The Reality of Living with Limits

Thomas Homer-Dixon’s essay clearly states the limits of resources that exist in the world and how these are already restricting economic growth. I agree with this assertion, yet I think there are many ways to address this issue. Indeed as the “market liberals” argue, economic growth is crucial for the development of a community by funding education, cleaner water and air, technology advancements, healthcare, and infrastructure, among others. Yet, the problem is that inevitably this economic growth also creates inequality. The results are developing nations that struggle to meet their population needs; therefore they must exploit their natural resources, often creating great environmental damage. While, the more developed nations continue to grow, creating better health and social conditions for their citizens, yet also increasing consumption and omitting enormous amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is the reality of the situation, the reality of our economic system. Indeed, economic development has created better conditions, but at the expense of the environment. Although the market liberals also agree that economic development generates environmental degradation, the solutions they propose do not emphasize the urgency of taking immediate responses. It is clear that their focus is on economic growth, and I do not believe that the solution to this issue should have one central focus point.

Similarly to the social greens, I agree that there are many steps that can be taken to better manage the environmental situation of the Earth. Among these, directing greater attention to local communities and generating sustainable practices that generate profits for social services. For example, the Ese’eja people, from the Peruvian Amazon has parternered with Rainforest Expedition, a tourist company, and opened an eco-lodge called the Tambopata Research Center. This area offers an opportunity for natives to share their in-sight knowledge about the region and the tourist to enjoy wildlife viewing and a truly unique experience. I believe that to respond to the reality of the state of natural resources, there is not one solution, yet it is an effort that must require a variety of actions and creative alternatives. I do believe that the power and value that local communities have is exceptional, yet often underestimated.

No More Growth

I think there is something to be said about Thomas Homer Dixon’s article “Economies Just Can’t Keep Growing”. He hits an issue that we all should be looking at and that the current growth that we are used to seeing in markets that are based off of the Earth resources is going to come to an end as we deplete more of these resources. Take for example the United States dependency on oil. Oil is not an unlimited resource and someday oil is going to be depleted. And with its depletion leading to new hard ships, sure there are those who say we can switch to other resources. But someday those resources are going to run out. This argument can be said with not just oil but with also coal and other natural gases.
What I find refreshing about Dixon’s article is he does not only present us coming to a shortage of these raw materials as being an environmental problem, but an economical problem and a development problem. All of our economies are based off of what we produce and if a country is unable to produce anything because they no longer have any resources. Then their economies are not going to be able to grow, leading to economic decline or just flat out stagnation.
Dixon also shows how this is going to be a problem for the developing nations who are looking to advance economically on the global stage. With a decrease in raw materials this will be even harder for these countries to get a footing, keeping them in the same position that they are in now. And for developed countries a decrease in raw materials will lead to people having to readjust their lives and learning to accept the fact that they are not going to be able to live the life style that there use to. In a board sense Dixon is alluding to a world where we are always in an economic recession, with no outlook of growth every again.

The Feasibility of Home-Dixon's Social Greenism

The article by Thomas Homer-Dixon paints a grim picture for the future of our society. “Unconventional Wisdom” lays out an exponentially increasing path of destruction for the Earth as economic growth expands beyond the natural resources available to fuel it. He gives a number of different examples of future failings in the environment – rare-earth element shortages are already threatening many industries and the petroleum is requiring more and more energy to harvest (Homer-Dixon says that it has dropped from 100/1 in the 1930s to only 15/1 at present in the United States).

However, after Thomas Homer-Dixon lays out the grave circumstances of continuous economic growth, his conclusion is even more disturbing. As he states, “humankind is in a box.” For everyone in the world that is living on under $2 a day, economic growth is necessary for survival now – but this same growth is leading to an early end for life on the planet. It is a vicious cycle that Homer-Dixon thinks can only be altered through a drastic restructuring of societal thought.

Because of the direction that he believes society must take in order to reach a solution, I agree with Hannah and Yumiko that Homer-Dixon would be classified as a social green based on the system developed by Clapp and Dauvergne in Paths to a Green World. His argument is based on over-use of the planet, massive harmful consumption and the destruction that this use causes, and his answer is focused on societal change. In his mind, people must first change their mind before they can actually make a significant and meaningful change in their actions. Is this possible?

Unfortunately, I don’t know if this sweeping societal change is feasible. Ultimately, in the mind of Thomas Homer-Dixon, the world’s poor are actually the hingepiece for change. He places them in a catch-22 in regards to the planet’s future – survive now or survive later. How can you explain that choice to someone living in a mud hut in rural Kenya?

Homer-Dixon's I=PAT

Thomas Homer-Dixon takes on fossil fuels as a symbol of uncontrolled economic growth in his piece for "Foreign Policy." This growth increases climate change which will, as he says, halt growth. Homer-Dixon places himself in the camp social greens, as described by Jennifer Clapp and Peter Dauvergne in their book Paths to a Green World, focused on the harm of over-consumption

We are, in Homer-Dixon's mind, a stubborn population, set on continual growth, and hurtling ourselves towards self-destruction. Without a fundamental change of mind, we will continue to wreak havoc on our world, until the world will force us to stop.

Worse still, Homer-Dixon argues that the first world unfairly puts the burden of environmental change on the residents of third world countries. He points out that 2.7 billion people live on under $2 a day, and need economic growth to survive. But, as he also mentions, first-worlders need economic growth to escape debt and maintain peace. So who do we ask to cut back first?

Small steps are not enough, especially if not everyone is taking them

     Michael Maniates opinion piece titled, Going Green? Easy doesn't do it, mentions the question that it is often asked by many, What else can I do? As he argues, there is a strong campaign for conservation and recycling that many citizens are following either through guides in books or simply by listening to what others are doing. They are advertised to be "simple" and "easy" steps that may guarantee a more sustainable future. Yet are consumer choices a strong enough force to make a significant difference in the already damaged Earth?
    Indeed, there are many Americans that are more aware of the condition of our environment and of the implications that come in hand with the current state of the Earth's natural resources. Many people are now adapting more "eco-friendly" activities and practices. And as Maniates argues, some people are even willing to go further and are asking more advise on what to do next. Yet, how many Americans are actually thinking this way? Not as many as we hope to see, and even if all do our part, Is this enough?
    Us, consumers can only go so far, if we really aspire to change the direction of climate change in the future, in addition to more sustainable practices, we must advocate for and encourage more strict regulations and policies for environmental protection. Maniates is highly optimistic in his idea that Americans are willing to take more action. This might be true compared to other societies, but just us won't do it.
     The reality of this argument is that the majority of us have by now heard of the degraded condition of our environment, yet not all of us are doing anything about this. We might feel encourage to take these "easy" steps, but to be able to actually make a difference, we must first start by changing a lot of our consumer habits and in a country based on consumerism, this will take a revolution in the mindset of many. It seems that the day we will see more evident changes will be when it directly affect us more harshly.

Going Green

In Michael Maniates; opinion piece, he writes for environmentalist and politicians to ask for more from the American people when it comes to taking ‘green steps’ to improving our environment. The common pleas from politicians to just recycle and to change our light bulbs to conserve energy is something that he feels should be reconsidered, and that politicians and environmentalist should ask for the American people to make bigger adjustments in their lives. I agree with Michael Maniates to a point, that the American people should try to make more of an effort to preserve our environment, like trying to reduce their over all consumption. But that is easier said than done.
Take for example the DC bag law that went into effect last year. I do not know the political back and forth that went on, but I can imagine there was some opposition to the new law. An arguement could have been for the lower income families, who simply saw the new $0.05 price on bags as adding up in the future. Getting the bag law past, probably took a large amount lobbying. But according to Maniates a policy such as the bag law is simply not enough to make a change, but I would disagree with him and say that it puts in people’s mind to the idea to use reusable bags, because they do not want to spend the extra $0.05. It reduces the cities consumption of plastic bags, which in turn can possibly reduce the number of plastic bag manufactured. It is one small step that adds up in the bigger picture.
Yes, it would be great if Americans decided to drive small, efficient cars or instead of driving cars decided to use more public transportation. But for a politician to push for something like that, he or she would probably lose his office. With the way this country works sometimes it takes several small steps to make one big giant step. The American people first have to get comfortable with the idea of actually going green is more than reusable light bulbs and recycling, but bigger changes. But for now using those reusable light bulbs and recycling is a good step in the right direction. It’s better than nothing.

Is the easy too hard?

One of the things that strikes me about Michael Maniates' op-ed piece is his faith in the American people to act. The underlying assumption of his piece, which argues that Americans are willing to do more to save the environment they just don't know what to do, is that the fault lies with "environmental elites and political leaders" who ask too little of those they lead.

I would argue that the willingness of most Americans to save the environment peaks with asking the question of "What can I do?" So many of us know the easy answers of recycling, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, taking shorter showers, and fail to do even that. How can Maniates expect anyone to ask for more?

I wish the world were as Maniates suggests - full of people sitting on their hands, anxiously awaiting the next instruction on how to save the world. But the reality is the world is more like a preschool classroom, where everyone stopped paying attention as soon as the directions started.

I am sure there are people who have taken these first steps and have not gone further, but I don't think this is because they don't know what to do. Rather, I think these people have taken the steps they are willing to take, and have decided that their ability to save the environment ends there. Most people know exactly what the next step they can take to save the environment is, they are just unwilling to take it.