Freeda, I have a request for clarification. I'm assuming your question relates to the information at this site: http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/586.htm (I didn't see a link to the GEO3 reading in the course information folder for this week.) If so, after a couple readings, I am confused about your question, "what strategy of the FOUR presented..." because there are six headings that say Suggestions for Action, as far as I can tell. Just want to be sure I have the right reading and am responding properly.
It doesn't look like our government is doing a very good job of carrying out any of the suggestions in any event. But I want to be sure I know what you are talking about. Can you please post a link to the page that deals with the four strategies that you refer to in your question? Could it possibly be the four bullets under "What to aim for?" found here: http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/590.htm ?? Thank you for your assistance on this.
You know, I realize that many smart people from many great countries probably all got together to develop this comprehensive GEO3 report. But as I go through it page by page, reading the suggestions through one by one, I feel like My Fair Lady's Liza Doolittle. I just want to scream, "Words Words Words! Is that all you blighters can do? Don't waste my time, SHOW ME!" I think we could do with a little less words and a little more action. (Please forgive the tangent.)
As the GEO report states, there are four future options by which we might develop sustainable practices. It seems to me that with all the $$ flowing to the military machine, the US government's approach seems to be the 'security first' option. Here's the text of that option: "This scenario assumes a world of striking disparities where inequality and conflict prevail. Socio-economic and environmental stresses give rise to waves of protest and counteraction. As such troubles become increasingly prevalent, the more powerful and wealthy groups focus on self-protection, creating enclaves akin to the present day 'gated communities'. Such islands of advantage provide a degree of enhanced security and economic benefits for dependent communities in their immediate surroundings but they exclude the disadvantaged mass of outsiders. Welfare and regulatory services fall into disuse but market forces continue to operate outside the walls".
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the US approach to this problem with its imposition of military might, I agree with the premise that we cannot achieve sustainable practices until we have personal security solved for all people on earth.
The GEO text also notes that, "little attention is paid to the social and environmental issues that many argue provide the motivation for terrorist activity."
I believe this exactly describes our government's arrogance and indifference to 3rd world countries and populations, as evidenced by our world military domination.
Thank you for the clarification, Freeda. I remember this reading from a few weeks ago, and that at that time I posted a comment regarding the four scenarios: Markets First, Policy First, Security First and Sustainability First. As I noted then, it was obvious to me from the readings and from analyzing the graphics and statistical data that a Markets First scenario will cause the most damage to the environment and that this is the current administration’s policy. When I read the sentence, “Economic development outweighs social and environmental concerns in most international discussions” (Outlook 324), I immediately thought of Bush and the Kyoto accord. When officially rejecting the treaty, our president said, “The approach taken under the Kyoto protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target. It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.” It is clear that development and the economy are of far more importance to those currently in power than the environment. In other words, wealth of one nation in the short-term far outweighs health of the planet in the long-term. In my opinion, this is extremely short-sighted and selfish.
If our government was serious about the fourth option, Sustainability First, we might really be able to make a difference and start to heal all the damage we have caused to our planet. As I have said before, however, with the current climate of capitalist callousness (how's that for some fancy alliteration?), we don't have a snowball's chance on a globally-warmed Earth of making that happen.
I do not feel that the Bush administration is looking out for our environment. On the policies you have to get some senators that are naturalist, or believe that this is a good cause to save our planet. You knew the president's says that it's our economy is in trouble and that we need everybody to pull together to work hard and give us a better lifestyle, but yet he does the total opposite. I feel that the environments, policies, vulnerability, and lifestyles are very serious issues. As I was reading some of the things about the Bush administration I found this to be very shocking. How can the Bush administration blocks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from making an announcement about vermiculite and related problems in the towns where it was mined. It is really hard to believe that our governments would let over 16 billion tons of vermiculite be shipped to 750 fertilizer and insulation manufacturers throughout the US.
After reading the four strategies, which are "The Markets First scenario envisages a world in which market-driven developments converge on the values and expectations that prevail in industrialized countries; In a Policy First world, strong actions are undertaken by governments in an attempt to reach specific social and environmental goals; The Security First scenario assumes a world of great disparities, where inequality and conflict prevail, brought about by social economic and environmental stresses; and Sustainability First pictures a world in which a new development paradigm emerges in response to the challenge of sustainability, supported by new, more equitable values and institutions."
I personal find our government is implementing Market first because market driven developments are conflicting on our values of our industrialized country. One value we conflict with is to keep our own people safe and healthy. I also feel our government and the world uses security first because, disparities, inequalities, and conflict defiantly still prevail in the benefit of the social elite. For example, the diamond trade, which enslaves people in Africa, while it makes diamond businesses very wealthy.
Kathy, I enjoyed reading your comment and found it interesting when you said "While I disagree wholeheartedly with the US approach to this problem with its imposition of military might, I agree with the premise that we cannot achieve sustainable practices until we have personal security solved for all people on earth." I agree with you, but also believe we can at least start to try to achieve sustainability locally and in our country even if we are a security first nation. Then from there it might spread to global sustainability. June, I agree with you when you said "If our government was serious about the fourth option, Sustainability First, we might really be able to make a difference and start to heal all the damage we have caused to our planet. As I have said before, however, with the current climate of capitalist callousness (how's that for some fancy alliteration?), we don't have a snowball's chance on a globally-warmed Earth of making that happen." Global warming is out of control because the world relies to heavily on fossil fuels. We can just hope the earth is self-regulating and while it regulates it will not kill our species off. Loretta, Your comment brings up some interesting thoughts especially the part when you said, "As I was reading some of the things about the Bush administration I found this to be very shocking. How can the Bush administration blocks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from making an announcement about vermiculite and related problems in the towns where it was mined. It is really hard to believe that our governments would let over 16 billion tons of vermiculite be shipped to 750 fertilizer and insulation manufacturers throughout the US." I personally do not find it shocking because I believe anyone can be bought at the right price, and the bush administration is handsomely rewarded to turn their check on this issue.
You guys are gonna hate me for being so late and so brief. All of the posts so far are so thoughtful and detailed.
I want to say that since we have the major bases covered I want to chime in on the "Policies First" scenario. Why can't we say that the U.S. is slowly moving in this direction. The tremendous and unexpected support of Barak Obama shows us that a large population in this country is ready for change. I've heard of his campaign referred to as a "ground swell" and for the Policy First scenario to work, the minds of the common man must change. Policies, in this country, believe it or not ARE driven by the people. If the people would unite and insist that their voices be heard, we could indeed begin to embark on some of the optimistic forcasts of this reading.
"Most people support these efforts and exhibit trust in and patience with their leaders."
"A coordinated pro-environment and anti-poverty drive balances the momentum for economic development at any cost."
And who do you suppose "this drive" refers to? I believe it is the people. People like us learning that our current course in unsustainable.
The Policy First scenario is the most uplifting, the most hopeful, and just as with all the others, it has a strong possibility of prevailing, if only... we can get this cranky old paradigm to SHIFT, ugh!
Christine says, "Policies, in this country, believe it or not ARE driven by the people." Do you really think so? How about this recent example to the contrary:
When an interviewer commented to our vice president that recent polls show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?" The interviewer then asked him, "You don't care what the American people think?" To which Cheney answered: "You can't be blown off course by polls." In other words, Screw You, Americans. Our government's current strategy so often seems to be based on what those in power think, not what the American people think.
Perhaps the US government strategy is a combination of the Policy/Market/Security First scenarios, because I see elements of all three in the direction we have been heading over the last seven or eight years. Unfortunately, it seems to be leading to elitism, isolation, and destruction of the environment. It is a sad statement that the one scenario we SHOULD be following seems to be sorely lacking in our current strategy.
Based on the reading, I think the U.S. government is taking the "Markets First" actions. It seems like the right fit in this case because our nation is so driven by various commodities. Looking at the nation's debt and how we are facing a recession, I can only think the Markets First is the best answer to this question. I mean, money solves everything, right? (That's sarcasm).
If I had it my way, I would hope our government strives to make sustainability more of a priority. I think once we master the idea of a sustainable environment, other economic/socioeconomic problems would have less of an impact.
By the way, our witty, intelligent, composed, and professional president of the United States had some spare time today to attend the Washingtion Nationals VS. Atlanta Braves baseball game. Let me tell you, that man is brilliant! With lines like, "...sophisticated stuff..." refering to methods of battling steroids in sports, he REALLY knows what he's talking about. His high level of intellect plus his sense of humor really made me understand why our fellow Americans chose him to lead this country. Well done, people of the United States, well done!
That's sarcasm too...sorry, his tv appearance really pissed me off).
In response to the Bush Administration report....wow! I can't even believe how contradictory the revisons and enforced laws are. They don't even make sense!!!! If one didn't believe our government is driven by money before, this document will surely lay any doubt to rest.
We're both right. People DO drive policy. Real people. It is the masses that can actually make things happen in a country. Unfortunately, they don't often do a very good job of it. We, as a nation of people, have been coasting for a while. DICK Cheney isn't our fault though, he is our misfortune. Larger numbers than ever participated in the last two National elections, but when a burgular breaks in and steals all the silverware, are you going to blame the home owner? We were robbed... plundered and so on.
If the people had truly had their way... Having legitimately voted Al Gore in, can you possibly even imagine the Policy First Scenario by now??? Besides... If the U.S. GEO policies are NOT turned around in the next election, I'll be spending a lot of time with my head under the covers. No TV, no radio, nothing to read; just me and the cat, all day, everyday, in bed, with our heads entirely covered by piles of tangled and tattered blankets.
So, would that you could allow one to dream for a moment, I would like to think that by some miracle the Policy First scenario will take hold in this country. You'd be surprized how many of the projections are taking place in Europe. My reading has taken me to many foreign places, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Brazil, Australia, and I see people with minds that are changing. I see countries with policies that are changing.
Who knows, the United States may just lose its status as the only remaining superpower, in which case we will not be expected to lead the way.
Instead we may fall backward and for once in our long and arduous history be in a position to live and learn!
Christine, my dear, look who's calling the kettle black? Passion has always been your strong suit, why not a little from me? Okay, okay, I'm supposed to be watching my heart.
The problem with a strictly Policy First strategy is that sometimes the policy is not always in the best interests of the planet. If you look at all the graphs, charts, and projections, the only one of the four scenarios that provides for the greatest reduction in the damage we have already done is Sustainability First. In my mind, that's the only way to go!
Clearly, the discussion topic has prompted us to post our different points of view, (just as I suspect Freeda intended).
I don't think that we can neatly put the US governments actions neatly in to any of these 4 boxes without including bits and pieces of the others, so I'm in agreement with you June, that we seem to be pursuing more than one of these strategies simultaneously, even though much of it is conflicting. This is possible because the American electorate seems much more preoccupied with the latest American Idol winner, instead of the real issues we face as a society and a species.
I fault the American media for this, but I also fault all those complacent, adequately-fed members of the US public who refuse to acknowledge or address the issues we discuss.
As the Unesco reports says, our task now is to go beyond cultural biases and show precisely how diversity enhances economic success, social opportunity, political stability and conflict resolution, besides being valuable, beautiful and delightful in itself.
Policy-makers as well as global citizens have to rethink state, community and international institutions and policies to safeguard the environment.
If we wait for policy makers to make the first move we might as well roll over and die now! For all the blood sweat and tears it takes to make good policy it can be repealed with the swipe of a pen when the regime changes. Waiting for policy makers to move toward market regulating environmental policy is like waiting for the US military to make peace. If the gov is (supposedly) our servants then we have to be the force that makes the change.
14 comments:
Freeda, I have a request for clarification. I'm assuming your question relates to the information at this site: http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/586.htm (I didn't see a link to the GEO3 reading in the course information folder for this week.) If so, after a couple readings, I am confused about your question, "what strategy of the FOUR presented..." because there are six headings that say Suggestions for Action, as far as I can tell. Just want to be sure I have the right reading and am responding properly.
It doesn't look like our government is doing a very good job of carrying out any of the suggestions in any event. But I want to be sure I know what you are talking about. Can you please post a link to the page that deals with the four strategies that you refer to in your question? Could it possibly be the four bullets under "What to aim for?" found here: http://www.unep.org/Geo/geo3/english/590.htm ?? Thank you for your assistance on this.
You know, I realize that many smart people from many great countries probably all got together to develop this comprehensive GEO3 report. But as I go through it page by page, reading the suggestions through one by one, I feel like My Fair Lady's Liza Doolittle. I just want to scream, "Words Words Words! Is that all you blighters can do? Don't waste my time, SHOW ME!" I think we could do with a little less words and a little more action. (Please forgive the tangent.)
Hi June,
I am referring to the tale of four futures starting on page 328 in the Outlook 2002-32 section.
The fourth option is my favorite.
Be Well,
Freeda Alida
As the GEO report states, there are four future options by which we might develop sustainable practices. It seems to me that with all the $$ flowing to the military machine, the US government's approach seems to be the 'security first' option. Here's the text of that option: "This scenario assumes a world of striking disparities where inequality and conflict prevail. Socio-economic and environmental stresses give rise to waves of protest and counteraction. As such troubles become increasingly prevalent, the more powerful and wealthy groups focus on self-protection, creating enclaves akin to the present day 'gated communities'. Such islands of advantage provide a degree of enhanced security and economic benefits for dependent communities in their immediate surroundings but they exclude the disadvantaged mass of outsiders. Welfare and regulatory services fall into disuse but market forces continue to operate outside the walls".
While I disagree wholeheartedly with the US approach to this problem with its imposition of military might, I agree with the premise that we cannot achieve sustainable practices until we have personal security solved for all people on earth.
The GEO text also notes that, "little attention is paid to the social and environmental issues that many argue provide the motivation for terrorist activity."
I believe this exactly describes our government's arrogance and indifference to 3rd world countries and populations, as evidenced by our world military domination.
Thank you for the clarification, Freeda. I remember this reading from a few weeks ago, and that at that time I posted a comment regarding the four scenarios: Markets First, Policy First, Security First and Sustainability First. As I noted then, it was obvious to me from the readings and from analyzing the graphics and statistical data that a Markets First scenario will cause the most damage to the environment and that this is the current administration’s policy. When I read the sentence, “Economic development outweighs social and environmental concerns in most international discussions” (Outlook 324), I immediately thought of Bush and the Kyoto accord. When officially rejecting the treaty, our president said, “The approach taken under the Kyoto protocol would have required the United States to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target. It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9 million jobs.” It is clear that development and the economy are of far more importance to those currently in power than the environment. In other words, wealth of one nation in the short-term far outweighs health of the planet in the long-term. In my opinion, this is extremely short-sighted and selfish.
If our government was serious about the fourth option, Sustainability First, we might really be able to make a difference and start to heal all the damage we have caused to our planet. As I have said before, however, with the current climate of capitalist callousness (how's that for some fancy alliteration?), we don't have a snowball's chance on a globally-warmed Earth of making that happen.
I do not feel that the Bush administration is looking out for our environment. On the policies you have to get some senators that are naturalist, or believe that this is a good cause to save our planet. You knew the president's says that it's our economy is in trouble and that we need everybody to pull together to work hard and give us a better lifestyle, but yet he does the total opposite. I feel that the environments, policies, vulnerability, and lifestyles are very serious issues. As I was reading some of the things about the Bush administration I found this to be very shocking. How can the Bush administration blocks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from making an announcement about vermiculite and related problems in the towns where it was mined. It is really hard to believe that our governments would let over 16 billion tons of vermiculite be shipped to 750 fertilizer and insulation manufacturers throughout the US.
After reading the four strategies, which are "The Markets First scenario envisages a world in which market-driven developments converge on the values and expectations that prevail in industrialized countries;
In a Policy First world, strong actions are undertaken by governments in an attempt to reach specific social and environmental goals;
The Security First scenario assumes a world of great disparities, where inequality and conflict prevail, brought about by social economic and environmental stresses; and
Sustainability First pictures a world in which a new development paradigm emerges in response to the challenge of sustainability, supported by new, more equitable values and institutions."
I personal find our government is implementing Market first because market driven developments are conflicting on our values of our industrialized country. One value we conflict with is to keep our own people safe and healthy. I also feel our government and the world uses security first because, disparities, inequalities, and conflict defiantly still prevail in the benefit of the social elite. For example, the diamond trade, which enslaves people in Africa, while it makes diamond businesses very wealthy.
Kathy,
I enjoyed reading your comment and found it interesting when you said "While I disagree wholeheartedly with the US approach to this problem with its imposition of military might, I agree with the premise that we cannot achieve sustainable practices until we have personal security solved for all people on earth." I agree with you, but also believe we can at least start to try to achieve sustainability locally and in our country even if we are a security first nation. Then from there it might spread to global sustainability.
June,
I agree with you when you said
"If our government was serious about the fourth option, Sustainability First, we might really be able to make a difference and start to heal all the damage we have caused to our planet. As I have said before, however, with the current climate of capitalist callousness (how's that for some fancy alliteration?), we don't have a snowball's chance on a globally-warmed Earth of making that happen." Global warming is out of control because the world relies to heavily on fossil fuels. We can just hope the earth is self-regulating and while it regulates it will not kill our species off.
Loretta,
Your comment brings up some interesting thoughts especially the part when you said, "As I was reading some of the things about the Bush administration I found this to be very shocking. How can the Bush administration blocks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from making an announcement about vermiculite and related problems in the towns where it was mined. It is really hard to believe that our governments would let over 16 billion tons of vermiculite be shipped to 750 fertilizer and insulation manufacturers throughout the US." I personally do not find it shocking because I believe anyone can be bought at the right price, and the bush administration is handsomely rewarded to turn their check on this issue.
You guys are gonna hate me for being so late and so brief. All of the posts so far are so thoughtful and detailed.
I want to say that since we have the major bases covered I want to chime in on the "Policies First" scenario. Why can't we say that the U.S. is slowly moving in this direction. The tremendous and unexpected support of Barak Obama shows us that a large population in this country is ready for change. I've heard of his campaign referred to as a "ground swell" and for the Policy First scenario to work, the minds of the common man must change. Policies, in this country, believe it or not ARE driven by the people. If the people would unite and insist that their voices be heard, we could indeed begin to embark on some of the optimistic forcasts of this reading.
"Most people support these efforts and exhibit trust in and patience with their leaders."
"A coordinated pro-environment and anti-poverty drive balances the momentum for economic development at any cost."
And who do you suppose "this drive" refers to? I believe it is the people. People like us learning that our current course in unsustainable.
The Policy First scenario is the most uplifting, the most hopeful, and just as with all the others, it has a strong possibility of prevailing, if only... we can get this cranky old paradigm to SHIFT, ugh!
Christine says, "Policies, in this country, believe it or not ARE driven by the people." Do you really think so? How about this recent example to the contrary:
When an interviewer commented to our vice president that recent polls show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?" The interviewer then asked him, "You don't care what the American people think?" To which Cheney answered: "You can't be blown off course by polls." In other words, Screw You, Americans. Our government's current strategy so often seems to be based on what those in power think, not what the American people think.
Perhaps the US government strategy is a combination of the Policy/Market/Security First scenarios, because I see elements of all three in the direction we have been heading over the last seven or eight years. Unfortunately, it seems to be leading to elitism, isolation, and destruction of the environment. It is a sad statement that the one scenario we SHOULD be following seems to be sorely lacking in our current strategy.
Based on the reading, I think the U.S. government is taking the "Markets First" actions. It seems like the right fit in this case because our nation is so driven by various commodities. Looking at the nation's debt and how we are facing a recession, I can only think the Markets First is the best answer to this question. I mean, money solves everything, right? (That's sarcasm).
If I had it my way, I would hope our government strives to make sustainability more of a priority. I think once we master the idea of a sustainable environment, other economic/socioeconomic problems would have less of an impact.
By the way, our witty, intelligent, composed, and professional president of the United States had some spare time today to attend the Washingtion Nationals VS. Atlanta Braves baseball game. Let me tell you, that man is brilliant! With lines like, "...sophisticated stuff..." refering to methods of battling steroids in sports, he REALLY knows what he's talking about. His high level of intellect plus his sense of humor really made me understand why our fellow Americans chose him to lead this country. Well done, people of the United States, well done!
That's sarcasm too...sorry, his tv appearance really pissed me off).
In response to the Bush Administration report....wow! I can't even believe how contradictory the revisons and enforced laws are. They don't even make sense!!!! If one didn't believe our government is driven by money before, this document will surely lay any doubt to rest.
Bless this country...
Now, now June. Calma, calma!
We're both right. People DO drive policy. Real people. It is the masses that can actually make things happen in a country. Unfortunately, they don't often do a very good job of it. We, as a nation of people, have been coasting for a while. DICK Cheney isn't our fault though, he is our misfortune. Larger numbers than ever participated in the last two National elections, but when a burgular breaks in and steals all the silverware, are you going to blame the home owner? We were robbed... plundered and so on.
If the people had truly had their way... Having legitimately voted Al Gore in, can you possibly even imagine the Policy First Scenario by now???
Besides...
If the U.S. GEO policies are NOT turned around in the next election, I'll be spending a lot of time with my head under the covers. No TV, no radio, nothing to read; just me and the cat, all day, everyday, in bed, with our heads entirely covered by piles of tangled and tattered blankets.
So, would that you could allow one to dream for a moment, I would like to think that by some miracle the Policy First scenario will take hold in this country. You'd be surprized how many of the projections are taking place in Europe. My reading has taken me to many foreign places, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Brazil, Australia, and I see people with minds that are changing. I see countries with policies that are changing.
Who knows, the United States may just lose its status as the only remaining superpower, in which case we will not be expected to lead the way.
Instead we may fall backward and for once in our long and arduous history be in a position to live and learn!
Christine, my dear, look who's calling the kettle black? Passion has always been your strong suit, why not a little from me? Okay, okay, I'm supposed to be watching my heart.
The problem with a strictly Policy First strategy is that sometimes the policy is not always in the best interests of the planet. If you look at all the graphs, charts, and projections, the only one of the four scenarios that provides for the greatest reduction in the damage we have already done is Sustainability First. In my mind, that's the only way to go!
Clearly, the discussion topic has prompted us to post our different points of view, (just as I suspect Freeda intended).
I don't think that we can neatly put the US governments actions neatly in to any of these 4 boxes without including bits and pieces of the others, so I'm in agreement with you June, that we seem to be pursuing more than one of these strategies simultaneously, even though much of it is conflicting. This is possible because the American electorate seems much more preoccupied with the latest American Idol winner, instead of the real issues we face as a society and a species.
I fault the American media for this, but I also fault all those complacent, adequately-fed members of the US public who refuse to acknowledge or address the issues we discuss.
As the Unesco reports says, our task now is to go beyond cultural biases and show precisely how diversity enhances economic success, social opportunity, political stability and conflict resolution, besides being valuable, beautiful and delightful in itself.
Policy-makers as well as global citizens have to rethink state, community and international institutions and policies to safeguard the environment.
If we wait for policy makers to make the first move we might as well roll over and die now! For all the blood sweat and tears it takes to make good policy it can be repealed with the swipe of a pen when the regime changes. Waiting for policy makers to move toward market regulating environmental policy is like waiting for the US military to make peace. If the gov is (supposedly) our servants then we have to be the force that makes the change.
Post a Comment