1. Stop using plastic (or at least try to)! Plastic is a profound problem. But there's good news and bad news--the bad news is that contrary to what we all hope, about 90 percent of all plastic bottles are in fact not recycled; about four-fifths of all plastic bottles end up in the ocean and then into our stomachs (diapers go through a similar route). Instead of being recycled into new bottles, plastic bottles are more likely to be down-cylced. The good news is that we can live in a world without plastics. There are relatively simple ways to do so. You can of course buy a reusable steel bottle to avoid plastic bottles, and probably the easiest is to buy reusable shopping bags; go a step further and buy reusable produce bags. Another easy thing to do buying a juicer so you can make your own juice, including types not often found in grocery stores, like watermelon juice and cucumber juice. This is also healthier, as store-bought juice is either too sugary and/or devoid of fiber.
2. Students need to be taught critically about the problem. Instead of boring students with a trivia-based approach in the classroom that they will likely not retain, students need to comprehend the bigger picture, that the status quo benefits those are contributing more to the problem (e.g. China, the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia) and destroying countries that contribute less (e.g. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Haiti). Bill Bigelow, a critical pedagogist, has written a curriculum described in his article "The Big One" (2009) "Environmental justice movements," he wrote, "are beginning to imagine a future that is greener, more cooperative, more democratic, and less oriented toward profit, consumption, and economic growth." Students should be taught that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that it is selfish to be otherwise, and that they have the power to change things.
3. One party is greener than the other. Perhaps no finer example of this exists than the contrast between Democratic and Republican environmental policies. After the 1973-1974 oil embargo, some countries had effective responses. France, for example, established nuclear power as its main energy source (though, interestingly, America, because of its size, actually uses more nuclear power than France. Nevertheless, France powers almost eighty percent of its nation by cleaner nuclear power). Denmark, despite heavy gasoline and CO2 taxes, has had tremendous growth for decades but a fairly flat energy use increase. Under President Carter's administration, fuel standards for cars and trucks were raised (something President Obama has continued to do). How did President Reagan respond? By simply lowering the standards, from 27.5 miles per gallon to 26 miles per gallon. President Bush tried to reverse Clinton-era air conditioning regulations and by doing so would have wasted billions of dollars and 50 million metric tons of carbon, or about the equivalent of 34 million cars on the road. (A court reversed the administration's decision.) Republicans used to have a environmental legacy to be proud of; consider Teddy Roosevelt's national parks initiatives and Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA. But Reagan, the Bushes, and the Tea Party have tried to make sure that is reversed.
Thomas Friedman, in his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded," noted that after 9/11, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked if President George W. Bush believed the American people needed a lifestyle change to combat terrorism. His answer was "a big no." The President, he said, "believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." So instead of enacting what Friedman calls a "Patriot Tax" to combat mass murderers, the U.S. government gave us massive tax cuts, establishing enormous debt we are still struggling to pay off, and told us to go shopping.
(The current administration deserves praise for its green work, but more is needed. The administration should be pressured until it adopts tough regulations for CO2 emissions for power plants.)
4. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. According to Friedman, we're not having a green revolution, we're having a green party. A green party is fun and easy to do. You just have to change your light bulbs and plant a tree and you can continue to mow your lawn, drive your car, eat all the meat you want, not pay any more taxes, and vote for the GOP. We're past the point where changing light bulbs can solve the problem. Consider a list of the more challenging steps needed (and Friedman claims these are the "easy" ones): replace 1,400 coal-powered plants with natural-gas powered ones, install carbon capture and sequestration at 800 plants, cut electricity by 25 percent. Consider that Indonesia and Brazil are just under China and the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions. Why? Because of all the deforestation. How many of us could live without paper?
People of the higher-income nations, particularly Americans, have not been asked to seriously sacrifice to solve this problem. Some ways could actually help us, like converting our dumb electric grids to smart ones, so people are encouraged to use electricity at hours of the day when the grids are under less pressure (instead of the current system where people are charged a flat rate no matter when they use electricity). Mowing your lawn the old-fashioned, eco-friendly way will not only save you money but also get you some exercise. Switching to a more plant-based diet will help lower methane emissions (which are far more harmful than all those hummers we hate so much) but could also help prevent doctors removing an artery from your leg to put in your heart when you are rushed for surgery. And despite my previous complaints against President Bush, his 2007 law (a law phasing out incandescent light bulbs and one which his modern contemporaries call socialism) is a step in the right direction, and changing your light bulbs can make a difference. But we need to work much, much harder.
5. Hypocrisy is humbling. Or rather, admitting you're a hypocrite is. I myself profit off of an oil-producing nation, and I use a massive amount of CO2 just to get here (and travel internationally for vacation). Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course it does. But I recycle and don't use plastic and compost and vote Democrat! But I need to change just like everyone else. I would rather be hypocritical about this issue than dumb, but hypocrisy is nothing to be proud of.
Finally, remember that 99 is not 100, and you should help the planet because it's the right thing to do, not because it's sexy.
UPDATE: Here's the New Yorker's interesting articles on President Obama's environmental legacy and Al Gore.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment