because as we continue to innovate and find new ways to transport and manufacture we are instituting high supply production in order to combat the increasing levels of demand. As international trade has become more efficient and easier this takes a toll on the environment because of the pollution caused by factories, transportation, etc. As well as the constant need for resources in order to produce products for our consumption. I believe that environmentalism and economics go hand in hand and that environmentalism is one of the biggest movements we will need to repair the earth.
As years have passed I have seen the green movement occur more heavily in places such as academic institutions which I think is very important due to today's students being tomorrows leaders. I am a firm believer that although one voice may be small, it has enough impact to make a movement.
Liyuan Zhang
ReplyDeleteThe Earth has undergone tremendous changes over the years from the very beginning. From the scientific observations, the environment on the surface of Earth cannot meet the requirements for the survival of animals until late Neoproterozoic Era (850-542 million years ago). And then, it is found out that an oxygenation happened in the Ediacaran oceans around 635-542 million years ago. Ever after the earliest life forms come into being, there are many other changes happen to Earth. Other than the geographic changes brought up by nature, there are changes done to Earth by human activities and behavior.
On one hand, the carbon dioxide emissions by the burning of the fossil fuels has made the planet much warmer. In addition, there is drained rivers around with less water for the ever-growing population. And there is the plastic production due to the new materials developed by technology. These are all examples that human activities for the society and nature.
In a nutshell, the sustainable development of the nature and Earth is actually the long-term development for human being. Though it could be a long way to go before such awareness to be built, yet it is necessary to do so.