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.