The ecological butterfly...and the hurricane

The other day, I was walking out of a class, and I became aware of all the people around me, and I realized something: many of these people who now are so proud of their ecological awareness will grow up to be parents, businesspeople, and professionals. I imagined one particularly rugged-looking student with dreadlocks ten years down the road, as a bleach-blonde soccer mom, driving everywhere in her SUV and showering every day. At this moment, it dawned in me that anything we do now, at college, could be completely forgotten, but always remembered in the consequences it has.
I, for one, do not shower every day. I refuse to. I do not own a car, and prefer to walk somewhere than take a bus or even drive. I bring my own reusable bags to the grocery store. Now, I may look weird with sometimes greasy hair, have a bit of trouble getting around town, or have to carry around extra bags sometimes, but in several weeks, months, or years, no one will care, or even remember. What they will remember, however, is those thousands of gallons of water still there, those millions of carbon molecules not in the atmosphere, and those hundreds of plastic grocery bags not floating in the ocean. Any change we make now is something we don’t have to feel bad about later. It’s some tiny way we can save the earth every day.
And apart from my actions (or any other Goucher student’s for that matter) directly affecting the earth, they can have an indirect effect as well. I’m sure I have convinced someone to skip their daily shower once or twice, or walk somewhere instead of drive, or let them borrow a reusable bag for shopping. And maybe those changes will stick, or they’ll spread the same idea to someone else.
College is a time when you find out who you are. And who you are is affected by and affects in return who you’re with. Providing an environment in which people can come to the conclusion that meticulous personal hygiene may not really be that great, or that walking is more fun anyway, without being judged is one way that I feel Goucher contributes to the ecological integrity of many individuals and the institution itself. We carry what we learn here into the rest of the world, and if I, as one person, can make a difference, how much can thousands of people change?

Victims as victims

The more I learn about climate change, the less fair it seems. And the IPCC report is only reinforcing this view. My overall impression from the reading is as follows: poor populations are done for. It seems that the most severe climate effects are the worst for developing regions and poverty-stricken people. Page 14 notes that “[V]ulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated by other stresses,” including “[C]urrent climate hazards, poverty and unequal access to resources, food insecurity, trends in economic globalisation, conflict and incidence of diseases such as HIV/AIDS.” But all of these stresses seem to be symptoms of poverty.

As if this weren’t bad enough, it seems to me that the most severe consequences climate change has to offer will be present in typically poorer regions. Asia has a projected decrease in freshwater availability, particular in large river basins—where the majority of the populations live. Those living in megadelta regions will be at great risk for flooding, and all will be more susceptible to death from disease associated with flood and drought. In Central and South America, temperature increases are projected to replace tropical forests with savannah. For those that get their livelihoods from the forests, including but not limited to many indigenous populations, this could be detrimental. Those living off the land in a pastoral sense will also fall victim to climate change: crop and livestock productivity is projected to decline, exacerbating food insecurity already present in many areas and increasing the continent’s hunger. Glacier and precipitation will be affected as well, reducing amounts of water available for consumption, energy, and agriculture.

And these examples are only a speck compared to the dust storm of adverse effects that climate change will bring, particularly to poverty-stricken peoples. I feel that this is so unfair not just because people will be suffering—it is that the people suffering will be the ones who have not made the problem as severe as it now is. Like so frequently happens, the rich west is making problems and letting the poor take the fall for them. The report mentions several times that wealthier people will be less severely affected. I fail to see how this is alright, considering the wealthier populations bought their 14-mile per gallon SUVs and leave their lights on for days straight.

But it gets worse: the report mentions dozens of ways that we could be stopping climate change through legislation in wealthier countries, but we refuse to because of the omnipotent economy-god. The masses refuse to do anything that could hurt GDP, even though in 50 years famine and drought probably won’t help it.

The teepee of environmentalism

The idea of resource wars is timeless. I cannot think of a single group of living organisms that does not fight to get what it needs to survive—even vines in the rainforest climb up taller trees to get to much-needed sunlight, suffocating their hosts in the process. This competition is exacerbated and becomes a real problem when the losing party does not just die and become part of the soil that sustains their enemy, but rather take up arms against it, and commits atrocities to get the upper hand. When thinking about preventing global warming or stopping pollution, people forget that there are 44 such conflicts going on in the world today. And these conflicts, of course, deplete the environment’s natural resources even further.Speth mentions that the UN’s “[D]evelopment projects have often failed because they neglected the environment, just as environmental projects have often failed because they neglected development.” I feel that this is a key point to make. I am coming to realize that environmental and social issues are drastically interrelated. In order to solve environmental issues, we must solve social ones, but we cannot solve social issues without solving environmental ones.In order to even begin to solve such complicated and multifaceted issues such as what Speth mentioned as relating heavily to environmental issues, poverty, we must first gather the information necessary about environmental, social, cultural, and economic concerns. After we have found this information, it needs to be incorporated into a multi-pronged solution and implemented effectively. It seems that at this point, we have the first step completed, if that. Many proposed solutions only take into account one aspect of an issue; they are like a lone teepee pole trying to stand up. In order for this construction to be able to stand on its own, it needs the support of other poles. The same is true with social development projects. In order to solve this, the solutions must be as complex as the problems, with each facet, or pole, leaning onto another one to make it complete and self-sustainable.With my understanding of environmental issues, the more I learn, the more hopeless it seems. Poverty and resource conservation, women’s rights and population control, misallocation of resources and affluence, and so many more issues seem to be tangled in a web of environmental destruction. If there is any hope for the earth, we must all begin to consider all aspects of a situation on a global scale and use them together to make a complete, effective, sustainable, solution. No easy task, but it is possible. I am aware of several organizations that provide sustainable relief, but what would happen if all issues could be eradicated in one global solution? It seems that some people have the idea, but socially conscious environmentalism must catch on if we are to get anywhere.