Environmental policy seems to be the answer to the question of: "The environment is messed up but what can we do?" The process of environmental policy seemed pretty straightforward to me, but the only problem with it is the super-long timeframe of passing legislation. The environment is hurting now, but until legislation gets passed, which could be a long and arduous process, nothing can be done.
I believe the U.S. should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol because the reason we pulled out is because of the selfish interests of polluting big businesses not wanting to possible take a financial hit. It is because of them that we have so much pollution in this country. They are also why passing legislation on the environment is so difficult and time consuming. So many people are going to have varied interests, and nobody wants to be worse off financially. It is so hard to create legislation on a national scale with so many varied interests, which is why local policies should be implemented because they can directly deal with a problem that pertains to the local community rather than deal with a national piece of legislation.
I would like to see negative incentive to enforce the carbon dioxide cap. Right now, lawmakers are speaking of financial rewards and incentives for going green. Going green should be THE only way to go so they shouldn't be rewarded. Businesses should be fined for how much carbon dioxide they pollute. Getting hurt financially is good incentive for businesses to switch to green practices, not getting helped financially for not polluting. In a realistic world, no business would decide to turn green just because. Companies need to be galvanized to do what is good for the environment.
Poli 477 "Green Politics" Spring 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Blog #13--Ecofeminism
Before I read the articles, I had a certain view of ecofeminism because I have heard about it before. I thought the basis of it was that we as a society were treating the planet as we treat women as a whole: subjugating and enforcing our will on it. After reading the articles, I realized my original idea was on the right path, but not totally correct. Ecofeminism deals with the idea that women have a greater sense in the area of saving the planet because women are inherently closer to nature than are men. I did have sort of a strong reaction to that because I believe they are making a strong generalization. I know that nature is referred to as a mother, but I feel that there are many guys out there who are more inclined to the needs of nature than some women. I feel that many guys do not care about the environment, but I personally care more than some women do.
The biggest form of dominance I see today is the dominance humans have over the planet and its resources. As a whole, we are not thinking of preserving the planet, we are thinking about preserving our profit. This really bothers me how we have an all-take and no-give mentality. Humans in general need to be more in-tune with nature.
The biggest form of dominance I see today is the dominance humans have over the planet and its resources. As a whole, we are not thinking of preserving the planet, we are thinking about preserving our profit. This really bothers me how we have an all-take and no-give mentality. Humans in general need to be more in-tune with nature.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Blog #12--Green Democracy
The principles of Green Democracy and Green Democracy are very interesting in the fact that it is a growing party in this country, not just a set of ideals that might never catch on. I could not say if I for sure would or would not join the Green Party just because there are many aspects of it that I agree with and many aspects of it I disagree with. The Green Party looks to give the power in this country back to the people as the U.S. Constitution states, claiming that currently the power is in a select few who are not willing to give it up. It also wants a larger sense of community to account for everyone's voice being heard. This is hard to agree with because it is currently not very feasible to go to community-style government and action. One aspect of it that I do agree with is that the airwaves should be open to the public if they have the money instead of big businesses' ads only. Not being able to put out on ad on radio or t.v. violates the First Amendment, which is what this country is based on.
One extreme group of Green Democrats are the EarthFirst people. They go to extreme lengths to help save the planet, such as dismantling bulldozers and sabotaging equipment. The article on them is favoring their stance, but what they are doing is illegal no matter how one looks at it. It might be good for the environment, but unfortunately that does not make what they are doing legal.
One extreme group of Green Democrats are the EarthFirst people. They go to extreme lengths to help save the planet, such as dismantling bulldozers and sabotaging equipment. The article on them is favoring their stance, but what they are doing is illegal no matter how one looks at it. It might be good for the environment, but unfortunately that does not make what they are doing legal.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Blog #11--Spiritual Ecology
Spiritual ecology was a topic that at least to me didn't really seem like ecology at all. It seemed like a sort of religion that was based on the conservation of the environment. I was born and raised Catholic, but that does not give me the view on spiritual ecology I have. I did not really think that Catholicism had a take on the preservation of the environment, but I read the message by the Pope sent out a few years ago. He said that as Christians we are obligated to respect and preserve creation: in essence protect the planet from pollution and global warming. This surprised me that the head of the Church issued a religious stance about sustainability.
The Gaia hypothesis was basically saying that the planet was a living thing and could adapt on its own. I was intrigued by the evidence brought to the table to try and defend it. I just don't think that it is the case though. If the planet could regulate itself, it would have stopped warming at such an alarming rate some time ago. Also, if we all put all of our eggs in the basket of Gaia regulating herself, we might cause this planet some serious problems by neglect.
With regard to hyper-masculine culture, I do believe that we live in a male-dominated society. Women can work the same jobs as men but be paid less. Less than a hundred years ago women were not even allowed to vote. With the way I see it, everyone being born today is instilled with the male-dominated culture around them which is why it continues. I feel that changes are slowly being made, but total equality may be a bit far off.
The Gaia hypothesis was basically saying that the planet was a living thing and could adapt on its own. I was intrigued by the evidence brought to the table to try and defend it. I just don't think that it is the case though. If the planet could regulate itself, it would have stopped warming at such an alarming rate some time ago. Also, if we all put all of our eggs in the basket of Gaia regulating herself, we might cause this planet some serious problems by neglect.
With regard to hyper-masculine culture, I do believe that we live in a male-dominated society. Women can work the same jobs as men but be paid less. Less than a hundred years ago women were not even allowed to vote. With the way I see it, everyone being born today is instilled with the male-dominated culture around them which is why it continues. I feel that changes are slowly being made, but total equality may be a bit far off.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Blog #10--Social Ecology
Social ecology is a form of rational thinking and partially political outlook that focuses on conservation of not only the environment but society as a whole. Social ecologists reject the traditional view that industry and having more is "progress" and sees them more as a hindrance to the overall outlook of how we as humans should see the world. According to the ideals of social ecology, social hierarchy is the basis of all problems. In my opinion, avoiding social hierarchy is next to impossible because it is in human nature to organize themselves. Imagining a world where everyone sees everyone else as equals is very hard to imagine.
I view most other aspects of social ecology as ones similar to my own. I do think and know that industry is killing our planet, and it is very backward to think that exploitation of land and resources for quick profit is how one needs be successful in this world. I do agree that humans should view themselves as a part of nature and not the ruler of it. Although social ecology does have some very down to earth views that would be great to instill in the younger generation, many aspects of it are simply not compatible with the way the world is now.
I view most other aspects of social ecology as ones similar to my own. I do think and know that industry is killing our planet, and it is very backward to think that exploitation of land and resources for quick profit is how one needs be successful in this world. I do agree that humans should view themselves as a part of nature and not the ruler of it. Although social ecology does have some very down to earth views that would be great to instill in the younger generation, many aspects of it are simply not compatible with the way the world is now.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Blog #9--Deep Ecology
My overall view on deep ecology is a little shaky at best. From the things I've read, it seem that the concepts of deep ecology are just like the concepts of green learning communities mixed in with green politcs. The only thing that stands out for me is the inclusion and high importance of the concept of "self-understanding" in deep ecology. According to the philosophy, one cannot understand anyone else or even be very successful if they do not understand themselves first. It seems as if the self is just as important as the environment.
Deep Ecology does not relate too much to me in most regards, but I do sort of agree/understand the concept of quality of life over quantity. The quality of life for many people in third world countries is falling drastically as the world's population increases. Many of the other aspects are completely unfeasible, such as eliminating social class and centralized government. My only concerns with deep ecology is that it can only be a philosophy for one's self, or at most a small group or village. Scale in following this philosophy is very important, as a country of large size would not be able to live how deep ecology says.
Deep Ecology does not relate too much to me in most regards, but I do sort of agree/understand the concept of quality of life over quantity. The quality of life for many people in third world countries is falling drastically as the world's population increases. Many of the other aspects are completely unfeasible, such as eliminating social class and centralized government. My only concerns with deep ecology is that it can only be a philosophy for one's self, or at most a small group or village. Scale in following this philosophy is very important, as a country of large size would not be able to live how deep ecology says.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Blog #8--Consensus
The idea of consensus was a seemingly straightforward topic, but so much detail and analysis is involved with the whole concept of consensus decision making, which greatly surprised me. The assigned articles really give a good feel for the concept, but they portray it in a very positive, almost biased way it seems.
A few preconditions exist which help consensus work more smoothly. The main thing is that everybody in the process in on the same level and will let their voice be heard. These are how the decisions are made. Instead of the standard, vote yes or no for one thing and majority rules, in consensus decision making, decisions are kind of sculpted from everybody's opinions and potential conflicts. The decisions are manipulated until it becomes something everyone can collectively agree on. A few other conditions for the process are cooperation, nonviolence, and patience among others.
This process has both strengths and weaknesses. Some of the main strengths are equality and true democracy. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone's opinion collectively molds the final decision. In essence this is true democracy because the group is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The biggest and only inherent weakness is that this decision making can only be made in small communities. In no way could this ever be the process of a large country, because hearing the opinion of millions is just too impractical. This can only be used for small living and learning communities.
A few preconditions exist which help consensus work more smoothly. The main thing is that everybody in the process in on the same level and will let their voice be heard. These are how the decisions are made. Instead of the standard, vote yes or no for one thing and majority rules, in consensus decision making, decisions are kind of sculpted from everybody's opinions and potential conflicts. The decisions are manipulated until it becomes something everyone can collectively agree on. A few other conditions for the process are cooperation, nonviolence, and patience among others.
This process has both strengths and weaknesses. Some of the main strengths are equality and true democracy. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone's opinion collectively molds the final decision. In essence this is true democracy because the group is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The biggest and only inherent weakness is that this decision making can only be made in small communities. In no way could this ever be the process of a large country, because hearing the opinion of millions is just too impractical. This can only be used for small living and learning communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)