The Race to Green

Though the concept of green jobs and developing clean energy technology is beneficial for a country's economic growth and sustainability in the short term, I don't think technological innovation is by any means a good or efficient path toward addressing the real concerns of climate change. By focusing on revenue, competition and job creation specifically for economic benefit the lens is automatically an economic one which changes the game completely. That is to say, for a Market Liberal or Cornucopian-- or anyone obsessed with economic growth-- these factors will become the focus instead of the actual issue of climate change and environmental degradation. Yes, it is important to create green jobs and focus economic priorities on "green manufacturing" to keep up with the green curve and be competitive in the global marketplace but these efforts fall under an entirely separate category from that of potential solutions for climate change. By putting climate change in the same sphere as economics (which often overrides everything else) the core issue of climate change is seen as an economic situation instead of a moral, social, and environmental problem.

It is important to refocus societal and economic priorities on greening but there is danger in blurring the problem of climate change by mixing it with economic growth goals. However, by creating competition out of this core issue of climate change there will be more incentives for countries to overhaul greening efforts which would potentially lessen the issues of climate change in the short and long terms. So even if these incentives aren't necessarily in the name of climate change and are instead to win an economic growth race, at least they will have positive implications for the problem solving of climate change. That said, it is important to maintain a clear boundary between green manufacturing, creating green collar jobs or producing green technologies for economic benefit and greening efforts made to reduce climate change. Although it would be best if these efforts actually were to "save the environment" instead of to win an economic growth race, at least there's an active refocus toward "going green" which could eventually evolve into directly addressing the core problem of climate change. Like Katie mentioned, we have to learn to walk before we can run-- and if economic growth is what will ultimately motivate us to take climate change seriously then more power to economic incentives and "green" (note the double meaning) races.

Running Before We Can Walk...

I understood Maniates’ main point to be that these green choices individuals make on a regular basis (recycling, shortening showers, driving less) are not enough. These changes may slow environmental change, but it’s not going to be drastically helpful. In contrast to these easy solutions given to the public by leaders and organizations, big changes need to be made to the tune of cutting emissions by 80%. Everyone turning off lights when they leave the room isn’t going to stop the environmental changes in their tracks. There is nothing easy about the changes we need to make.

Maniates ended with a hopeful message though. Far from believing it’s a lost cause, he says we have the potential to make tough choices and changes. We just need our leaders to tell us the truth about the dire situation we face. If those in charge can be straightforward and cut the easy solution rhetoric, then we could mobilize to make the needed changes. I would like to believe this is true, but I am unfortunately as skeptical as my fellow Ecodazed bloggers. He talks of the easy insufficient solutions, but honestly many Americans really haven’t even embraced these changes deeming them too inconvenient- many can’t even commit to the baby steps. Can we really expect people to make the big changes when many Americans can’t separate milk containers from their regular trash? Even if there were leaders willing to be frank with the American public, there would be many more touting the, “but it just snowed, so the environment is fine” argument. We’re not just in love with easy convenient fixes, we’re delusional. I’m not convinced that even if some leaders stepped up that they’d be able convince a large portion of the population that a radical change is the only way. If we haven't learned to walk with the baby steps presented to us by the easy green solutions, I doubt we are ready to start running a marathon. I don't know where that leaves us. I know that I will continue to turn lights off, use reusable water bottles, and pick my roommates plastic yogurt containers out of the garbage...

Convenience

I agree with Carolyn’s assertion that most Americans are self-interested individuals, so doing more than the so called “easy things” to help alleviate environmental concerns as Maniates asserts doesn’t seem reasonable. The fact is, most people in our society settle for easy because of convenience. Also it’s not that “we are supposedly being “sold short” by our leaders,” but that most people choose not to think about the future impact their consumption or habits may have on the environment in the future. We live in a society that values the idea of quick fixes, asking people to make drastic sacrifices to keep our planet green is going to take a lot more effort on the part of the individual. So believing that people are willing to do more to be eco-friendly is just that a belief.

We Need to Make Huge Steps

I totally agree with Michael Maniates. We really need to grow up and take a step forward not only for the environment now but for the environment of the future. We have to stand up and make large changes most of them have to be in our infrastructure. Most of the cheap goods that are convenient are the worst for the environment. We need to vote people into to office that are going to change the face of the world. People that will stand up and make us realize that we should not be subsidizing things like corn. Instead we should be subsidizing products that can actually help us. For example if solar energy was a cheap option to install I am very sure that millions of Americans would spend little money for huge savings in the future. We need to create markets where creating products that lower our strain on the earth will be rewarded. Also we need to do the little things as well like taking shorter showers and recycling and also buying products that can be recycled. One large thing I have noticed is that in big cities such as DC there are large trash cans everywhere but how often do you see a recycle can. Think about it. If we had places available for people to throw their cans and bottles as they are walking down the street on their way to work I am sure they would throw it in the recycle because it is convenient. Like the author said we have to make things easy for people to do if there is a hassle it is not very likely that the majority of people will go do it. So we need to set up things around our country and the world to promote a positive change. If all of us do the big things to move forward and put pressure on the developing power houses to do the same we can save our planet.