Georges Teyssot response

November 17th, 2009

In The American Lawn: Surface of Everyday Life, Georges Teyssot delineates the evolution of sociology surrounding the concept of “lawnspace.”  At first, I struggled through the chapter and its history of lawn care and social perception, but the deeper into Teyssot’s work I read, I realized how relevant the discussion of lawn was to the ideology of suburbia – in general, to American culture itself.  The chapter works in a convoluted chronology: it begins with discussing a [1970s] proposal of “envirionmental harmony,” which would involve eliminating the “industrial lawns” of manicured perfection, and installing “freedom lawns” of wild, unmowed spaces.  Teyssot then highlights the response to this “new ecology” with the backlash of mowers who cherish the connotations of a well-cared for lawn space.  When Teyssot quotes a political commentator as saying, “In an era where almost everything is beyond our control, our lawns are not,” he highlights perhaps the largest underlying principle of the chapter.  Americans like their lawns – need their lawns – because it provides them with a sense of control over their immediate environments – and conceptually, their world.

Teyssot does not seem to leave out any piece of analysis about the American lawnscape.  He bounces between the 19th and 20th centuries as he describes the observational, pleasant qualitites of lawn care.  From the consideration of lawns as animals, to the American tendency to apply Victorian decorative themes to their lawns (circa 1850), to the terminology of velvet as a a descriptive quality of what a quality lawn should look like.  The flatness of a lawn, Teyssot emphasizes, is generally presented as a positive attribute.

The ability to manipulate one’s lawn to perfection signals status as well – the status of the middle class.  Lawnspace becomes an extension of the home’s interior carpet, with the potential to be tranformed and “embroidered” to display elemental beauty.  In 1964, Fletcher Steele is cited as commenting on the refinement and cleanliness of a mowed lawnspace and how it is comparable to a cleanly shaven face.  Furthermore, Steele’s example adds to Teyssot’s discussion of cleanliness: how we derive pleasure from making shapes in the grass, watching the patterns being cut away – and how the examination of a “perfection of cleanliness” has evolved into a measurement of social standing.  Toward the beginning of the chapter, Teyssot mentions Micheal Pollan’s 1989 article in the New York Times Magazine, entitled “Why Mow?”  Pollan uses the story of his father’s refusal to mow his lawn more than once a month as a commentation on society.  He says that a notion has evolved in suburbia along the lines of: “mow your lawn or get out.”

The cookie cutter version of perfection available in the front lawns of every middle-class American carries the dual identification of “green desert” for Teyssot.  The point where I really got into this work was where Lewis Mumford discussed society’s lawn obsession as the tendency to conform “in every way outward and inward in respect to a common mold.”  Teyssot added to this by saying that the lawn acts as a law; it orders control over how one must live in suburbia.  There are standards of upkeep.  Most relevant to this idea of the social standards of lawn care is the British idea of the “borrowed view” mentioned by Teyssot.  The openness of the suburb life (due to the absence/disapproval of fences) encourages neighbors to “watch each other” to a degree that they would not be capable of attaining in cityspaces.

There is a certain “democracy” about an open, inviting lawn that American society has sought to preserve – perhaps for our national consciousness.  But there is a sense that one’s lawn is public space: I know my neighbors use my backyard at home to play football all the time.  My dad complains when one of our neighbors does not mow his lawn, and many times caves in to performing the task himself.  I think the obsession of our open spaces of lawn and the social pressure to maintain the cleanliness of suburban property has a lot to do with the point of control by which I began this response.  Although Teyssot provides ample room in his chapter for the opinion that suburban landscape is “fatally monotonous” with monochromatic schemes and an invasion of private spaces, it represents the “American Dream.”  There is almost an uncanny notion of “everyone being the same” – everyone being able to watch over one another due to the openness provided by the lawn space.  Everyone serves their duty to society by preserving the small piece of “nature” in front of his/her homespace.  Perhaps this contributes to the tragedy of the commons when we consider preserving nature spaces outside the vicinity of our home?  Perhaps.  I am a little creeped out, however, by how accurate Teyssot’s observations are of the American attitude toward lawnspaces.

Questions for Discussion:

1. To what extent does the care for one’s lawn become an art?  To what extent do people avoid living in the suburbs because they do not want a lawn to care for? (social pressure etc.)

2. Do you think caring for one’s lawnspace creates a sense of apathy when it comes to trying to preserve nature outside the vicinity of the home?

3. Artists like Walt Whitman and his poem “Leaves of Grass” have elaborated more so on Teyssot’s idea of grass as “democratic” space.  Do you agree with this idea? Why/Why not?

The American Lawn

November 16th, 2009

The article The American Lawn, wrote by Georges Teyssot, talks about lawns: from the history of them, to where the name came from, and what is happening to them today. This article is ten years old, but it does bring up some key topics. One of the first things that Teyssot mentions is the comparison between human beauty and that of a lawn. This comparison relies mainly on the idea that “The perfect lawn, like the fatless body, is an ideal difficult to attain.” I had never thought of this comparison before and I find it interesting and I wonder how they thought of it in the first place. This is true if you think about it. Having the perfect body means putting a numerous amount of hours into working out, eating healthy, and staying on a demanding schedule to do those things along with everything else that has to be done by the end of the day. If that is tweaked a little, then you get the same thing from a lawn: putting a numerous amount of hours into taking care of the lawn, putting a large amount of money into fertilizers and de-weeders, and having to stay on a constant schedule to have your lawn in tip-top shape.

Another topic that Teyssot brought up was the idea of “freedom lawns”. “Freedom lawns” are lawns where all plants have the right to grow. That means weeds are welcome. This was brought up when he was discussing unkempt lawns. From this topic I got the feeling that if you don’t mow your lawn, then you are breaking the mold/ not doing what everyone else does. Teyssot said that this was targeting the “industrial complex” that has a grip on America. By not mowing your lawn you are trying to reestablish “environmental harmony”. From what I understand “industrial complex” is doing what is expected, aka following the crowd, and “environmental harmony” is trying to go back to when we just let nature be.

When Teyssot was talking about using sheep as gardeners and mowers, this made me wonder if there was a struggle between going natural and not going natural for lawn care. Seeing as everyone is trying to ‘go green’ would most people be willing to do this? I mean having a sheep do the yard work means not spending money on repairs for the mower, the cost of gas, and you get a new pet out of the deal. I mean President Woodrow Wilson used sheep and goats to take care of the White House lawn.

At the end of the article the idea of not having to lock your doors, not having fences, and not having hedges separate properties, was very foreign to me. I can’t imagine a world without those things. It would be interesting to see, but strange because I have never had to deal with that. I mean I have lived in places without fences or hedges, but not locking my door is completely out of my comfort zone. However, the fact that people would trust their neighbors enough to not lock their doors is very whimsical.

Questions:

1. Is the comparison between beauty and lawn a strong one or is there a better one out there?

2. Where did he get the name “freedom lawn”?

3. Teyssot mentioned how by mowing certain ways you can get woven and planted patterns in your yard, does this mean earth is a canvas waiting to be drawn on?

4. What happened to page 23?

Response to Geroges Teyssott Reading

November 15th, 2009

The suburbanization of America cannot be better explained than through the development of the American lawn. According to Teyssott’s book, The American Lawn, the lawn itself sits precariously and ambiguously on the border between being categorized as a public or a private entity. If a private entity, the owner of said lawn should be able to treat it according to his or her own preferences; if a public entity, all lawns should be maintained in an agreeable manner that is pleasing to the society viewing it. Whereas some people would agree upon and support the continual upkeep of one’s lawn – pruning, mowing, and weeding – others disagree that the lawn is a part of nature which should not be influenced and molded to fulfill the fleeting desires of man’s preferences. Sara Stein supports the view that mowing lawns is the same as subjecting them to “a perpetual torture” until “the perfect lawn” is attained. Most people supporting this perspective would likely support the argument that the word “lawn” is derived from the Old English word “launde” meaning a moor or an area of wild grass. From this denotation, the lawn itself should not be cultivated as part of a domestic garden, but rather its survival left to the elements of nature.

Teyssott further developed the idea of a lawn as an “area of green velvet.” Similar to within the home, with carpeted floors from wall to wall, the lawn should be an extension of one’s living space – a velvet carpet of perfectly mowed grass. Many suburban areas attempt to groom their lawns to be as aesthetically pleasing as the rest of their home. Also, parallels can be drawn in that hygiene and cleanliness of one’s personal self should also be extended to that of one’s garden. Teyssott essentially asks us: is there a difference between a mower and a razor? A final predominant theme in Teyssott’s excerpt was the persistent argument between the necessity of fences to divide properties, both public and private. Frank A. Waugh supported the idea of maintaining fences in order to preserve seclusion and privacy within the private sphere. J.B. Jackson even maintained that without fences, lawns and neighborhoods would become nothing more than monochromatic colors engulfed in a “green desert.” On the other hand, many argue that while fences are necessary distinctions in the actual drawings of property lines, so long as the owners know their own boundaries, onlookers and passersby need not recognize the division. Without the imposing threat of a fence, the eye is permitted to travel unbothered and uninterrupted across street upon street, over home upon home.

After completing the reading of Teyssott’s excerpt, I felt that the stereotypical suburbia could not have been better captured. Although perhaps an odd way of looking at the “suburbanization” of America, the American lawn is nothing short of a competition to display one’s social status in addition to the “American dream” that one has not only pursued, but also achieved. Through the analysis of the lawn, it is clear that Americans are trapped in a perpetual pressure to project the best of their lives and, according to Teyssott, this has most obviously been accomplished through the cultivation of the perfect lawn. The constant battle between the desire for or against fencing actually caught my attention, since this is an issue that links back to early American history as well. American’s are fueled by the notion of “manifest destiny” and over the years have continuously expanded westward whenever tensions became too great within the land inhabited at the time. Even then, between cattle ranches and staking land claims, people have attempted to clearly indicate what belongs to them. Yet in our modern society filled with contracts, maps, graphs, and further legal documentation, when there can be no doubt as to which portion of land in a neighborhood belongs to whom, are fences really necessary? Are fences nothing more than additional architectural designs meant to enhance the viewing of the home? Or are fences working counterproductively, blatantly shouting that ‘this is mine and there should be no mistake about it’? When considering the idea of fencing in a lawn or a garden, I cannot help but wonder if the suburbanization of America is nothing more than another attempt at gaining something more for oneself.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

  1. Is a lawn still considered “nature” when man controls all aspects of its form, characteristics, and lifespan?
  2. Are people driven by societal pressures or self-induced pressures to maintain an aesthetically pleasing lawn?
  3. At what point does taking care of one’s lawn become less of a hobby and more of an obsession with keeping up appearances?

Climate Change Readings

November 12th, 2009

In the book by Elizabeth Kolbert, Field Notes from a Catastrophe, she talks about global warming. In the preface of her book she said one think that struck a cord in me. She said that she wants everyone to read the book, “Not only those who follow the latest news about the climate but also those who prefer to skip over it.” It struck a cord in me because I never realize that there are probably a lot of people who believe that if they ignore what it is going on it will go away. I mean global warming signs are everywhere, just read all the examples given in her book, and yet people are still ignoring them. One of the most powerful people in the world ignored them, the President of the United States. When President Bush was elected, I did not really care all that much. I didn’t follow the news about him, what his policies were, or even what he was doing in office. It was because I was young and I couldn’t go anything about it. Now looking back, I wish that I had because I was shocked, when reading the chapters, at what he did in office that dealt with global warming. The main thing that bugged me the most was the fact that the US emits 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases and yet we were doing nothing to stop it or reduce the amount of emissions being released. The rest of the world is trying to help, but the US refuses, according to Chapter 8. I mean even the Soviet Bloc decreased there emission levels after the 1992 Earth Summit, the US did not.

 

Another thing that surprised me was how long global warming has been studied. From Chapter 2, Kolbert states that has been studied since 1859, by John Tyndall. I happen to like his comparison between a dam and the Earth’s Atmosphere. It was a new way to look at what is usually compared to a greenhouse. I think that both of them work quite well at describing what is going on. Another person that was mentioned was Svante Arrhenius. The think that seemed odd was his quote, “live under a warmer sky.” By the sounds of it, it was if he was happy. Warm refers to nice weather, like a positive. However, the globe warming us is not something that is positive. Konrad Steffen, a Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado and director of Swiss Camp, was someone she interviewed about global warming. The stories that Kolbert told about her time there we very vivid and informative. I found that the notation of seeing history in an ice core was strange and interesting as well.

           

In the other article that we read, Robert Henson’s The Rough Guide to Climate Change, he talks about countries and global warming and how people interact between the two. In the beginning I enjoyed how he talked about how the issue of global warming started to become important during the 1950’s and that it lost its hold until the 1990’s because we had bigger fish to fry during that time. I kind of though that it was only an issue in the 90’s because it started popping up everywhere by that time, not that it was just put on the back-burner. When he brought up how the skeptics and industry fight back, I thought that the quote by William Gray, Colorado State University, was interesting. I remember how the hype was about the Millennium and I am a little upset that he thought that it would be a similar thing. The Millennium was just a rollover of the date, global warming is bigger because it affects everyone and it has a more lasting effect and it will still be an issue 15-20 years done the road. When Henson said, “the alarm bells couldn’t go on ringing forever,” it was a new issue that was brought to my attention. Ever since the start of the 2000’s I feel like global warming or saving the environment has always been somewhere on the news. It seems like now the bells are ringing forever because everyone wants to go green. Just watch the commercials out there now; almost every big name product is going green to save the planet.  

 

Questions:

1. Back when global warming was first being investigated no one really cared, however now everyone does. When did our feelings change about caring?

2. With the glaciers melting/disappearing, are more people traveling to go see the remaining ones?

3. Will people start to lose interest in going green because the bells have been ringing for so long?            

November 12th, 2009

In  A Rough Guide to Climate Change, Robert Henson gives a brief yet fairly complete summary of the history of climate change and the various opinions/reactions that people have about climate change. He mentions the great concern with climate change in the 1970s and 80s, which died out before entering the 90s. But it seems that the root of the problem has surface again and we are finding it harder than ever to ignore. Henson also describes several views of those who don’t believe in global warming, but it is reasonable to assume from his tone that he himself is a firm believer.

The Field Notes From a Catastrophe by Kolbert takes a much more hard stance on global warming and embraces that global warming is happening and will lead to a catastrophe should it stay unsolved. Kolbert shows her argument on why global warming comes from human activities. She states that she doesn’t want to make the issue too simplistic while much of the hardcore science is left out.

Chapters two and three were full of anecdotal evidence as well as some history of global warming. She mentions first hand experiences in Greenland, Iceland, and the Arctic to support her observations. Much of her views are verry personal and thus easy to relate to. Also included are some interviews with politicians who are aware and actively working on the problem in climate change. In terms of historical content, Kolbert cites Arrhenius and Keeling and enlighten us with the fact that we have been aware of global warming since the 1850s. While this wasn’t a complete shock, it is almost amuzing that people just decided to ignore this aspect of science for so long.

Chapters seven and eight were focused on how we can push to solve global warming through a variety of sources, mainly public or government policy. One such solution is by Rober Socolow, who invented a series of wedges that can prevent billions of tons of CO2 in the next 50 years for each wedge implemented correctly. A lot of attention is also focused on how society views the problem of global warming. Kolbert states that we go about our “business as usual” as if nothing is being threatened. She is obviously appalled by our ability to sit there and live life as normal while waiting for a solution to magically appear.

From other responses I’ve read so far, many people seem to have throughly enjoyed these articles while gaining quite a bit of new knowledge on climate change. I feel the same way. However, I feel much less personal connection to this topic than some. To me, global warming is a purely scientific field of study. Whether or not global warming is a huge problem or one that we can brush off should be made on scientific evidence alone. It does not matter whether we have hypothesized it for 10 years or 150 years. The fact remains that one must show strong scientific support to back up these claims. This is not to say that I don’t believe in global warming, but rather that I honestly didn’t get much out of these articles that would help me make more informed decisions in the topic of global warming. Perhaps it was not the author’s goal to provide this type of information, but since both of these authors were clearly believers in global warming, it’s only natural to assume that they wrote this stuff to convince others on certain issues. In this regard, they did not succeed with me.

Questions:

1. Is global warming REALLY a problem? No this is not rhetorical. If so, please provide a scientific argument.

2. Why do some people still not believe in the global warming phenomenon?

3. Is global warming caused by humanities actions?

Kolbert on Climate Change

November 12th, 2009

The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson is an overview of the history of climate change and how it has been perceived in societies around the world. Ultimately, Henson lays out the four main arguments against global warming. Describing the views of “It isn’t warming,” “the warming is due to natural variation,” and “the amount is insignificant,” Henson’s personal opinion on the topic becomes clear. While Henson covers both sides of the issue, he continually criticizes those who do not believe in the human cause of global warming.

In her book Field Notes From a Catastrophe, Kolbert presents evidence for the argument that global warming is of human origin, both in the form of scientific facts and personal anecdotes. The Preface of the work explains that while she tries not to over-simplify the issues at hand, she hopes to not provide too much in-depth science in her work—presumably so as not to deter readers.

In Chapters 2 and 3 of Field Notes, Kolbert covers important discoveries in the field of climate change, including scientists Tyndall and Arhennius, who set the foundation of our scientific knowledge of the atmosphere and how it heats and cools. Throughout these chapters, the author attempts to use her personal experiences in the “field” in places like Greenland to add to her credibility and to make the information she presents seem more like real-life, rather than a complicated story of numbers and facts. In these chapters, Kolbert describes a man at Swiss Camp who described to her the decay of the ice from the bottom and the growth of the snow on the top of the ice sheets. Furthermore, she explains the history of natural climate change, elaborating on the rapid rise in temperatures that preceded the ice age.

Chapters 7 and 8 of the work, titled “Business as Casual” moves into a deeper criticism of how the United States in particular has responded to climate change. Explaining how population growth, economic growth, and the speech with which new technologies are adopted will determine growth of carbon emissions, Kolbert lays the groundwork for her ultimate criticism of the United States’ “Greenhouse Gas Intensity” policy. Kolbert first describes Socolow’s “wedges,” which include technologies such as solar power and wind electricity that, if combined, could combat the rise in CO2 levels. Then, the author elaborates on the pressing nature of the problem, citing India and China’s expected industrial growth and the large carbon emissions their growth will prompt. Kolbert then visits the ideas of Marty Hoffert, who feels that only new technology will truly be able to combat the issue of climate change but that in the meantime we must use the tools we have. Finally, the author moves to her final criticism of the action, or inaction, of the United States in the climate change situation. Explaining the United States’ refusal to agree to the Kyoto Protocol as well as the “Greenhouse Gas Intensity” plan, which related investment in environmental technologies to the growth of the American economy, Kolbert makes a case for the United States’ selfishness and apathy.

Having read these chapters, I find myself left with several conflicting feelings. For one, with regard to Kolbert’s writing, I felt that her anecdotes about her time in the field helped her case, however, the lack of in-depth science left me wanting more explanation to prove her point. For one, I would have liked her to include the causes of the ice age, to explain the relative time span in years it took for the earth to heat naturally to the extent that it is heating today, presumably at the hand of humanity. Without these pieces of information, I still felt at times the information provided was not enough—without total contextualization I was still left in doubt. My second reaction to these chapters was conflicted, as I was unsure whether to feel the shame that she feels for the United States’ policies or to justify our actions in light of the fact that in my entire life, I have never seen two reputable scientists explain the details of the causes of global warming and contrast the causes of ancient times of warming to the causes of today’s climate change.

As far as my opinion of the climate change goes, I am still on the fence in many areas. I am first and foremost a believer in sustainability, and I believe that we need to be working as a global society to preserve the earth for future generations and to make life more pleasant for people across the globe. However, I am not convinced about the nature or cause of climate change, and at this point I feel I am still not informed enough to make a judgment on that fact. I feel frustrated, because I feel that there are no unbiased sources to provide information about the subject. While the information Kolbert provides is undoubtedly true, she leaves out other information that prevents me from understanding the entirety of the issue. While Kolbert’s opponents will undoubtedly cite evidence against the human cause of climate change, they will undoubtedly leave out valuable information as well. It is infuriating that seemingly no one is capable of taking a side that is anything less than a radical view—either on one far-reaching end of the spectrum or the other. In my opinion, we need to stop playing the blame game and do the best we can to reduce pollution and our consumption—regardless of whether it is causing global warming. If it is not causing global warming, it is causing a lack of resources in parts of the world, heinous degrees of pollution, and damage to the planet as a whole that we will only feel when it is too late.

So, I am left with a few questions that I’d like to discuss—some of which are questions of opinion, some of which are questions of fact.

  1. What is your opinion on the politics that influence climate policy?
  2. Do you feel that there is a connection between economics and a nation’s ability to implement new technologies and programs?
  3. Does anyone have any information on the particular time span in which the earth heated and cooled preceding and during the ice age? In researching the question, I have found some websites that claim it took centuries, while Kolbert describes it as something that occurred very rapidly. I feel that this is an important fact in measuring the degree to which humans are speeding global warming.

Henson and Kolbert

November 12th, 2009

Henson’s reading focused on the history of climate change in the media, the—almost always muddled—political involvement, and how that relates to the public opinion. He pays special attention to the objections that skeptic raise. I found that the many small articles about specific areas related to climate change were very helpful in getting a larger picture. He includes such things as the representation of climate change personnel in weather shows, the soon-to-be battle over the arctic, and the connection between the green movement and the church. While reading Henson’s article, the whole time I was thinking about how I was supposed to know whether the information that he was presenting was true. I am sure that if I looked I could find a similar article that just as passionately disputed climate change—or at very least the reasons behind it. And while this is still a point of contention for me, I was extremely relieved to see that Henson supplied a wealth of sources so readers could check for themselves.  His point about the overrepresentation of skeptical viewpoints was very interesting to me. I have been taught to always investigate each side of an argument with equal fervor, but I can see how equal time given to a widely held belief and a tiny minority can cause a problem. While it seems to be fair it really skewers the information.

 

Chapter two from Kolbert focuses on the history of climate detection, recording, and science. I am a bit ashamed that climate change is such a hot topic now (and in the past), but I had never heard of Tyndall, Arrhenius, or Keeling before this reading. The thing that most surprised me was the history of this science. If I had been asked when I though climate change science started, I probably would have said the early seventies. The closing statement in chapter two really interests me. It says that at current trends we will reach a CO2 parts-per-million value of 500 almost 2800 years before Arrhenius predicted. The first thing that came to my mind was how wrong we could potentially be about the predictions made today, and it could possible be even closer than 2050.

Chapter three is largely about the field experience of the reporter in Iceland and Greenland. I think the main point of this chapter is to give the reader some real life evidence of dramatic change in the world. What really got me was the reporter’s double take at the glacier in Iceland, solely because she realized that she might not get a chance to see it again at this size ever again.

Chapter seven is largely about solutions. Most of these solutions come from Robert Socolow. He has devised a series of actions (or wedges) that, if implemented, would prevent a billion metric tons of CO2 from being emitted by 2054 for each wedge that was successful. One of the most interesting thing for me was what Socolow said when asked of his plans were practical, and that was that nothing is ever “practical” until the public views it as important enough to be practical. His brilliant analogy was slavery and child labor. Looking from an economic standpoint, it was very foolish to give up slavery—you save a lot of money when you have an entire workforce that you don’t have to pay. Of course, saying that makes me feel adequately icky, because slavery is a matter of human rights. But climate change is, although maybe not as directly as slavery, also a matter of human rights. The Inuit have a specific way of life that they have had for generations and my (and my country’s) decision to continue my destructive tendencies will force them to change the way they live. Do I have the right to assert my way of life on every one else in the world? Until we have a total paradigm shift it seems the answer to that is yes.

Chapter eight was about Kyoto Protocol and the United States refusal to accept the limitations imposed by it. After all of the other chapters this one felt a little like old news. “Yup—the US is hindering the widespread acceptance of climate change as a legitimate concern—what’s new.”

 

Three Questions:

  1. What could be considered fair for Americans to give up in order to reach a level equal to other countries?
  2. What is it going to take to enforce laws like those of the Kyoto Protocol in the US? Grassroots groups? Proletarian revolt? (That one was a joke——kind of.)
  3. Are the people who are skewering the view in favor of skepticism breaking a moral code? Or, Are these people “bad” because of what they are doing?

Kolbert and Henson Reading Response

November 12th, 2009

Prior to this reading assignment, I considered myself to be fairly well-informed about climate change, carbon emissions, and things like that.  I also felt that I was doing an ok job of minimizing my footprint.  But these opinions have changed based on what I’ve read.

By far more challenging to me personally were the excerpts from Kolbert’s “Field Notes on a Catastrophe,” which gave me a plethora of new information.  While I knew that climate change had been an issue for longer than the world had been paying attention to it (obviously, as it became an issue with the discovery of fire, and then perhaps more explosively so with the Industrial Revolution), but I had no idea the scientific community had been paying attention to it since the 1850s.  This really startled me.  Obviously the scientific community is aware of things that we, as laypeople, aren’t, and scientists dislike to claim anything without extensive support from multiple parties, but this seems a bit of a stretch of an excuse.

I was also shocked to see how much energy Americans use on average, enough so that while reading the article, I got up and turned my overhead lights off, switching instead to my single bulb desk lamp.  I had an extreme reaction, perhaps, but it is one that demonstrates that as long as education continues, eventually the problem could possibly correct itself.

This is an idea that Henson would probably disagree with, as he referenced Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” dilemma.  I found Henson’s description to be slightly vague, so I checked in my records to see if I still had a copy of Hardin’s original, which I did (kudos to electronic storage for allowing me to be a document pack-rat, without killing more trees than absolutely necessary.)  I think Hardin did a much better job of explaining the tragedy.

“As a rational human being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.  Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
I) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal.  Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +I.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionnnaking herdsman is only a fraction of -1.”

Basically, what Hardin is saying is that human nature won’t change unless the costs to the individual outweigh the benefits to the individual, which they rarely do when what they are damaging is common property, shared by all.  This makes it difficult to motivate people, leading to what Henson calls “wide but shallow” support.  Not only are the negatives not large enough to call people to action, but their positives would be being taken away.  Not exactly an ideal situation for motivating people.

Henson also spends a great deal of time discussing the skeptic’s opinions.  I personally feel that many of these “skeptical” opinions could have come from the conclusions of scientist’s journal articles or other such publications that would in fact be calling out against global warming in the general text but end with a statement like “we can’t prove global warming.”  Like Dr. Schulz said while we were touring the Horticulture building, scientists aren’t good at communicating.  While the majority of their research may point in one direction, they will still probably make a statement like “but we can’t be sure” because the repercussions to incorrect information are so bad.  This leads to the community looking at the scientists and thinking “they don’t even believe in it, and they study it all the time” whether or not that is the case.

I felt that these were some of the most stimulating readings that we’ve done all semester, and they really challenged how we live and the lifestyle we’re accustomed to.

Questions for Discussion:

1) If the situation of the “tragedy of the commons” is indeed true, how can we get people to take action against climate change?

2) Why does society feel that the term “climate change” is acceptable, while it has essentially gotten rid of the term “global warming.”

3) To what extent should the economy be sacrificed to “solve” climate change?

Man, Nature, Henson, and Kolbert

November 11th, 2009

My perception of climate change has experienced a tremendous evolution this semester – both from the multifaceted social issues I learn about in my environmental public policy class, and from the unique perspective of nature I have been gathering through this class.

I really liked the Henson piece because it was so informative, and it filled in a lot of the holes of knowledge I still had about the topic of climate change. Henson begins with a discussion on the development of public thought toward climate change in the 1970’s and 1980’s. A culmination seemingly occurs in 1985 and 1988 with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole and occurrence of a massive drought in Middle America respectively. As in many major events in human history, the world needed a wake-up call (or two) to get the ball rolling in its acknowledgment of a global warming predicament (as opposed to a global freezing problem). Because the metaphorical fire alarm can’t drone on forever, however, the problem of global warming has receded and surfaced and ebbed again within the consciousness of human society. We make a big deal out of “finding solutions to the crisis at hand,” but most modern lifestyles are dependent on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for energy! Henson mentions this dilemma when he discusses the “shallow” support for climate-change action, and reluctancy to forgo the luxury provided by carbon-based products for energy efficiency.

Henson also spends a significant amount of time considering the viewpoint of global warming skeptics – a position with which I have a difficult time sympathizing. After reading his discussion, however, I thought the addition of counter-views of global warming made Henson’s argument stronger. What was most shocking to me, however, was the extent to which some people will go to deny even the possibility that we are endangering the earth with greenhouse gas emissions. After the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Henson explains how the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) created TV ads with the running tagline: “Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life.” Additionally, he presents the general arguments of skeptics as mainly prioritizing the economy ahead of the environment. And the diversity of skeptics’ arguments is really interesting as well: from economic benefits of non-action, to the influence of solar variation, to excess carbon dioxide “feeding” plants, to Michael Crichton.

Henson also notes the lack of creative literature devoted to “exposing” climate change. I have never even considered this seemingly massive hole in social protest, and am curious why there has not been a larger movement from poets and playwrights and novelists. On the other hand, per the topic of our course, there have been several types of art media and photography and “projects” promoting respect of the natural environment. After a succinct, yet descriptive discussion of climate change issues, Henson ends on a hopeful note. Like him, I hope that interest in the climate crisis will continue, and with the U.N. Climate Change Conference fast approaching, I hope there will be a focused, cooperative push for global solutions.

After reading Henson’s overview of sorts, I moved on the Kolbert – a very entertaining read in my opinion. The observations she makes really drew me into the visceral reality of what climate change really means to the people who literally see it every day. In the chapters we read from her book, Kolbert smoothly transitions from first-hand experiences in the Arctic to personal interviews with political figures that are directly shaping the global “fight” against global warming. What’s more, the perspectives she offers are very personalized. She demonstrates the minutiae of consequence that we will see on a much larger scale if we allow the progression of global warming to continue. Like Henson, Kolbert offers excerpts of history concerning the societal concern for the warming of the climate. In Chapters Two and Three, she mentions Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and Keeling, who created the Keeling Curve of CO2 concentration over time. Essentially, although Keeling recognized the adverse effects of fossil fuel emission into the atmosphere, he predicted that the actual effect on our climate would negligible for quite a while – 3,000 years! BUT- at the rate we are going, Kolbert points out – we will double pre-industrial levels of CO2 by 2050 (2,850 years ahead of Arrhenius’s prediction).

During Kolbert’s experience at Swiss Camp, she follows Steffen and his studies of the ice in the Arctic. By 2003, she mentions, the average global temperature increase was so significant that 5 feet of ice were lost. Soon, her interactions with the local researchers suggest, there will be little ice left to study. She discusses the powerful metaphor (but shoddy science) evident in the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, and the interestingly delicate system of the thermo-haline circulation – of whose power over and relation to global warming I was not aware.

In Chapters Seven and Eight, Kolbert allows her readers to see more of the policy side of the climate change debate – how society is still able to run with a clean conscience despite glaciers melting in the Arctic and carbon dioxide emissions threatening an irreversible change in the average global temperature. She calls the manner by which our society functions, “Business as Usual” – the passive acceptance that “Yea, things are going to change, but I’m comfortable with my lifestyle, and I’m not willing to change that!” In a unique coincidence, my public policy professor discussed the theory of Socolow and Pacala in class the other day: the concept of “wedges” needed to mitigate the harm being done to the environment. Socolow and Pacala prescribe a strict adherence to the wedges system, or we undoubtedly pay for it later. The overriding message of Socolow, Kolbert says, is that “the longer we wait and the more infrastructure we build without regard to the emissions it will impact, the more daunting our task will be.” Our world has been working toward “decarbonization” for the past few decades, but we need to move faster.

Kolbert also discusses an interview she had with the George W. Bush Administration’s representative to the Kyoto Conference, of which the United States and Australia were the only two industrialized nations that rejected the protocol. In a year, she mentions, the average American produces the same greenhouse gases as 99 Bangledeshis – a disgusting fact. If anything, evidence like this should push the conscience of the United States closer to fighting the “war against climate change.” However, until we can maintain a political hold on the stability of our economy, I think the United States will be reluctant to accept the sacrifices that must happen in order for our country to significantly impact a decline of our carbon emissions. The problem that is beginning to emerge, however, is China: the largest (by far) emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, due to its rapid economic build-up.

In reading these two works (as you can probably tell by the length of this blog response) I experienced frustration at the “tragedy of the commons” that we experience when trying to confront global climate change and a deep concern for “where we can go from here…” I think there is great potential for artistic media to increase public awareness, and I think that there is a huge window of opportunity to begin a widespread effort of introducing alternative sources of energy. So many facets of our social reality play a role in the drama of global climate change – so many in fact, that we should be able to unite them in the fight to remedy this crisis, but the politics of our world are so divided that it will take a tremendous push for change to occur at the rate that is necessary.

Discussion:

1. After reading these articles, what reservations do you have toward the ability of global society to remedy global warming?

2. Why do you think people are so adamantly opposed to believing that there is a problem to begin with?

3. What can you do in your daily life to disrupt “business as usual?”

4. How do the people we have spoken with, the art we have seen, and the scientific developments we have learned about contribute to the “culture” of global climate change?

Response to Robert Henson and Elizabeth Kolbert Readings

November 7th, 2009

When I first delved into the readings for this week, the topic revolving around climate change, I was immediately struck by the poignant title of Kolbert’s book – Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Climate change is just that; a catastrophe. Societies and scientists alike have known about it for decades and have been attempting to implement changes for decades, yet the trend hasn’t caught on. People are apathetic. I firmly believe that years down the road, when retrospectively analyzing the problem, the question imposed will not be “Why did they let that happen?”, but rather “Why did they continue to let that happen?”

In Henson’s excerpt, the main discussion relates back to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Despite a slipping in temperature during the 1970s which led to hype about a global cool-down (and also again surfaced during the Cold War in the early 1980s), the fact of the matter is that the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere continue to lead to warmer temperatures. As Henson states, the “turning point” for the recognition of global warming was the surprising discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 followed by the sizzling summer of 1988 which was laden with droughts, fires, and record high temperatures. Just one year later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change was established – a stepping stone on the path to the Kyoto Protocol which was “the world’s first attempt to come to grips with greenhouse-gas emissions”. Yet, despite the evidence, a prevalent theme in relation to climate change is uncertainty and skepticism. Many scientists accuse such skeptics of “cherry-picking,” or essentially conducting selection bias in the case studies they use to support their claims. These skeptics gain high-profile attention mainly due to public-relations “facilitated by conservative think tanks” and wield a large influence over the public who, in the eyes of many scientists, should be allowed to form their own opinions based on the objective facts.

Kolbert presents a more hands-on perspective regarding climate change, notably due to her extensive research and traveling related to the field. In reflecting on noteworthy scientists (such as John Tyndall who discovered the greenhouse effect), Charles David Keeling had possibly the greatest influence. Taking Svante Arrhenius’ work with calculating the effects on earth’s temperature due to changes in carbon dioxide emissions one step further, Keeling discovered a more precise method of measuring CO2. The result was “The Keeling Curve” which illustrated how levels of carbon dioxide had been rising since the 1950s. Kolbert later remarks that the largest single source of carbon emissions in the United states is electricity production (39%) followed by transportation (34%) and that a staggering 70% of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels. While there are several technological innovations available that could be implemented such as wind mills or photovoltaic (solar powered) energy, these efforts would not generate sufficient energy on their own and would face several social and technological obstacles. Presently, U.S. emissions are 20% higher than they were in 1990, despite the Bush administration’s goals of decreasing carbon emissions by 2000.

After reading these passages, I immediately felt the urge to go around and turn off any extra lights that weren’t needed and unplug devices that weren’t currently in use. Climate change is a real issue. While people may be skeptical to its imminence, it is nevertheless prevalent in society. Between the two articles, I felt that Henson’s passage was more informative whereas Kolbert’s work was perhaps more investigative. Yet what truly struck me from Kolbert’s writing and put climate change into a frightening perspective was the fact that carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere for 100 years before they deteriorate. When put into context, this value blatantly screams that your emissions today, yesterday, and tomorrow will have a longer lasting impact on earth than the length of one’s own life. I believe that this “shock value” could have a much stronger impact on people than news stories and scientific data alone. It is also interesting to come to terms with the fact that mankind’s own technological progress is negatively impacting our natural home – our only home, the earth. Without a healthy earth, there is no hope for anything else. That being said, is man humble enough to take a step back into the past, or will we be able to safely step forward into a greener future?

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

  1. Why are people so apathetic to climate change?
  2. What level of severity must this issue reach before it becomes a worldwide, accepted concern?
  3. What additional steps can be taken now in order to secure a more sustainable future?