It is not a competition, but an obligation

It is not a competition, but an obligation

We often approach the environmental problem with economic factors—with an eye toward whether the problem affects our well-being and economy. I don’t like to insist on protecting the environment for our own well-being; I would rather focus on the dignity of nature itself. However, most people think about environment in terms of humanity’s well-being, and I have to address the views of others.
While recognizing the environment’s impact on ourselves, we also need to think about the welfare of other countries. It’s not only China’s problem, or the United States’, but everyone’s problem. We pollute nature on an individual basis, but it affects everyone. So everyone is responsible for nature. However, I feel like the United States and politicians still regard investing in green energy and jobs as a matter of national preference. It seems like China and European countries invest more in the green business sector because they can get benefits from it, like more jobs and profits. The article says the United States maintains the status quo and doesn’t want to follow the global trend, so the U.S. will end up watching as China and Europe harvest the fruits of green energy, which the US innovated.
However, saying that green industry is optional business is just an excuse of neglecting responsibility. Chinese just pays its duty for the hidden cost of the business sector. They consume resources and pollute the Earth, and now they are taking responsibility for our communal planet Earth. As Catherine said on her blog posting, we are in the same house and we clean up the house because we are family under the one roof. If I mess up my house it is not only my problem but also for everyone who shares the house.
Investing alternative energy and regulating the manufactures to pay for the recycling system of their products is not an option. It’s rather be an obvious responsibility. It’s not even a race. There is no such word like competition in taking responsibility. We have to be shame on ourselves not to be like other nations.

Race for "the Cure" ?

As Adrienne said in her response, “the US loves a good competition especially if they think they can win.” China is ahead in engineering and science based innovations, while the US priority or mentality streams from creating larger economic benefits, putting " green" technology second. The US always sees economic gains whether from national ingenuity or benefits from abroad. We put more focus on the green economy rather than the green initiative. With china depending on US tax dollars to fund their environmentally sustainable programs, the US jumps ahead in he race. After all, what everything always comes down to is money, profit and raising GDP.

This "race" blinds the overall importance at hand and it doesn't make sense to me. Why are countries “competing,” when the environmental problem is a global problem? This seems to emphasize the standard view of the environment, at least in the terms of the US. While the US may make a somewhat radical change with efforts to deplete the strain on the environment, such as a bag tax or implementing legal restrictions on industrial corporations, the government will not necessarily support the engineering or science based changes without an immediate benefit to US GDP. The US values the economy more than its ecosystem and will only take necessary action upon or after catastrophe, thus the standard view.

Therefore, I feel that a larger concentration is needed in refocusing the environmental problem on technological advances rather than economic gain. The ultimate priority of the US government needs to switch putting innovation above money, and if the GDP flourishes in effect, that's great. However, relating back to the standard view, innovation is not a complete fix. By manufacturing greener products, a company is in fact still manufacturing. While China is taking the push towards cleaner and more sustainable technologies on a long term beneficial scale, I feel the US is more focused on short term benefits, placing all the focus on creating greener products, such as cars, cleaning products and foods. A balance between industry and the “free market” economy, as well as cooperation among nations is needed in order to sufficiently tackle climate change.

And in this corner.....

I agree with how the author Mr. Friedman discusses climate change in his article. He puts it forward that for the United States to be fully competitive in a globalized economy it is in our economic interests to have a green economy. The United States is a country that hates to lose, as Americans we want to be the best at everything from test scores to medals at the Olympics. If we were to frame the climate debate as one where the United States would need to compete against other nations in our interests, I feel that it would lead to greater action being done to confront climate change. Helping the planet and reducing our impact to stop further climate change are ideal reasons to do something about the issue, but in our country if we need to make it a competition to get something done it would be well worth it.

The argument that green manufacturing will lessen the impacts of climate change is one which is an interesting notion to have because green production still has an impact just reduced. Innovation that leads to a lesser dependence on the world's natural resources is one that should be encouraged and financed but these innovations can only go so far. These innovations I feel that if we try to on top of a greater transition to a green economy we should start looking for solutions that have no impact on the planet but still give us economic growth. I feel that would be a better solution to the climate change issue then simply reducing our impact on the planet.

Double Dog Dare

We live on this planet called Earth. You, me, the people in China, Austria, New Zealand and Peru and everyone else. All of us are on this one planet. Now imagine this planet as a big ol' house. You, a nation, get your own room. I get my own room. Everyone's got their own room (it's a very big house). But despite that we've got our own rooms, we're all under the same roof. We share resources , like water, energy and air. We all use the kitchen to get our food. We all use the living room to relax. So while we may have these false borders of walls and doors, we aren't closed off from each other. We could try to avoid each as much as possible, create a competition between each other as to who can have the best room...but in reality, all it does is lead to tension, and if any of you have ever lived with a roommate who you're competing with/don't wanna talk to..IT IS AWKWARD. And not a very conducive environment for living happily.

Lesson from metaphor: Our family (humanity) is dysfunctional when we compete in our house (Earth) and our house and us cannot be happy (not screwing up the planet) unless we work together.

The idea that we're "competing" with any nation in terms of green technology seems very Cold War to me. I thought we were moving past that. Perhaps though, the way we are looking at "competition" in the classic sense is the wrong way...this isn't no race for space.

China, as Friedman says, is kicking into high green-tech production gear. Good on them! We shouldn't view that as, "Oh man, China's whooping us. We can't have that, we've got to beat them."

I think we should view it as a challenge...or even better yet, a dare. If we viewed China's work as a way of saying, "Hey USA, I double dog dare you to green it up," I feel as though that's a spark for us to compete with ourselves. It becomes not US vs Them but US vs US, meaning can we prove ourselves worthy? The US has always been a self-determined nation. Manifest destiny and whatnot. Let's take on the dare then.

But let's ramp it up a notch. Technological innovation is great and the amount of new ideas and products coming out of the science/engineering world is literally jaw-dropping, but that's only one third of the pie. The other two are individual actions and policy. People, on a you and me basis, need to step it up. Last week's article by Maniates says we need to do more than the easy stuff. True, we can challenge ourselves to do more...but that easy stuff doesn't hurt either. The last third of the pie is policy. Congress is being a party pooper with that. They're like the parent in our figurative house that's saying, "No, you can't go out. Do your chores." When they don't pass policies that help innovators develop and finance their tech, we slow progress. When they don't attempt to regulate and enforce civilian clean-energy practices, they slow progress. They are locking our bedroom door and stopping us from working with the rest of the house to make it a happier home.

To summarize: Competition is bad, but a double dog dare is not. The world is double dog daring us to take it to the next level.

And as any kid will tell you, you can't say no to a double dog dare. Otherwise your a butthead (a strong insult from a 5 year old).

America's Next "War": The Nuclear Greens Race

The US loves a good competition - especially if it thinks it can win. Framed correctly, China's new jump into the world of environmental conservation could be just the motivation need to convince Americans that there's nothing to lose from getting into green technology. If it's framed as some sort of game to be won, then that’s all the better. Anything to convince the US powers that be that the environmental movement isn’t the evil it’s cracked up to be. The new change in mindset certainly wouldn’t make us any worse off than we already are.

The question of course is whether or not green technology really is the answer to climate change or any other environmental disaster. The jury is still out on that one. The majority of technology is not produced to cause harm to humans; even less of it is designed with the express purpose of causing environmental damage. All technology is actually designed to solve some sort of problem – save time and personal energy doing dishes or laundry, getting a person from point A to point B in as little time as possible, alleviating boredom etc. I like to think that the designers rarely think of the problems their solutions really could cause. Often, the problems are unfathomable until the scale and scope of the technology really reach their full extent. That being said, no one really knows what problems green technology could lead to on a large scale. They may be better for the environment, but are they good for quality of life? Social life? Dogs and kids?

In addition, all this talk of technology and competition assumes that our global “free” market provides the answer. As already discussed in class, some schools of thought would certainly disagree. The Social Greens would scoff at such a solution. I personally tend to share their skepticism, though perhaps to a lesser extent, even though I think I really identify as a bio-environmentalist. However, I also believe that a transition into the smaller more self-sustaining communities we need is a process that will require a lot of time. Small steps definitely need to be taken in the interim, and I think getting people to see the value in green technology is a good first step. If China provides the economic motivation to change our mind set, so be it. I’m not typically an ends justify the means sort of person, but given the how deeply the problem is ingrained in our social system, I often find myself believing that there aren’t a lot of options other than to play by their rules until something better comes along.

Every Hand Helps

I must say that I really appreciate Mr. Maniates enthusiasm! We have all seen the books about the easy steps and the lazy way, it’s enticing to pick them up and be lulled into the sense of security you get from thinking that taking a shorter shower is all you have to do to save the world. Of course, this isn’t the case, and those of us truly interested in environmental problems already know that. I had never really thought of it before as being treated as a child, being given a kindergartener’s homework when I’m already in the fifth grade, but in reality, that’s actually what it is. Of course, everyone has to start somewhere.

What about those who have just developed an environmental awareness though? Hitting them all at once with a Greenpeace strategy for environmental protection could scare them into doing nothing. Telling a new comer all the doom and gloom horror stories, without offering them a few simple solutions that they can immediately commit to, seems like a quick way to scare them off. Being involved in the environmental movement can be depressing and challenging, even for those of us already well invested in it; the little things make us feel better.

There’s also a line to be drawn for every person, a level of commitment to any cause that they really won’t cross; it’s a matter of priorities. Some have a much higher capacity to commit to the environmental cause, while others truly believe that other things are much more important. But isn’t it nice that even those who don’t have such a high capacity are still contributing in small ways. It’s not a zero sum game, just some players a bigger than others. For those big players, you can individually decide how big you want to be. If you’re serious about sacrificing and committing fully to the movement, then Greenpeace can offer you that option. Moderates have the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club, and everyone else has their ‘easy guides.’ If you’re in the fifth grade you don’t have to pick up the little kids homework, but personally I think it’s nice to find ways that everyone can help out – turning off all the lights always makes me feel better. True, the revolution could be bigger, but not all of us can play the role of Paul Revere, some of us have to be the insignificant and unremembered soldiers and housewives who won the war.

Killing Earth softly

I should agree with Maniates that “easy, cost-effective things” do not work well as many people think. I applaud him for his courage to speak this out on thanksgiving when our expenditure goes up to the peak of the year.
The “going green is easy” idea is problematic due to following reasons. First, it is very difficult to change our life style without real sacrifice. Second, though we change those small actions, unfortunately it does not give a big difference to the current global warming situation.
We work hard for a year and we get some humble rewards for ourselves. Christmas, Halloween and thanksgiving, these are the happiest days for everyone. We celebrate it with our best and these holidays are the miracle time when even badly stingy people open their wallet to buy gifts to their family. Even environmentalists participate in this lifestyle. To be truly environmental, you cannot spend and consume during these celebrations and holidays, such as buying gifts for family and friends. So, I think if you were truly environmental, you would lose friends. Do not ruin your social life.
I buy my groceries in whole food. It has very good intention to promote small local farms and organic products. I really feel good about and even proud to buy my groceries there. At the same time, still a lot of customers drive to the Whole Food rather than using the public transportation. Even though there is a chance to use the metro or metro bus, people prefer to drive because that is more convenient and that is the way we live in America. We can change our food that affects directly our family, but we are not willing to give up some accustomed life style such as driving.
Government might know the original problem of global warming. It is not because we have not driven the hybrid car or have not encouraged grocery shopping in the Whole Food. It is a matter of how we consume which is the most positive factor for economic growth.
We are killing the earth at the fastest rate in Earth’s history. However, now people try to make a difference by adding “easy, cost-effective things” to our consumption. It sounds easy, but actually it just slows the huge destruction a bit down so that we can kill the Earth softly. If you just do the little easy things for improving the global warming without changing your real life style, it can't be more than making yourself feel better because we already know it will not work.

Time to step up

I agree with Michael Maniates article detailing that doing little things are going to do a lot to help the environment. Now don't get me wrong I feel that everyone must be environmentally responsible and recycling is a great way to lessen your impact on the environment. People though need to stop looking at the short term and say well I recycled I should be fine. Also The issue though is that lessening your impact does not negate the fact that there is still a substantial impact on the environment. To be more environmentally friendly we as a country and as a global community must take the steps to eliminate the impact altogether not just lessen.

The author's argument is that the United States needs to take the lead in how the world deals with climate change and other environmental issues because we are the world's superpower. If the United States is willing to take large steps to make a significant change in our policy other countries around the world will follow our lead. If the U.S. said we will penalize any country that does not take drastic steps to change their development programs to be in line with what needs to be done to stop climate change and promote sustainable growth of their economies that don't destroy our planet change would happen.

Another interesting point that the author argues for is that we need to not make this an economic issue but rather an issue that transcends economic labels in order to make it an issue that is not in dispute. By forming it as an economic issue it gives an out to people who say that doing something that will preserve our planet will hurt our economic interests but they must realize that this hurts the economic aspect in the long term. We must as Americans stop asking those in power what we can do but rather collectively come together and say enough is enough we demand a solution to the problems of our world. We are done sitting on the sidelines and letting those in power do nothing, everyone must step up and be willing to make sacrifices to save our planet and our own future.

That was Easy....

Maniates states that, “Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment.” This statement struck me, because it is the truth, and I have to say, that I completely agree with Maniates argument.

Society is not paying attention to the problem at hand. But, then the question hits…why? Is it because we as a society don’t care? Is it because we don’t have enough education of climate change and greenhouse gases? Or is it because as a global society everyone is too consumed with economic growth and the building of a nation, that a problem like climate change is overlooked or underrated?

In the United States and all over the world, consumption and economic growth are part of the problem. People will consume in order to help the environment, but not at the cost of lowering the national GDP or their comforts of home. So yes, someone may buy a hybrid car to contribute to ending global warming, but they are not going to stop using air conditioning, taking long relaxing showers or buying a plethora of water bottles – the problem though is that buying a more fuel efficient car, using less water or less plastic…can still be categorized as being the bare minimum of change.

As we discussed in class, developing nations, such as India and China, are beginning to build up their nations – these countries are wanting to live like those in the U.S. do. But, as we said in class, if everyone opted to live like us, the Earth would quickly spiral to a downfall. However, the same ideal can be applied to the outlook of fixing the problem. If the global society continues to think that the bare minimum is enough, and just by switching a light bulb out or unplugging their appliances when not in use, our planet will regain order. We as a global society are obviously very naive.

In 2007, I attended Live Earth, a concert for climate change. I was 18 at the time and I remember global warming wasn’t a huge concern, although I was educated on parts of the issue. Sitting in my seat I remember the plethora of celebrities and dignitaries that spoke and performed. It was great to see so many people that I looked up to passionate about saving the Earth, but honestly, I could have cared less, and was only concerned and excited about watching my favorite artists perform. The fact is though; I feel many in the audience felt the same way I did. This wasn’t a concert to end climate change; it was just a concert where we could be entertained…like any other concert. But, what I do remember is the promotional videos that were played and the speeches that were made all revolved around the premise that “doing a little could go a long way.”

With a problem so large and out of control, it is easy to understand why the promotion of “saving the Earth a little at a time” would seem less overwhelming. This way of thinking gets everyone involved, no matter your socio-economic class, or understanding of the problem at hand. It’s the first step to moving forward to the larger changes that need to be implemented. As Maniates said, “we need to be looking at fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss.” These large economic, governmental, technological and societal changes will all occur eventually, but when they do, will it already be too late?

The Face of Climate Change

I don't know about you, but I find it easier to locate flaws and conceits, honor and values in someone when I can see their face. That may sound horrible, but the whole "you can tell a person's soul by their eyes" thing is partially true. A human face has so many different expressions and our brains convey so many different emotions that we can make half of our face say one thing and the other half say something completely different. Some of us are better than others, admittedly, at conveying our emotions (or hiding them)...and some of us are better at reading those emotions, those character traits, hidden or not. But having a face, for good or for bad, to imagine makes it so much easier to make a decision or strive towards a goal.

What's the face of environmental damage? Maniates says, "the knotty, vexing challenges...have fired our individual and communal imagination, creativity and commitment." And climate change and environmental damage are indeed knotty, vexing challenges. But what image do I call to mind when I think of climate change? Polar bears? Greenhouse gases? Pollutants being churned into the air? Droughts/floods/hurricanes/fires? Not many of those (ignoring the polar bears) have an actual face my human mind can attach onto and find some resemblance in. And while I could look at the faces of the people who have been affected by all the myriad things that climate change has wrought...good lord, that's the entire planet.

I can't imagine 6.8 billion faces.

It's too much. Climate change is too much. I will fully admit I don't have a brain large enough to imagine the capacity for all of the things that are happening to this beaten, bruised, striving, fighting planet of ours. I know that it is happening, I know that it is bad, but in its entirety, in both space and time, I can't put something my brain can measure on it.

I am not disagreeing with Maniates, I agree we can do more than simply the "easy" things. But I feel as though until we have a face to place on climate change, something to rally us, either because we vilify it or idolize it, it becomes that much harder to say, "This is what you must strive for."

It's like trying to imagine our place in the universe...I start thinking about how I am in an apartment, in a city, in a state (alright a district whatever), in a nation, in a continent, in a hemisphere, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a universe...then what? I am lost in the hugeness of it all.

Give me something to grasp on to, give me a face to see and know and fight against or fight with. I want to do more, but I can only see so far out into the future.

The pressing challenge and the solution are Human being itself.

There are obvious visible environmental problems around us; Air pollution, natural resources running out, extinct species, cutting down rainforests and global warming. However, these are just outcomes of how humans have lived and affected the earth. Without any doubt, all of those environmental problems have been caused by us and not by any single other creatures on the earth. So I would say mankind is the solution for this disastrous global warming and mankind ourselves are the most pressing challenge for us to preserve our environment.

However, what I mean by the solution is by not a technology, but strong collective action by big scale of actors such as national governments or international restrictions.

Nowadays, eating local organic foods and being an environmentally conscious consumer are huge trends for global environment. Usually above middle income class can afford this lifestyle economically. It requires more expenses and knowledge; also regarded as more ‘developed’ modern life. Actually this life model is just the way we used to live until about 200 years ago. It is not a technological matter, but just we found out that the way we used to live for entire human being history is better and right for the environment. However, most of us still believe that technology will somehow rescue us from environmental disaster as we have made the same mistakes.

We are capable of thinking rationally. We have a will to prevent environmental disaster though it is not purely for nature. I can’t help myself but to doubt if the will we have for environment is big enough to make the difference. As we see the larger picture, our lust for consumer goods is much stronger than our determination to keep environment. This is a notion that helps corporations maintain little environmental action. There are not many individuals who are willing to give up their privileged life and it even seems it requires extra effort to be environmentally friendly people like Dr. Fish’s experience.

We live in a society that dares us to consume more. Governments are also in favor of increasing consumption or at least sustaining the consumption in the market. You may be able to resist against this mechanism of materialism, but not all people can do it. We are ordinary people who spend money and consume goods so that we can feel dignified and satisfied. We have come too far to change our life by just being environmentally conscious people. We need a huge change that really makes the difference. In my opinion, individuals’ change of life style is a good effort, but it is not enough. We need a big regulation that can come from governments, which will confront corporate lack of environmental action.

I think that it is the most pressing challenge. We assume that we could make difference within this lifestyle by new technology or changing one’s life style individually. What we need is a strong collective action in a scale of entire nations. I would not mind that we are forced to do it because we have gone too far to do it voluntarily.

Climate Change

I feel that the most pressing global environmental problem is climate change because the vast challenges that it presents to the world. Climate change is a problem that would be felt and has been felt by everyone country around the world. Some environmental problems have quick fixes and over time can eventually recover. A good example would be putting a species on the endangered species list so to protect the species from extinction. Over time, this species will hopefully recover enough to be taken off the list as its populations have increased to a safe number. Climate Change on the other hand has no quick fixes and if nothing is done about there will be extreme consequences.

Climate Change is a broad environmental problem because since it so serious it overlaps with many other pressing environmental problems. Adrienne's point of population is a good example of this because unsustainable population growth which we have experienced in the past century which has lead the human population to increase dramatically in a very short time. In order to counteract this problem there needs to be greater family planning around the world and also education is a factor in controlling population growth. As our population has grown it has lead to more greater demand of products and services which then has contributed to greater carbon emissions. The large increase in carbon emissions have lead to the problem that we face now, what to do to fight climate change. This past year has been one where there have been numerous wildfires, huge floods, and other climate related catastrophes located globally which demonstrate that this is a real problem.

How do we then go to a system that stops climate change, do we all stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and how would that play out in the global economy. Probably not well but as a global community we must establish a way that we can have positive economic growth worldwide without the carbon emissions that threaten to destroy our world. In framing the climate change debate there must be a common goal of looking out for everyone not just your own interests.

Fish even though he did not seem happy being environmentally friendly and had disdain for how the environmental movement had progressed is evidence that it is possible to make a change to being more environmentally conscious. His lifestyle was one where he and his wife as consumers took environmental considerations when choosing a product to buy. If this became more common it would reduce carbon emissions significantly in the world especially here in the United States. The only problem with this is that he and his wife have the means to be environmentally friendly while people have less income can not make those types of considerations because they are not within the means of their budgets.

Environmentalism : A No Brainer

So, I had to put a lot of serious thought into the idea of the “most pressing challenge facing the global environment.” At first it was obvious, well of course it’s population, there are just too many people and the planet simply doesn’t have the resources. Now granted, this is a very real challenge. The number of people already on this planet couldn’t possibly lead lives that have come to be the European/American standard. Of course, all of us could potentially lead simpler lives, but honestly, what good American would agree to that? These questions of population have moral implications and lead to serious conundrums about how to address the problems of development, but another time another story. Population is an honest challenge, but then I started thinking…is it really the worst? On top of that, isn’t choosing population a little clichéd? We did just read a bunch of articles about it for class.

So then I considered oceans. Now, there’s a catastrophe for you. Ocean’s and mangroves provide 50% of the oxygen we breathe and yet they’re the fastest depleting ecosystems in the world. Forests are good too, oxygen and biodiversity being lost at unimaginable rates. Oh, and what about climate change? Some scientists estimate that we’ve already passed the tipping point and now it’s only a matter of time until the whole world dissolves into the next ice age. So clearly, my options were not limited. As I thought about it, I realized that each of these challenges are very real, and very detrimental, hardly one being worse than the next. So I thought, “The most pressing environmental challenge is the one we most desperately need to fix if we want to survive. Which of these catastrophes can we turn around and truly expect things to start getting better?” Then it dawned on me, the most pressing challenge facing the global environment is the framing of the environmental movement.

Right now, people see the environmental movement in a lot of different ways…most of them bad. Some people see it as a bunch of pot-smoking-tree-huggers trying to cause a commotion, others see it as a bunch of hippies who care more about the animals then the people in their own community, and others just see environmentalists as the annoying people who make them sort their trash. In any case, it’s not a pretty picture. Environmental challenges need to be put into perspective for the average person. They have to be related to issues that people already care about, there need to be real incentives and viable alternatives, and finally environmentalists need to take into account the other, very real, problems that people have. Environmentalism needs to check out a few business models and learn a thing or two about advertising. And for god’s sake, could we all please agree about something?? Just once? (Agreeing among ourselves is a proven tactic, take the ozone layer for example!)

If environmentalism was advertised properly, it would be internalized, as evidenced by all the wonderful materialism and consumerist habits we see around us on a daily basis. Just imagine if the average American teenager recycled the way she shoe shopped – without even thinking about it. On top of that, responsible shopping would be a thing of the past, with time producers would only sell environmentally sustainable goods: you’re wish (which we hand fed you), is our demand. It’s time to put these business principals to work.

My point, interestingly enough, ties in perfectly with the NY Times article “I Am, Therefore I Pollute.” Clearly this guy’s biggest problems with the environmental movement were that he was cheap and lazy – but hey I’m a college student, I can relate. Environmental issues can be framed so that they don’t feel so much like work. They can be made cost effective in the long run if they’re done properly. People shouldn’t have to think so hard about being environmentally friendly, after all, we’re part of the environment, it should just come naturally.

Of course, this reframing of environmentalism as, perhaps, something more like “naturalism” is not something I expect to happen instantly. I do anticipate that it’s something that will start to change in my lifetime though. Big businesses are already trying to pass themselves off as “green,” however dishonestly. It doesn’t matter though, the fact that they’re saying it is putting the idea into people’s heads. It may not happen quickly enough but I think it’s the only place to start – and I still have hope. Environmentalists aren’t supposed to be optimistic…but that’s another conception I’m hoping won’t last.

I Like Octopuses.

Let me explain: Octopuses are ridiculously smart. They can solve puzzles and mazes and have been shown to have both short-term and long-term memory. In captivity, they have broken out of their aquariums to go look for food, then proceeded to return to their aquariums. They can distinguish between shapes and patterns. They can use tools. Beyond that, they are just interesting in general. They can change color and texture (which is pretty amazing to watch close up), they have this sensory thing in their head that always lets them know where their body is in relation to a horizontal plane, and most of them have no bones or anything hard (besides their beak) so they can squeeze through these impossibly small spaces.

Octopuses are pretty awesome.

What does an octopus have to do with environmental policy and lifestyles? Simple: water. Octopuses live in it, you drink it, the plants need it, the atmosphere has it...water's important. In my opinion, it is the most important, most terrifying challenge facing environmental politics...and beyond politics, our own, everyday lives.

This past week was actually World Water Week, so this is wonderfully relevant.

It is estimated, according to the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), that in Africa alone, over 300 million people could be living in water-stressed countries. Water-stress means simply: not enough water. That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of water, but it may be contaminated, it may be mismanaged, it may be any number of things. This map from BBC shows a pretty interesting look at water-stressed countries over the past 60 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7821082.stm

1.8 million children under 5 will die from water-related illnesses each year.

1.1 billion people lack access to improved water supply. 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation (and sanitation and clean water largely go hand in hand).

The statistics on water use and supply are quite staggering. We use water for everything. Everything. For agriculture, for washing, for drinking. Without access to water, we all suffer. Even here, in the United States, we suffer already. Look at California (where I'm from): Central Valley of California is one of the largest agricultural production centers in the world. Due to bad water management, the overall yield of the hundreds of different types of crops that the valley produces has gone down drastically - and the farmers are hurting because of it. Not just Big Ag farms, but the small, family farms have had to cut down on the numbers of trees in their orchards, the amount of cattle on their lands. And don't get me started on L.A....which would be screwed if Nevada ever said, "Sorry, we're gonna keep Lake Mead for ourselves over here."

Looking beyond even trying to sustainably manage water, whether from prevention of further pollution as well as the cleaning of contaminated water...looking into our oceans, our fisheries, our ice, we've got more issues.

People LOVE to eat fish, even my good friend the octopus (who I will admit is very tasty). People love to eat fish so much...we're killing them all off. This nice little graphic (I love graphics) shows how we were doing with natural fisheries in 2004: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/jpg/0314-fishcatch-EN.jpg. That basically shows we like to catch fish. I mean, China is crazy with the fish! Both the catching it in the wild and with fish farms! Insane.

But we're fishing like fish are going out of style...or just out of existence. That's not a very sustainable viewpoint. We're exhausting something around 3/4 of our world fish stock, and as result, because we've essentially overfished all the big predators (hey tuna) that we like to eat, we're going lower down on the fish eating food chain to catch smaller fish. None of this is sustainable, none of this is rational.

Looking at our ice: It's melting. Mostly. Not all, but a lot of it. Ice shelves are breaking off from their landmasses like angsty teenagers trying to prove their independence. Except in this case, these icy teenagers aren't going to go home again. Glaciers are receding faster that...well not really that fast, but they are disappearing left and right. And while you may think, "HEY! More water!" It isn't that simple (remember the whole water management thing?). Climate change means more ice breaking off, as well as more droughts, more hurricanes, more storms...just not in the places you'd expect, or how you'd expect.

Don't get me started on coastal development either.

In species conservation, they have this thing called a "keystone" species. Basically, this species acts as an indicator for the rest of the ecosystem - if it is doing well, then you can be relatively sure that the rest of the ecosystem is doing alright. Water acts as a keystone issue for the planet. If it is doing alright, in terms of how it is used and abused, then we and everything else on the planet, can think we're doing swell. ...Um. ...We are in trouble.

And so are those lovable cephalopods, the octopuses.

“Today we are in an environmental crisis.” It’s a phrase that is repeated constantly to bring awareness to a growing problem. But, what are we really doing about it? Environmentally conscious common folk would argue, that small changes being made within their lives are saving the planet. Others argue there is no problem at all. However, “environmentalists”, I feel are continually struggling. As Stanley Fish explains, there is a “push and pull” effect going on. Half of your mind is pushing towards being green, but the other half pulls away to the life you have always lived…to what you are comfortable with. I feel I have the same dilemma. I also feel this dilemma is the most pressing challenge facing the global environment today.

I play my part, as do many other aware citizens, by taking small steps: recycling, turning off the lights, unplugging electronics, and using some “green” products. However, through studying this field, I feel I have an upper hand. Most people think that by taking small steps they are really making a difference, and in some cases it is true. By turning off the lights you save electricity, yes. But, what people don’t realize, and what Fish often touched on is that people don’t understand where these products or energy sources are coming from. What is boils down to is awareness, or lack there of.

In today’s society there is an increasing pressure to go green or to decrease ones carbon footprint. Some think that just by decreasing your carbon footprint, all is well with the world. For example some people are not aware that decreasing one source of fossil fuel emissions gives way to others, such as coal driven electricity replacing oil or petrol. In a society that is so consumer based, that thrives on cheap alternatives, and is only concerned as Fish says with living “as comfortably as possible,” it is obvious why we as a global community are so unaware and present the biggest challenged to be solved.

If everyone could just take a step back and look at the bigger picture, this problem could have a simple solution. As a global community we are so indifferent to what we want, or what we strive for that modern day environmental friendliness seems to be enough. This environmental crisis is now bigger than us and only by gaining awareness through educational, political and societal means can it be solved. Realistically though, in a society that is so far removed from nature and a simple life, this is no easy task.