Halting Japanese Whaling

I chose to read and discuss the story "Japanese halts whale hunt after chase by protestors" on BBC News. I chose to use this story for many reasons. First and foremost, I think the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an interesting group (good or bad, I'm not sure, but they are definitely interesting). Many people have seen their show "Whale Wars" on Animal Planet, spun as a doc-series on the Sea Shepherd volunteers who spend their free time in the middle of the Arctic doing all that they can to stop Japanese whalers, while trying to not resort to violence. Th BBC article explains that, in February of 2011, the Japanese government decided to halt all whaling efforts because of the interference of the Sea Shepherds. I personally find this story to be interesting because last year I visited Greenpeace with my Washington Semester IED class the day after this was announced. Our speaker noted how they were happy about the results and even praised the Sea Shepherds (which I found interesting based on the history of the two organizations). I also find their efforts particularly interesting because I spent my summer working as a volunteer organizing intern for Oceana South Florida, so the civil society action that the Sea Shepherds whaling campaign represented provides an interesting comparison to my own experiences.

So what makes their efforts an effective form of action? Well, their persistance and unwavering dedication is first and foremost their greatest asset. Their volunteers were available to help for no pay at all, cramped quarters, and freezing conditions (and this is just when they aren't busy with their real jobs). While I believe that, in many cases, you need to adjust to your surroundings, the Sea Shepherds would challenge that notion. They keep going even when, from the outside, their efforts look futile. I also think that their non-violent (although some could argue that) approach is another of their greatest assets. They used "stink bombs" in an attempt to spoil any whale meat on board their ships, and provided an irritating disturbance for the whaling ships. One can only shake off the gadfly so many times before it gets to be too much, and this is what happened for the Japanese whaling fleet.

The action came from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, but was comprised of various volunteers from various backgrounds. It was a civil society movement, and it could be replicated by other organizations or individuals as a response to various other environmental issues. While many conservation groups or individuals may criticize Paul Watson or his organization, at least he made some impact, and that gives me hope. I spent all summer organizing a demonstration on my local beach. It attracted 150 participants, one newspaper, and two news stations. While many may look at my efforts as futile, and may consider the efforts of Paul Watsons to be the same in the grand scheme of things, in the end they all may make some small change. Paul Watson always believed he had the power to make change, and I believe that was one of the core reasons why he succeeded. And if environmentalists don't have any hope for the future, or hope for change, then what are they working to achieve?

In conclusion, although Paul Watson may not have the perfect activist strategy, it is effective and can be replicated. And for that, I applaud him.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12477398

Flying the Skies on Biofuels

When someone thinks of airlines and them being innovators, they usually refer to creating new fees for passengers. However lately, the airlines are also making inroads in being one of the most environmentally friendly industries across the road.

In Rebecca Dolan’s article published in The Huffington Post earlier this week, Ms. Dolan makes mention of how the airline industry is turning to biofuels as a way to not only reduce their carbon footprint, but save money in the long run. Currently, aviation accounts for 2 percent of human generated Co2 emissions and by turning to a clean energy alternative, it is a good public relations move on their part.

What is also curious to note though is that the biofuels being used by airlines are not from traditional sources such as sugarcane, corn and soybeans but from secondary sources such as camelina, jatropha, agave, castor and algae. While these sources might not seem as well known as some of the aforementioned sources, their ability to grow on marginal land and positively contribute to the long terms health of fields and soils cannot be undercut. By growing these plants on land which would otherwise be bare, farmers increase their revenue stream while allowing potential buyers-such as airlines, to buy up these plants at reduced prices. Additionally, producing these biofuels from non-edible food stuffs eliminates the debate between food vs fuel argument as these crops are not meant for human consumption in the first place.

The other less altruistic reason the airlines are pursuing this course of action is for the all might profit motive. With crude oil being one of the biggest expenses for the industry and the high volatility of the oil market, investing in a stable source of energy allows airlines to be less open to price shocks and thus lead the savings onto the consumer. Should oil ever hit 140 dollars a barrel again, if airlines were to continue this long term investment, customers will be able to still afford to fly keeping both airline executive and busy vacationers happy.

While curbing emissions from airlines should be the first goal of these executives, like I stated in my blog post last week, reframing the debate from altruistic means of protecting the environment to saving money while protecting the environment will be a better argument for corporate America. In the example above, airlines are able to make a good public relations, environmental friendly, and cost cutting move all in one swoop which will appeal to both the shareholders, business travelers, and family vacationers across the globe.

Aiming for a world without waste

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904583204576542233226922972.html

The article I chose this week is The Urban Quest for “Zero” Waste, by David Ferry and found in the September 12^th edition of the Wall Street Journal.

Ferry describes recent trends in some American cities striving for “zero waste”, essentially reducing the amount of waste going to their landfills. Some cities are better than others – San Francisco recycles 77% of its waste while Phoenix manages with only 17%. Ferry points out that in recent years, cities such as Seattle, San Francisco and Austin have developed “zero waste” plans to recycle more of their cities’ waste, most aiming to achieve a recycling rate of 70% within the next decade.

The recycling plans Ferry writes about are very effective forms of action at addressing environmental concerns. With less waste going to landfills and more goods being recycled, cities can have smaller landfills while producers can get more of their materials in recycled form. On both ends of the product cycle, this is a win-win for environmentalists.

One of the reasons why recycling efforts are so effective is that it’s convenient. People enjoy saying they are green by eating organic food and buying a Prius, but when push comes to shove, people simply don’t want to sacrifice their daily routines in the name of the environment. Here we find why recycling efforts are so potent. No matter how green we are, we all throw out waste. By providing recycling bins (and in the case of San Francisco, a compost bin) to households, cities make it easy for consumers to be green. The only work required on the part of households is to separate garbage from recyclables; something that takes only several seconds a day. Yet the effects from such efforts are profound – San Francisco aims to divert 100% of its waste from landfills by 2020. That means no landfills filled with garbage and more recycled materials available for manufacturers – something that all of us, not just San Francisco, should aim for.

They great thing about diverting waste from landfills is that the forces of government, business and civil society come together to make it happen. Starting off as an idea and movement in civil society, city governments draw up plans to reduce their landfill waste. Then in combination with businesses, the cities put these plans into action – that oh-so-rare combination of economic and environmental forces agreeing. For example, San Francisco’s collection agency Recology sells off its recycled material and organic compost at a profit, originally collected thanks to government regulations.

For me, Ferry’s article was mostly positive. On one hand, it gives me immense hope; the idea of diverting 100% of waste from landfills is terrific, and all cities should at least aim for a high percentage. Yet looking at the chart in the article reminds me of reality we face, since the top cities on the list are cities typically associate with fringe greenie liberals – San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego and Los Angeles. While the techniques employed in cities like San Francisco (where one pays for the amount of garbage they throw out but not for recycling or compost) are applicable everywhere else in theory, there remain two key barriers for nationwide application.

First off, the mere thought of applying “San Francisco values” is likely to cause a scare to many Americans, who regard San Francisco as a refuge for drugged-out hippies rather than normal human beings. What flies in San Francisco often causes other parts of America to shriek in horror. Then there is the cultural element. Growing up in San Francisco under the watch of parents from Seattle, I was taught the importance of recycling from a young age both at home and at school. One finds recycling bins on every corner in San Francisco and recycling is simply part of the city’s culture, where people feel guilty by simply putting a plastic bottle in a garbage can. I believe this cultural element is the most difficult aspect to share with other cities, to convince people that throwing a soda can in a different container is the right thing to do. However, I remain optimistic that the trend in landfill diversion is one that’s here to stay and will become more mainstream as time goes on.

Privatizing Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/business/energy-environment/tax-plan-to-turn-old-buildings-green-finds-favor.html?_r=1&ref=earth

The article I chose for this discussion question presents a way to privately finance environmentally friendly upgrades to older commercial buildings that are inefficient energy consumers. The plan is being executed by a business consortium led by Ygrene Energy Fund, a clean energy financing company. Ygrene has paired itself with big names such as Lockheed Martin and Barclays Bank to undertake these projects. The group takes advantage of a tax arrangement that allows commercial building owners to upgrade their properties with no upfront cost. The companies pay for the projects through property-tax surcharges but save money in the long run due to decreased energy usage and thus smaller utility bills. Their plan is currently being implemented in Miami and Sacramento. Lockheed Martin is expected to take command of the engineering plans on the larger projects and Barclays will provide short term loans to finance them.

I really like this idea for a few reasons. Instead of focusing on building new green buildings with newer technologies, it focuses on improving what we already have with proven technology. If these projects are able to become widespread the reduction of each community's carbon footprint could be significant. The article notes that the refurbishment of the Empire State Building decreased its energy usage by 40% and made it one of the greenest buildings in the city. That is an incredible improvement and it's only one building. Imagine if these changes were able to be implemented on even a third of the buildings in Manhattan. The difference would be staggering. The head of energy programs at the Environmental Defense Fund is quoted as saying that if this is done correctly, one third of the coal plants in the U.S. could be shut down. While this might be an ambitious goal, it's at least refreshing to know that it is not completely far-fetched.

Another, perhaps more important, reason that I believe that this is a feasible option is because it avoids political involvement. The article notes that no money is needed from Washington or the state governments, which is very significant since climate change matters are not seen as having great importance at the moment and funding is sparse compared to what it could be. Therefore, this plan circumvents what might be the greatest obstacle to combating climate change in this country: the bureaucracy. In addition to not being reliant on government funding, it also would create thousands of construction jobs, which would also help to further stimulate the economy. If this idea continues to spread, the opportunities for expansion are nearly endless since the country has such an expansive infrastructure and an overwhelming amount of commercial properties.

Finally, the article mentions that the plan was originally devised to be applied to homes, which is an interesting option to explore, but gets hung up on legal issues. So for now, I believe that this is the kind of change that needs to happen immediately because it can have instant impact.

All the Right Signals

Regarding the notion of sacrifice on behalf of the environment, one noteworthy commonality, based on the responses to last week’s post, was the clear necessity to create formal incentives for more effective environmental behavior. On an ethical level, ideological opposition to a healthier environment is difficult to conceive, but when the concept of sacrifice is introduced a far greater segment of society appears unwilling to make meaningful commitments. The solution, at least in the short term, will require a hybridized approach to increasing environmental sustainability without demanding significant or inconvenient changes in the daily lifestyles of US society. Rather than a tremendous, overarching plan, it will be small scale actions replicated by millions of US citizens on a daily basis that begin the progression toward a greener society.

One such area that provides an outlet for green ingenuity is the daily commute to and from places of work. Rush hour traffic and delays at intersections increase the amount of time commuters spend in their vehicles. If there were a way to reduce the average duration of the commute, the result, taken in the aggregate, could prove to have a positive impact on decreasing carbon emissions. Such is the rationale behind SignalGuru, a mobile application for smart phones that has recently been developed by three students, two from Princeton University and one from MIT. SignalGuru is an application that broadcasts the traffic light schedule to users who have downloaded the necessary software. The idea is to provide the driver with information on what speed to travel in order to avoid red lights. According to the article, SignalGuru exhibited a 98.2% accuracy rate during its test in Cambridge, Massachusetts. More importantly, fuel consumption fell by approximately 20%.

This project is admittedly not one that will galvanize the environmental movement, nor will it single-handedly solve the problems presented by climate change. But it is significant in that it could be put into direct use by millions of commuters without bureaucratic regulations, market distortion, or the accompanying political divisiveness that could in other situations complicate the initiative. It is not a universal solution; usage would be limited to paying customers who have smart phones. But considering the lack of political polarization and the savings in fuel, SignalGuru is just one example of how new technology and programs can be effectively utilized to create social value. SignalGuru can be replicated in other cities (the software was also tested in Singapore) across the United States and the world, and could hypothetically give rise to similar applications in the future. In a nation where climate change itself is subject to debate, applications such as SignalGuru provide a source of hope for the very reason that opposition to their use is a matter of consumer choice rather than political views. 

Time to Copenhagenize

In a country where driving half a mile to the grocery store is a chore and time spent making dinner is often counted in seconds, is it any wonder that we take the path of least resistance in the fight against global warming? Looking at American society, it is as though we have built it entirely on the idea of maximum convenience. Whether it is buying a lawn mower at Wal-Mart at 3 AM or ordering our groceries without every getting out of bed, we have put a great deal of effort into making our lives easy.

It is for this reason why I think Michael Maniates has it so spot on in his piece Going Green? Easy Doesn’t Do It. When nearly all of us have been blessed with a life of convenience, it makes sense that we try to do the same when it comes to combatting the environmental consequences that such a lifestyle helped create. Nothing short of a revolution can help turn around what we have done. While double-sided printing and changing those incandescent light bulbs helps, one must take much more radical steps in order to make themselves “greener”.

Mr. Maniates has a great point when he focuses on our desires to become greener through individual action rather than community cooperation. While we have great power as individuals to change our communities, when it comes to the fight against global warming, I believe that significant sacrifice and lifestyle changes are necessary for a real revolution. A quick look at some of the greenest cities in the world shows why, such as Copenhagen, Denmark. In its goal to increase the percentage of residents commuting by bike to 50% by 2015, the city has made driving difficult within the city. One of the ways it does so it by removing 1-2% of city parking spaces every year, as to make owning a car so difficult that people will become frustrated and give up their cars. Copenhagen is making life inconvenient for its car owning residents, believing that drastic life style changes will pay off in the long-run. When combined with strict urban planning rules and terrific public transit, Copenhagen is an example of how greening should be done.

The case of Copenhagen offers a valid lesson for Americans trying to go green; it is not easy. Recycling and double-sided printing are certainly admirable first steps and should not be discounted, but these efforts are merely drops in the ocean. Real change requires real action, such as changing urban planning policies to avoid urban sprawl, hiking up the price of gas to reveal its true cost, prioritizing public transit, bicycling and walkable communities over driving and requiring buildings to be built with more than just costs in mind. While truly going green will be tough in the short-run and require sacrifice from all of us, I think a quote from the show Scrubs sums up my thoughts on going green perfectly; “Nothing worth having comes easy”.

Scare them straight

Unfortunately, I agree with Michael Maniates. The lack of urgency surrounding climate change creates an environment in which most people can glide over the subject, while very few feel the need to make real change. In my experience, many people feel like recycling their Coke bottle (if there even is a place to recycle it) is enough. Or that buying organic carrots a few times a year will make them "green." Or, perhaps replacing the lightbulb in the lamp on their bedside table will make them "energy efficient." Most people don't even realize the impacts of their actions, and creating a sense of leisure about becoming more environmentally friendly certainly does not help. Similarly, in a world where walking to the store instead of driving once a week is enough to prevent climate change, those who don't believe can feel even more confident in the fact that the climate can absolutely not be changing due to human actions. This is because, if the climate were changing because of us, completing a three-step system (reduce, reuse, recycle... when you have the time) in a book for almost-environmentalists would not be sufficient.

And it's not. But if people knew that, they might actually be scared into doing something. In a culture where being lazy is the goal, no one wants to think that they have to be proactive or put in effort. However, maybe we should all be scared. Anyone who has read Bill McKibben's "Eaath," or seen "An Inconvenient Truth" would be scared, if even momentarily. And rightly so. The future doesn't look so good... so maybe we should scare people. And instead of publishing books like "The Lazy Environmentalist," we should be publishing books that say "Do Something Now: Before The Sea Level Rises and Florida is Underwater." Or "Make Big Changes, Save Yourself and Your Children." It doesn't sound quite as pleasant, but being lazy won't be an option when stronger storms are knocking over our martinis and it will be too hot for even the most seasoned of Californians to lounge by the pool.

The Environmentalist's Call To Arms

Let me begin with two utterly unrelated quotes from two recognizable individuals. Neither concern environmentalism, nor where they directed at each other. Yet, for the sake of my argument, allow me the small privilege of perverting the context in order to make my point. In 1983, at Mills College in California, Ursula K Le Guin delivered a commencement speech in which she addressed the difficulties faced by women in a world dominated by men. Frustrated and disenfranchised with what she viewed as a grim, hopeless future for the fairer sex of humanity, it was Ursula K Le Guin who famously proclaimed: "I hope you are never victims, but I hope you have no power over other people. And when you fail, and are defeated, and in pain, and in the dark, then I hope you will remember that darkness is your country, where you live, where no wars are fought and no wars are won, but where the future is."

It was Mr T who said: "I pity the fool."

In 2011 the United States is a nation of enviable affluence and prodigious consumption. In a little over 230 years we have become the most powerful nation in the world. Policies that safeguard the principles for which such activists as Martin Luther King Jr and Ursula K Le Guin championed are now institutionalized into the fabric of employment regulations and company values. Of course, the United States is far from perfect, but for all practical purposes (and pending a few other factors) a middle class citizen of the red white and blue may reasonably expect to live a comfortable, untroubled life. The great struggles between races, classes, and genders are now behind us, and having weathered the storms of prejudice and ignorance we are now a more content, more stable, and more just nation as a result. And so, in responding to the dilemma to which Professor Maniates has alluded, the essential problem is not that this is a nation of failure or success, but rather that we have evolved into a nation of complacency.

Yes, I am afraid it's true. The great challenges of our past are no longer accessible to us in the present. Life is too easy and pleasant for the majority of us to be able to understand the true meaning of sacrifice. Our complacency is what has slowly eroded the determination in our collective mentality. To illustrate, let me highlight two distinct nations. The first nation is the United States in 2011. A few examples: In combating such obstacles as obesity, individuals continue ordering large diet sodas. Instead of lifting weights there are now machines that are designed to burn fat calories simply by holding them in one's hands. Credit agencies offer deceptively low rates for financing expenditures, enabling individuals to consume beyond their means. Rather than make any meaningful sacrifice, individuals in the US seek the path of least resistance. These "innovations" took creativity, work, and motive, yet the end result is simply one that removes human commitment from the equation. The second nation, the United States during World War II, offers a different observation of Americans. During that time period, young men and women from all classes, racial backgrounds, and occupations discontinued their work and joined a national movement that became one of the great eras in history. After selflessly putting their careers on hold, they traveled thousands of miles away from their homes to places they had never seen to fight on behalf of people whom they had never met. There were individuals younger than I am now in command of warships and battalions who saved the lives of others. When the war was over, these individuals quietly returned home and started families, seeking modest homes and livable salaries, a stark contrast to the mansions and bonuses that are idolized in mainstream culture today. 

Beyond underscoring the need for fundamental change in characterizing deteriorating environmental conditions, Professor Maniates' article reminds us that, as both individuals and as a nation, we are capable of monumental and far reaching actions that can dramatically improve the society in which we live. Throughout history, we have proven that very notion countless times. The difficulty is not framed in terms of the extent to which we are capable, but rather of the feasibility of mobilizing our capacity to meet new, unprecedented challenges at a time of increasing internal apathy. It is not that these problems outweigh our ability to develop innovative, meaningful solutions; it is that the nature of these problems and the means to address them require radical adjustments to our comfortable lifestyle. This new challenge will not be fought with tanks and guns but rather by rational re-evaluation of consumption habits and resolute commitment to reducing waste. For this to occur, what the US needs most is its rallying call. 

When Le Guin delivered her commencement to Mills College she was speaking about the constraints imposed on women in a male-dominated society. When Mr T delivered his famous line he was referring to his upcoming boxing match against Rocky Balboa. Context aside, the nation that Le Guin dismissed as a dark, painful, hopeless country remains capable of exceptional (and sometimes disturbing) achievement. GDP stands at 14.2 trillion USD, US popular culture has permeated every part of the globe, and US remains a "land of opportunity" to millions of hopeful, hard-working immigrants arriving each year. Multinational corporations such as Coca Cola have been so successful in product distribution that there are now Coca Cola products in areas that still lack sanitary sources of water. Militarily, the US operates the most powerful force in the world, maintaining bases and fleets across the globe (despite local opposition in some cases). The capital ships of other nations, which usually number just one, are dwarfed by the super carriers of the US Navy, which has 11 of them (and is planning another ten). Regardless of the moral ramifications of these examples, they do provide a compelling illustration of US capabilities. Imagine what could be accomplished if the energy and time that went into building military assets or developing industries was instead redirected toward exploring more efficient ways to reduce pollution and waste. 

During its brief time as a global polarity, the US has experienced its greatest generation of heroism, followed by an emerging generation of apathy two generations later. Now, having swung full circle, it is again time for an age of activism and personal responsibility. It is my hope that the call to arms of Professor Maniates and others like him will be able to reinvigorate the United States to once again display its august abilities, and to follow through accordingly with meaningful ways to address the looming challenge of climate change. 

Unrealistic Expectations

I agree with a lot that Maniates has to say regarding the majority attitude towards climate change – it is not at the forefront of most people’s minds and is not seen as a dire enough problem to take seriously. This is why Maniates and the other readings we’ve covered thus far have tried to convey a sense of urgency appropriate to the magnitude of the environmental problems we face. However, despite these efforts, environmental policies haven’t been able to hold their own in the mainstream political arena against issues such as the debt ceiling or the war in Afghanistan. So, without this urgency, Maniates is right to point out that “we, by nature, aren't terribly interested in doing anything that isn't private, individualistic, cost-effective and, above all, easy.”

Maniates also notes that we need “fundamental change” in terms of our environmental policies, which I agree with, but doesn’t suggest any methods for how the average American can help achieve this goal. Is a simple call for additional advocacy by constituents to their congressmen and women sufficient? If not, does the country need to be worked into a fervor similar to what the debt ceiling negotiations created this summer? If that’s the case, what is the best way to stir a populace that has been complacent and relatively inattentive to this issue for so long? Maniates concludes by discussing the need for short term sacrifice to facilitate long term gains, a request that might have been viable when he wrote the article in 2007, but one that is much more difficult to ask for when the nation is attempting to recover from a recession.

Can the Lazy Save the World? (Matt)

While Mr. Maniates makes a compelling point that it is time for Americans to be big boys and step up to the plate to save the Earth, what he fails to realize is that no amount of name calling, bullying, or asking nicely will mobilize a call to arms by the American people to work for the planet. For all the rhetoric put out by politicians or the average citizen to self sacrifice for the good of future generations, rarely is anything ever done to follow up on that promise. While we want to lower the national debt, we complain about austerity measures. When we want to green the planet, we complain about high utility price and high gas. We always seem to hope that someone else in our generation will put the burden on themselves to fulfill these promises just so we can say we did without cramping our lifestyle.

Even if people were willing to sacrifice their own self interest for the common good, trying to get people to do so for an issue that some don't even believe is real is another challenge onto itself. With cult following behind Republican presidential candidates such as Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman who question even the validity of climate change, is it even possible to break through the mindless group think to get to people's sense and reason which is buried under a large amount of lunacy?

Because of all these challenges that lie in our path, we need to reframe the save the planet debate from one of green morals to one of green money. To most, saying that using a CFL lightbulb reduces carbon emissions will fall on deaf ears. However, to bring up the fact that doing so can save you money on your utility bill opens up a whole new audience.

How about larger incentives such as wind farms? Instead of arguing that wind farms reduce our reliance on oil -which will upset every Texan oilman from the panhandle to the coast, frame the argument as saying that building wind farms will provide much needed jobs for the economy and that national tax incentives to building them will allow states to pass savings onto consumers.

By reframing the argument of doing things for the money rather then the morals, it is more likely that we can successfully appeal to the open wallets of consumers rather then their closed minds. Who actually knew that doing some good could save you some green?