Sustainable Lifestyles: Living "Green"
This entry was written in preparation for the second in a series of three videoconference meetings among Stanford students enrolled in the PWR 2 class "(R)evolutions in Environmental Rhetoric" and their CCR partners at Khabarovsk State Academy of Economics and Law in the Russian Far East. The focus of this videoconference is "Global Environmental Issues."
Lucy:
What does it mean to lead a sustainable lifestyle? I think the first question that must be asked is what does it mean to be sustainable and why is “sustainability” such a popular term right now? The most basic definition of sustainability as it is used with the current environmental movement is, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In 2009, when human’s society’s pattern of energy production and consumption is literally threatening the survival of many species and our planet, this concept of keeping in mind the future in our present choices has become extremely significant. It is more than a term—it is becoming a central framework how citizens and policymakers look at ensuring the long-term health of our communities. It is a framework that expands the environmental movement from being just about conservation and protection of nature, but the need to think about the entire ecosystem of Earth including its human creations—economic development that is ecologically viable, social institutions that are equitable. So, now that we are beginning to have a working definition of the term, how do we act out “sustainability” in our individual lifestyles, and as a community?
Hania:
When most of us hear the word sustainability our thoughts immediately jump to the preservation of the environment. The nongovernmental organization that I’m working with, however, chooses to define sustainability in a unique way, stepping away from the conventional focus on nature, and extending the definition to both economic stability and social equity. These factors, along with the environment, are necessary components in ensuring the sustenance of an acceptable standard of human life. Recently, sustainability has developed a new popularity, with many larger institutions openly choosing to adopt a ‘greener’ lifestyle. But what does this really mean? Is it the usage of a better, more efficient water and electrical system within buildings? Is it simply the development of new green buildings that are environmentally friendly and use the least amount of resources possible? Or does it mean going a step further than that? Institutions and communities depend largely on the people that comprise them, and without a green mindset amongst these people, any superficial changes on the surface will not really have the deep-rooted effects that the green movement is hoping to achieve. Do you think that it is the institution’s (be it a university, government, etc) responsibility to attempt to influence the opinion and behavior of the people associated with it? How far should institutions be allowed to pursue such an endeavor and how much human freedom will be sacrificed in the process?
Katie:
My research is focused on what motivates people to choose to live sustainably or green, because only if everyone works together for change can we do something that makes a difference. Like ants, most people cannot make much of a difference on their own, yet each individual’s work matters to the good of the colony, or in our case the good of the world. Living sustainably requires a fundamental change in our perceptions of nature and materials, and this fundamental change will only be absorbed by each individual if they both realize the need for the change and feel that they can do something about the problem. The second part of this – feeling that one can make a difference by one’s actions – is the part my research will focus on. Only if we can motivate the vast majority of the human population to live sustainably can we help to stop these vast environmental problems. And this will only happen if we can convince nearly everyone that they are important to the world (imbibe them with a strong sense of self-efficacy), yet this can only really happen in a world of social and economic equality – so we have quite a way to go.
I was wondering if you feel like changing your lifestyle, even in a simple way, would help to combat global environmental degradation. If so: have you changed the way you live, and why or why not?
Julia:
One of the most interesting topics I find about sustainability is the role of the meat industry. I find that many people don’t know just how unsustainable and environmentally degrading the meat industry is. One of the largest problems is the amount of wasted resources that this industry uses. For example it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, in fact the world cattle population eats enough calories to 8.7 billion people. The land uses to maintain this industry is enormous! 80% of all agricultural land in the US is used in some way to raise animals. Globally overgrazing leads to the extinction of indigenous plant and animal species, soil erosion and eventual desertification and livestock grazing is the number one cause of threatened and extinct species both in the US and around the world. Not only are there wasted resources but the pollution alone is enough to make one consider the mal effects. Animals raised for produce create 89,000 pounds of excrement per second, 130 times the US population and 80% of ammonia emissions in the US come from animal waste. All these issues lead to the greater problem of global warming.
Questions: Do you feel that most people know where they get meat from?
Do you know about the sustainability of the meat industries in Russia?
Are there a lot of vegetarians in Russians who abstain for environmental reasons?
Comments
Dear Lucy, Hania, Julia and Katie!
Thank you for presenting your opinion on sustainable lifestyle.
I personally think that the main reason for existing environmental problems was economic and technological progress of XX-XXI centuries, followed by global population growth.
And I suppose it is difficult to predict whether "environmentally efficient" technologies will be able to solve the existing problems.
The fact is that the more technology develops, the more environmental problems we have. Fossil fuels are being replaced by nuclear power (with its radioactive wastes) or alternative energy sources(we here should take into account that these sources have their own negative consequences - see dams as they destroy neighboring ecosystems).
Individual responsibility sounds really good.
I try not to use plastic bags, for example.
But it is very difficult to change people`s lifestyle and mind. And the reason for that is not only people`s psychology, but economic (income, market prises), social (culture) and political factors.
Individual responsibility has great power. But in order to encourage it, some measures on governmental / NGOs level need to be taken.
Personal freedom is also a good point. Here we may see that during the whole human history exists the law. And environmental law in its matter is not a valuation of human rights, but is a tool to protect future generations and planet as a whole. It sounds good, but in real life - laws may be different).
I also doubt that making the whole world vegetarian will not solve environmental problems and ensure sustainability.
In many countries meat is a part of national cuisines. It is not just a dish, but a part of culture. Without meat life will have less colors for many people (at least for me).
What`s more, 1kg of meat is not comparable with 1kg of vegetables on the amount of energy it gives to a person.
There may be raised an idea of consuming less meat, but refusing meat totally seems not real to me.
Regards,
Alisa Yushchenko.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 12, 2009 06:01 AM
Alisa,
Thank you for your responses to our post. Before the video conference, I thought that the only real problem with people not recycling in relatively developed countries was a lack of motivation, but it was brought to my attention that the problem may be a lack of education -- people don't know about recycling, and the infrastructure is not in place to allow them to do it. I think, as you said, that measures on both the governmental and NGO levels must be taken to both educate people and to create that infrastructure, and only then can the general people really make a difference.
It seems the problem is cyclical -- people need to do individual things, but they only can when governments give them the ability to, which will only happen when people take responsibility and ask their governments to do something...
Do you see an easy way out?
-Katie
Posted by: Katie Dektar | February 17, 2009 12:37 PM
First of all i want to thank you, you did a great job, and i have learned something new from this article.
I would like to stress 2 authors - Hania and Katie. My opinion is almost identical to yours.
this i think : "Only if we can motivate the vast majority of the human population to live sustainably can we help to stop these vast environmental problems" the main thing about problem decision.
And.
In conclusion i would want to say that main key to save the World and Nature claer is Individual responsibility!
Regards,
Katsman Vlad
Posted by: NoTe.Me | March 26, 2009 02:43 AM
Very good job, it is very clear. thanks
What alternative energy sources would you recommend for Third world countries to acquire instead of nuclear technology?
Posted by: Alternative Energy Fan | April 9, 2009 11:21 AM
I think that nuclear technology is the best. However, any mistake would cause a crisis, no one wants another Chernobyl. Especially a Third world country, they have other things to care about from wars to diseases. I think that they should stick to energy obtained from petroleum and oil. Hydroelectric energy could be used also, in countries that have lots of rivers and water falls. Middle eastern countries could use photovoltaic solar cells. As the sky is always clear and the sun is very bright. Use of energy generated from wind and other resources is recommended as well. If you read this you may think that I have just solved the energy problem. However this is not the case, converting energy from one source to another is usually very expensive especially to the third world countries to afford. Wind mills, generators and solar cells are very expensive. Another problem is that they are not cost effective, as they take a long period of time to cover their cost. I think that the best energy source for Third world countries is nuclear energy, its clean and cheap. However, nuclear energy stations must be in unpopulated places in case of crisis.
This is a really good question. Thanks for sharing. =D
Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2009 05:14 PM
Dear Lucy, Hania, Julia and Katie,
I really liked your argument and the way by which all of the paragraphs are interconnected. I think that it is hard for people to live sustainably. As I have comprehended from Lucy, for one to live sustainably, he has to consume resources that are adequate to his needs. However, this is not the case nowadays. People are more concerned about having a luxurious lifestyle. For example, a person would rather buy a car that operates by internal combustion than a car that depends on electricity, as cars that operate on fossil fuels are usually faster and less expensive than electrical cars. As for Hania and Katie I agree with you. Making a building “greener” is not the solution. We have to educate people about the environment first, instead of constructing buildings that consume fewer resources. For example, at our new campus in Kattameya, Cairo all the buildings are designed in a way that minimizes the use of air conditioning, we also have bins for recycling trash. This implies that the new campus will facilitate the processes of recycling materials and it would decrease the consumption of electricity. However, most of my friends throw their trash in the closest bin they find. Even if they categorized trash accordingly, will the trash collectors sort each bin into its own category or will they mix them up? For this I agree with Hania that any “superficial changes on the surface will not really have the deep-rooted effects that the green movement is hoping to achieve.” Governments must educate people about the harms they are doing to the environment, and how those harms would affect coming generations. I believe that if people knew the amount of damage they are causing to the environment they would stop try to reduce their carbon foot print by living sustainably.
Ahmed El-Ghandour
Posted by: Ahmed El-Ghandour | April 11, 2009 05:35 AM
It is great to see the college involved in this effort. Even though everyone may not agree on the causes and effects of our current environmental problems, on thing we should all agree upon is modifying our behavior to inflict as little damage as
possible on the environment can't be a bad thing. Green Living is
good for everyone.
Posted by: KennyG | September 25, 2009 04:51 PM
This is such an important topic and so well addressed here.
An important point was raised about the meat industry but as far as industry in general how much of the mess we are in has been caused by unethical decisions being made to either keep costs down or to increase sales and profits? For example the auto industry gas mileage!
Posted by: lora johns | October 24, 2009 07:02 PM