I read part 1 of Breakthrough by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. I agree that many environmentalists have been so wrapped up in protecting nature that they’ve actually been blinded by their attempt to negate others actions and remove things that we do, instead of coming up with concrete, counteractive ideas to create anew. I think we as a nation (the majority at least) are addicted to our ways of life and our comforts, and that our only way out is a mass upheaval which entails the removal of comforts for a while (although economically speaking this is probably impossible,) so that a balance can be found…I would like to think that we could change as a nation without entirely removing certain distracting comforts which support excess…but I have yet to be persuaded. One way that the reading inspired me to see the way environmentalists have been focusing on a lot of the same means of persuasion was this idea of visual nostalgia, like the image of the Earth from outer space…”ignoring the values and context that defined the moment and obsessively returning to the same memories…” (P. 24.) Another point they made that I agreed with was how environmentalists again and again associate us (humans) negatively to the world around us. “Environmentalists are constantly telling nostalgic narratives about how things were better in the past, when humans lived in greater balance with nature.” (P. 25.) I believe that we were no different before except that our limited technology allowed us to be safer with the environment. Our mindset seems to have remained the same…we have a desire to grow and extend our bounds…the difference today is that we have now expanded to such proportions that we are being neglectful of the complexity and importance of what got us here in the first place, our resources, our support, our life system, the Earth. All of our previous behavior brought us to where we are now, so the frame of mind involving the environment (amongst the majority of Americans,) couldn’t have been that supportive if it bred generations of people just now realizing the scope of the issue. I think we should start by looking at what our country can own; the beauty in going industrially very far. From this vantage point we are relieved of guilt; we can look at where the country made rash choices based on productivity and not longevity. When one is relieved of the burden of having made years of mistakes over and over again, I think one can observe consequence more rationally and not feel the impulse to hide in the comfort of convincing themselves of their own ignorance. I don’t think the American Dream is inherently “green” in the sense that it doesn’t seem to entail environmentally conscious choices, although it advocates the look of cleanliness and productivity. Although the picturesque American Dream for each person seems to be inherently personal and within one’s own lifetime, I will argue that in all of us there is a dream of carrying something on and making a mark. And making your mark is not one-sided; the dream involves the people one would like to affect or change just as much as the one doing the changing. So for this reason I think the American Dream, whether we like it or not, has got to start being “green,” and can be more “green” so that there are people to enjoy and grow in what we pass on; there is room for green in the American Dream. I think leaders of the nation need to take action in the way that they have been in the past few years for our security by lengthening airport checks or constantly reminding people to be aware of possessions lying around unattended. Before September 11th, 2001 many people probably would have found these to be overly precautious; in the same way, we must anticipate the need for making environmental choices now. I think the leaders of this country should create a separate body of the government just for environmental concerns. Our country would lead by example in a bold way. This section of the government could contain three groups: one with representatives from every state to take action on their specific concerns; another with representatives from each national corporation that produces things in the US; and another group with US ambassadors that would spend time in other countries where corporations that were international were producing things. The goal would be to find cost-efficient ways of helping the environment and the economy at the same time. Many jobs would be created in making this change. People would have to start paying attention more to the issues because they would be much more publicized, and the next generation would be learning all about this new part of our government in their history classes. I think the government should take action with or without all of the people’s support at this point, just as they’ve done with other issues in the past because it’s necessary to maintain the quality of life we have grown to expect from this country. Sometimes when you don’t have a choice, the change is less painful than you ever imagined it could be. I observe in my own life, and others, an overall neglect of health sometimes. With all the choices available today, it’s hard to always make a healthy choice (like what to eat every night.) If we continue to be unaware or inconsiderate to ourselves and our needs, how can we ever take the steps necessary to change the world? I think this is a starting place for everyone, and all we need is a place to start. Sean Parker
