A Blog for use by students in ENG 100 First Year Writing Seminar
"Thinking Green: Expanding Your Environmental Consciousness" with Prof. Gretchen Legler at the University of Maine Farmington, Spring 2011.
Hello Everyone,
We'll be using our class Blog to post and share images and words that come from our readings and experiences in Thinking Green. Check the Assignments page for specifics, which will be coming soon. Hope you enjoy it.
Prof. Legler.
Although I agree that Jensen is extremely harsh in the article, Forget Shorter Showers, I believe that it was his intent to get people to reflection upon their individual actions and the reality of how small each individual action is. He is very judgmental in this article, bashing those who feel good about reducing their individual harm to the earth which goes to say how he wants people to react. I think it is because people get too used to feeling good about the contribution they are doing, that they never intensify it by going the extra step. For this reason, the world is stuck at working individually at solving the climate crisis that is occurring. We need to get past the self satisfaction and stop doing good for the glorification, but do it because if we don't, we will kill the planet. On the other hand, people (especially the American Culture) needs a small starting point. Partly because we need to feel good about what we are doing so we can motivate ourselves to do more, but also because small goals are easier to accomplish and we can get a snowball effect of contribution going. Once everyone (not just the majority but EVERYONE) sees what needs to be done to reduce the harm we cause for the planet's health, we can focus on what can be done to fix the damage that is already done. With individuals making the decision to live simpler or "greener" we can come together with the same mindset and handle industrious and agriculture damage. It is always much easier to create disaster without any intentions than it is to recover from the damage. This battle will not be an easy one, but I believe the world is finally beginning to realize the severity of the situation and what steps need to be taken to recover from it.
I thought the article was very eye opening. It helped me see the environmental problem in a new light. Jensen seems harsh when he explains that individual changes like shorter showers or changing light bulbs won't make much of a difference. Although he makes a very valid point, doing small individual changes aren't pointless. He believes in order to achieve a cleaner environment, we need to talk to the big industries that are the real blame. I completely agree that if we want to see a change, we need to think bigger. However, I don't agree that we should "forget shorter showers". Putting a stand to big corporations is a big step, but the individual changes count too. If everyone stopped littering for example, that is a small change that could make a bigger difference to the environment. But that's not all we have to do either. Also, a point Jensen was trying to make was that one person can't save the world. If we want something done, we as humans need to work together. Jensen states in the article, "industrial civilization is killing the planet". So if we want something done, we should not only take shorter showers and recycle but also address the much bigger problem as well.
Derrick Jensen very strongly states his opinion in his article “Forget Shorter Showers.” I agree with him that personal change does not equal political change, but I am also a believer in the power of the individual. When he says that individuals could only make the carbon emissions fall by 22%, I say that is a lot better than we are doing right now! This article is negative to the point where it could make several individuals irritated while reading it. I don’t know if he did this purposefully, hoping individuals would try and make a difference and approach industries and agricultural representatives about it. I think it is a great idea to pressure industries and agriculture to try and cut down on their pollution, waste, and water use, but I also believe individuals should still have to feel some responsibility for contributing to all of these issues. Industries and agriculture are in place because we, the individuals, need them to be there to provide for us. It is not all their fault. If the demand went down, the supply would go down, therefore creating less carbon emissions and waste. People have become immune to living life how they want to. They get what they want, when they want it. I’m not saying people should all live more simply, but I think there does need to be some awareness raised about the issues we are having. Like Jensen says, any option is better than a dead planet. This is why if individuals are aware of the decisions they are making and how it effects the environment, it may sway the way big corporations and agriculture think about their consumers and environment.
In the article "Forget Shorter Showers" by Derrick Jensen I agreed with some of the statements that he said. I think that one person wont make a big enough change to help improve with the "Going Green" movement. It takes a hand full of people to start something, especially since this is a world wide movement/ problem that is going on. Saying this one person can choose to make the choice to influence other people to taking shorter showers, or recycling. People like trends, and new things, the idea could catch on and by used and liked by many. I think that big business are not the only problem and this isn't all their fault. We need to help make different ways that they can build their buildings using solar panel roofs, and such. This is the same situation with smaller businesses as well. I know that in my town, because its so small this trend could catch on and others would follow. We just need to find someone that wants to set up and take this responsibility.
In the article “Forget Shorter Showers” by Derrick Jenson, the author Jenson is very passionate in making his point clear. He made me think more about some key points and he brought strong evidence to support himself. I agree with Jenson that an individual change is not going to make any major political or social changes. He makes it clear that he believes in small changes like, taking shorter showers, will make no difference in the whole scheme of things. He’s right in that in order to make a difference it takes a large number of people. Helping the environment is a worldwide movement, and it will take many hands to make a difference. I like when he points out that a lot of our tactics in “Going Green” involve reducing our harmful imprint of the world and ignoring the fact that humans can also help. I agree with this and that harm reduction isn’t enough and that it will take lots of help to try and make a difference. Also in the end Jenson points out that there are many options we can take, it will just need to be a great political movement in order to take action.
The article, "Forget Taking Showers" by Derrick Jensen, explains to those who read his work to understand that those who do contribute to helping the environment by doing the little that they attempt to do. Those who succeed in doing their part need to learn to increase what they do by spreading the word for others to do so in helping the planet, not individually but as a group together, working to save the place we all live. Jensen is pretty brutal in his article but he tells of what needs to be done in order to save this world. EVERYBODY needs to do their part as a group not individually. Just one person cannot change the fate of the planet, but that one person can change others to continue a chain that would likely increase the health of the planet and every living thing on it. Honestly, the article did make me a bit upset. Just Jensen saying that individually, nothing could change the fate of the planet. It kind of made me feel inferior and worthless. But just as he states in his article, "Personal change doesn’t equal social change" is actually quite true. The only way to bring about social change over personal change is to fight for it. Fight and just maybe the change sought could become reality.
In the article “ Forgetting Shorter Showers by Derek Jensen he makes his point very clear at the beginning of the article, by doing this I believe he is trying to convince everyone that he is correct whether some may like it or not. I do agree with what Jensen say because one person taking shorter showers overtime is not going to make a significant difference unless everyone in the world would do so. When we look at the bigger picture I mean as in the whole world doing the little things here and there it is not going to make that much of a difference for us going green. If people are going to go green they will have to do everything from recycling to having solar panels, and driving less. In my opinion if the world was to do so, it would be a cleaner healthier place, because the environment would not have so much pollution and waste. Hopefully this change can start off in smaller towns or cities and eventually grow so that everyone one will realize it is possible to make a difference and will contribute to what will hopefully be a success.
This article by Derrick Jensen definitely has a lot of insight as to what's wrong with our planet's environment and what we truly need to do to fix it. Many people believe that just living a more "green" lifestyle with solar panels and what not will save this earth when Jensen says that we really need to take down our higher energy systems to make things better. I've never really thought of it that way but it could be a better solution if we combine a more green lifestyle alone with taking down bigger and more harmful systems. I'm not sure if Jensen thought about combining those two ideas, but since he doesn't really agree with the idea of solar panels and other appliances helping to save our environment I'm not sure if presenting my combination idea would change his mind at all. When I first heard the title of this article, I was anxious to hear any ideas that would be presented by someone writing such an article. I actually must admit that I thought taking shorter showers and using more green technology would be great ways of saving our planet, and I still stick by those ideas even though I have read Jensen's article and heard his ideas on preventing global destruction. Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughtout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.
Derrick Jensen’s article, Forget Shorter Showers, was an educated environmentalist ‘Modern-Day Modest Proposal”. The correlation between Jensen’s request to act effectively toward causes of global warming and Johnathan Swift’s plea for the monarchy to help its people eat is drenched in activist irony.
At the end of the first paragraph, following the reference of a few historically nonviolent resistance actions, Jensen asks, “Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solution”?” His tone implies the urgency of action while dismissing shorter showers for being ineffective.
Jensen mentions a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth" and its inability to impact growing environmental issues of 1997. Politically inclined environmentalist Al Gore stars in the 1997 documentary that speaks of only individual impersonal actions instead of a deliberate plan for change. Jensen's tone strongly encourages that change is vital, and activism is necessary. The fact that we as individuals do not make up the larger part of the emissions but that the corporations and industries that makes up the other 78%. Jensen adds a sense of urgency including, “Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide”. Facing the serious problems associated with global warming will take far more than an apathetic attitudes toward action, and a solid plan of action. Hence Jensen's point of taking shorter showers is only a small action to take along the way to achieving the larger, macro- sensitive structures of the global system.
Jensen describes what sociologists call the micro and macro levels of human reaction. While people are thinking in the micro world they do not look from a macro perspective. Jensen emphasizes that on a Macro level no one will survive if the planet does not survive. While individualistic actions are effective the way to make your individual action really count is to actively participate in the system to which one belongs. In a democracy such as ours we have the potential to make a change, where as in many parts of the world they do not have rights to things as simple as education.
Jensen emphasizes his transition from why only showering less is pointless to induce readers to get involved, and directing confront global issues with effective civil actions.
“So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double blind. A double blind is where you’ve given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point it should be easy to recognize that ever action involving the industrial economy is destructive…… If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to five up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone loses. –Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”
This is the turning point of Jensen’s article as he transitions away from the idea of showering less as an effective action and begins to support real actions in order to promote a healthy sustainable change. He then addresses further problems with relating simple living to political action.
To influence activism, Jensen identifies other problems such as ‘Humans are not capable of maintaining and caring for land’, which questions our natural humanity, forcing us to feel native to this planet, to stress the importance of being an active citizen in the changing world.
Jensen successfully identifies issues while verifying efficient actions to take in order to revert to caring for our home, it’s the only one we’ve got.If Jensen’s subliminal notion of this article were to be interpreted by philanthropist, Henry David Thoreau, I trust Thoreau would relate this notion to his idea of civil disobedience or a citizens obligation to participate in government action. isorder for the government to be effective the citizens of that government must also be actively involved. This involvement is vital when it comes to our humane animal obligation to protect the world from which we came, our home planet.
Quoting Jensen’s article, “We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned – Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more that manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that that role of an activists is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take those down.”
Although I would have to insist we do this nonviolently, because violence may only be overcome by nonviolence.
In Derrick Jensen’s "Forget Shorter Showers" he states that the little things that people do to save energy isn’t helping the big picture. I think by putting down the little things that each person does he is trying to motivate people. By saying that the action of individuals are doing nothing against the fight for a greener planet is going to get people thinking about what more they can do. In the article, Jensen says the little efforts from individuals have no impact on the big picture. Through his writing he is not trying to put the shorter showers and using solar energy to an end but open the eyes of the people to do more than just take shorter showers to step up and look at the bigger picture. But in the long run I do believe that the little things do add up and can help over time. The information Jensen presents concerning energy use and waste was pretty eye opening for me. The fact that 90% of the water used by humans is for agricultural and industrial use shows that big companies and industries have more of an impact on our water consumption and fuel usage than we thought, so Jensen definitely proves his point when he says that we are only a little part of the problem compared to the bigger companies. Through looking at Jensen’s ideas of targeting the big companies in these issues helped me see that even though you may think you are doing enough to get, there is always more you can to.
The overall message Jensen seemed to be trying to convey through giving the facts on water, energy and waste consumption is the truth and he states very bluntly what's currently going on. Although the latest "trend" seems to be going green, the facts given by Jensen reveal that even these individual efforts will do little to make a difference in the destruction to the planet. That isn't to say that individual efforts aren't helpful because they most definitely are and should be continued along with people coming together for a greater challenge. Revealed by Jensen, the numbers show that we need to focus our energy on making some huge changes in the way we run big corporations. Although the idea of giving up some of the technologies we have grown accustomed to scares some people, it doesn't necessarily mean we would be living without electricity or anything so drastic. The fact that we are now considered a consumer culture is a huge part of our abuse of resources. Everything around us tells us to shop, to update and to stay connected. But in reality we are losing touch with our fellow humans and also destroying our one planet in one giant blow. Having this type of culture is very demanding on resources and as we can now see, will destroy the planet in hardly any time at all. If we simply took a step back and searched a little deeper we'd realize that what we need isn't these huge corporations creating meaningless things simply for the sake of consuming, but a change. We have lost time for loved ones and the pursuit of happiness or even knowledge without a huge cost in exchange. Instead of continuing this vicious and meaningless cycle by consuming, we should be coming together and demanding a change. We should be angry, not in a violent way but in a strong way that demands change in the form of a change of culture. This may seem like a near impossible feat but really, there are so many different minds in the world and if they could only come together to save the planet and our society from the destruction that will inevitably come being a consuming culture; we could solve corporate waste and more. Jensen's message may be a harsh one, but it's a reality check and should be taken as seriously as it is. Social change as a whole is the only option for changing such a large part of our culture and preserving our planet among other things.
Bryan- I really like what he's saying in his blog post. He talks about how he believes Jensen's Article has the intention to motivate people. Bryan says that when Jensen criticizes the little things people do to help the environment and that its really not going to make a difference in the big picture, Bryan says that this is motivation to do more and look for options to make a difference; I couldn't agree more with him on that. He later goes on to talk about his opinion on how the little things are sometimes all that people can do. I think thats great and I totally agree that people should do whatever they can.
Anya- I totally agree with Anya's point that one person can make a difference on their own and that it takes a handful of people, and from that to continue to grow larger and larger in order to make a difference. She brought up this point because she points out how "going green" is a world wide objective, its not just a town or a county its all across the world. This is why Jensen makes such a strong argument that it takes groups of people to make a difference and help the environment.
Heather- I agreed with a lot of the points that your blog post stated. I also think that we need to start focusing on changing the way our big corporations are being run if we want to seriously help the latest trend of "going green." At the end of your post when you stated: "Social change as a whole is the only option for changing such a large part of our culture and preserving our planet among other things." really stuck out to me the most. I agree that social change is the most needed aspect when it comes to preserving our planet so that we could potentially prevent our ultimate demise.
Tyler- Spreading the word and getting everyone possible involved with a more green lifestyle is a much needed thing for our planet to continue to survive. Although there are lots of people out there today who really want to help our planet, not many of them are completely sure what to do so they feel as if they can't have a serious impact on our planet's future. I agree with many of the points that you stated throughout your blog post, and I believe that both personal and social change is needed for any major changes to be made to our current environmental situations.
Tyler- I agree with Tyler in that Jensen strives to let people know that individual change is not going to have an effect on the planet. The only way in which we can help the environment is to make a social change, where everyone is doing the little things to help save our environment. We do seem like we can’t do much because most of the destruction is not coming from individuals but the huge companies such as the agriculture businesses that use 90% of water. So if we do cut back on our shower time, that is still only a fraction of the water supply that we use in the world.
Lauren K- I also agree with Lauren In which Derrick Jensen doesn’t give enough credit to the individual in helping the environment. If no one cared about how much water the used, recycling, or how much fossil fuels we used, we would have more problems than we do know. Instead of not caring, we as individuals need to help save the environment by doing the little things that Jensen says won’t help at all. Like Lauren said 22% less carbon emissions is a lot better than it is now.
Lauren K.- I agreed with your comments about how every small contribution to going green is better than where we are now, and that spreading awareness is something that needs to happen. If more people know the facts and numbers of where our consumption actually occurs, they'd be a lot more likely to do something about the waste problems at big corporations. I also agreed that Jensen was trying to motivate and wake the public with the language choices throughout the article.
Alex- I definitely agree that we need a plan of action to solve our consumption problems that also involves people coming together. Yes, this is our home and we do have a democracy unlike other countries, therefore a choice to make a change. I liked how you pointed out that in order for our government to be effective, we the people need to be actively involved. Rather than bashing and going against our government, actually working together to change and better it is a great point.
Reply to... Alexa: I agree with what you said in this article write up. The point you were making about how the big companies are the majority of the problem and if they jumped on board is defiantly the best option to helping the people stay environmentally aware. I also feel that Jensen was a bit harsh with his article, maybe he should have done a little research with what a difference of just shorter showers can do.
Lauren K: Lauren I liked what you wrote about! You made a really valid point when you said that maybe he tried to make the reader angry enough to do something about the issue and go talk to the big companies. I never thought of that option, I just pictured that Jensen was very one sided on the topic.
Anya: I like what Anya said because, I believe it is the most realistic thing in everyones lives rite now no one is going out of there way to make a difference on there own. I really like how she stated that not one person will make not make a big enough change in the whole going green thing that is going on now. And I like how she had ways in there that you could go green for example having buildings or houses with solar panels.
Bryan: I like how Bryan started off by stating that the little things that people do to save energy isn’t helping the big picture. I think that it stated what the point was rite off at the beginning. And I also liked how you talked about at the end how you learned some new things.
Sam LaMonda: So I agree with almost everything you say. The one thing that I disagree with though is how you say he meant to make individuals feel like that when they read it. Did he? And if that is the case, I think it was somewhat pointless. He therefore discourages the individual about the small things they are doing, so how are they supposed to be expected to want to make a bigger difference and improve other "big businesses?" I just feel like this article may have been the exact opposite of motivating to individuals.
Brandon: I completely agree that this article was extremely insightful. I had never really thought of how anyone besides myself effected our planet's environment, never mind how big corporations were destroying it. They always tell you when you are a kid that turning the water off while you are brushing your teeth makes a huge difference, and saves the Earth, but Jensen has a different view to share. I thought this was a really interesting article, but that does not mean I'm going to stop taking 8 minute showers or let the water run the entire time I am brushing my teeth...
My Response is addressed to Brandon regarding his original blog post:
The end of your first sentence read, “ and what we truly need to do to fix it.” Recognizing that we do need to fix it your blog develops to read,
“Many people believe that just living a more "green" lifestyle with solar panels and what not will save this earth when Jensen says that we really need to take down our higher energy systems to make things better. I've never really thought of it that way but it could be a better solution if we combine a more green lifestyle alone with taking down bigger and more harmful systems. I'm not sure if Jensen thought about combining those two ideas—”
I just wanted to point out that Jensen’s example of showering less or less often is an individual “green” action. Whereas, the construction and accomplishment of systems and technologies such as, Greenpeace International’s proposed system “Energy Revolution”, would implement solar panels, wind turbine farms and focuses on the decentralization and regulation of power levels and carbon emissions, to build a healthy sustainable environment for life. We can see the progress of the “Green Revolution” as we look at countries like, China, Scandinavia, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, as many nations move to validate laws protecting the environment that we continuously take for granted. So much so that we have a reputation for it the USA is among the worst offenders, the worst environmental abusers are Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Italy, Paraguay, and the United States.
“—but since he doesn't really agree with the idea of solar panels and other appliances helping to save our environment I'm not sure if presenting my combination idea would change his mind at all.”
Jensen did not argue against solar panels, he argued against taking the easy way out. The “easy” way out of this environmental crisis will keep all of us on a short track to nowhere. By acting as we do it has been calculated we will not be able to maintain nor survive as consumers for much longer, if we ignore the problems than we go out without a fight, but if we take a chance and invest in sustainable futures the world would stand a healthy more humane chance at confronting and reverting problems of the natural world. Which brings my to my second thought….
Your post ended,
“Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughtout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.”
This stuck out to me for a few reasons, first you declare that in order for this plan to be effective we would have to wait and see if things popularized. The green revolution is a worldly organized campaign to limit the carbon footprint of our species and has been popularizing for decades, with the technological boom of the ninties we opened green doors like never before. Not a capitalistic based economic structure to inherit growth such as our government has been reputed to stand for. Or a “change” that appears identical, but a healthy serious change toward a more sustainable, healthy future. Unlike to real world, the world of the capitalist has unlimited resources and thus may assemble large infinite profits forever. As we are quickly figuring out this world of monetary law is inferior to the “we totally can’t breath without oxygen” law of the human world.
Second many campaigns, clubs, groups, organizations, and parties are emerging to support and defend the natural planet as being our largest, most valuable resource.
The phrasing of the last idea caught me by surprise, “or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.”
Sooner rather than later we will no longer be able to ignore these problems, that are only ‘current’ and ‘every day’ because we have continuously and continue to abuse the natural environment, that now has threatening consequences facing not only our community, nation or continent, but world. This threat to our world is manufactured everyday by what has become habitual action and continuous miscalculations of priorities.
“Global CO2 emissions under the Energy [R]evolution scenario will peak in 2015 and drop afterwards. Compared with today CO2 emissions will be more than 80% lower by 2050 when the energy supply is based almost entirely on renewable energies. While global emissions fall regional shares shift. OECD countries reduce their emissions faster which see their share of the global output drop from just over 50% today to 38% in 2020. This is achieved by implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.”
www.greenpeace.org/EnergyRevolution
It is important that individuals feel empowered to be the change they wish to see in the world. Whether that be on an individual or global level, action is essential. I think Jensen’s point is if you’re going to consciously ‘wake up’ and understand that environmental issues are relevant to the world around you, it is vital that reflect, plan and take action in an effective manner. Learn the facts and make a difference, this world is only what you make it. Our future depends on how we clean up a mess that was created decades ago, and it will take a conscious effort from a vast amount of people if they hope to restore the environment. We all have a role in this whether we choose to ignore that or not, we are still a part of this equation and can have an impact on the overall results.
Brandon- I liked how Brandon did not just agree with the article but said that with using the ideas from Jensen's article and other methods of reducing energy consumption. Their doing this he comes up with his own believes on becoming green instead of just taking in Jensen's. He does disagree with the article when it says taking shorter showers and using solar panels is not helping our planet at all. I like Brandon’s idea of combining Jensen's idea of taking down big energy corporations and to do the little energy saving methods too.
Sam L- Sam believed that Jensen's actions of putting down the little thing that people do to become greener actually has a reason. The reason is to get more people motivated people. I could not agree more with Sam. I think Jensen is doing this to make a point. I also like how Sam talked about this problem as a national problem in the United States, that it is this culture that needs to change too.
Lauren K. – I strongly agreed when you said, “When he says that individuals could only make the carbon emissions fall by 22%, I say that is a lot better than we are doing right now!” We shouldn’t forget about taking shorter showers or any other individual act that would help the environment. And who’s to say that statistic is even correct? It could be a lot more than that. Regardless, doing something to help the environment is SOMETHING and even if it doesn’t save the world, isn’t it still worth making that small effort? For example, littering. It seems lazy when people throw their trash on the ground when you can easily hold onto it until you can dispose of it properly. It is something that small that can help the earth immensely.
Brandon- I understand where you are coming from when you wrote, “Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems,” however I feel as though we shouldn’t “wait and see” if these changes will happen but rather do something about it now so we can see a change in the world in the future. If we want something done, the time is now and by waiting we are only letting the problem get worse by not doing anything about it. If you ignore it, then that is your choice but if you want to see a change in the world for the better then stop waiting and find out what you can do to start seeing a change.
Although I agree that Jensen is extremely harsh in the article, Forget Shorter Showers, I believe that it was his intent to get people to reflection upon their individual actions and the reality of how small each individual action is. He is very judgmental in this article, bashing those who feel good about reducing their individual harm to the earth which goes to say how he wants people to react. I think it is because people get too used to feeling good about the contribution they are doing, that they never intensify it by going the extra step. For this reason, the world is stuck at working individually at solving the climate crisis that is occurring. We need to get past the self satisfaction and stop doing good for the glorification, but do it because if we don't, we will kill the planet. On the other hand, people (especially the American Culture) needs a small starting point. Partly because we need to feel good about what we are doing so we can motivate ourselves to do more, but also because small goals are easier to accomplish and we can get a snowball effect of contribution going. Once everyone (not just the majority but EVERYONE) sees what needs to be done to reduce the harm we cause for the planet's health, we can focus on what can be done to fix the damage that is already done. With individuals making the decision to live simpler or "greener" we can come together with the same mindset and handle industrious and agriculture damage. It is always much easier to create disaster without any intentions than it is to recover from the damage. This battle will not be an easy one, but I believe the world is finally beginning to realize the severity of the situation and what steps need to be taken to recover from it.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article was very eye opening. It helped me see the environmental problem in a new light. Jensen seems harsh when he explains that individual changes like shorter showers or changing light bulbs won't make much of a difference. Although he makes a very valid point, doing small individual changes aren't pointless. He believes in order to achieve a cleaner environment, we need to talk to the big industries that are the real blame. I completely agree that if we want to see a change, we need to think bigger. However, I don't agree that we should "forget shorter showers". Putting a stand to big corporations is a big step, but the individual changes count too. If everyone stopped littering for example, that is a small change that could make a bigger difference to the environment. But that's not all we have to do either. Also, a point Jensen was trying to make was that one person can't save the world. If we want something done, we as humans need to work together. Jensen states in the article, "industrial civilization is killing the planet". So if we want something done, we should not only take shorter showers and recycle but also address the much bigger problem as well.
ReplyDeleteDerrick Jensen very strongly states his opinion in his article “Forget Shorter Showers.” I agree with him that personal change does not equal political change, but I am also a believer in the power of the individual. When he says that individuals could only make the carbon emissions fall by 22%, I say that is a lot better than we are doing right now! This article is negative to the point where it could make several individuals irritated while reading it. I don’t know if he did this purposefully, hoping individuals would try and make a difference and approach industries and agricultural representatives about it. I think it is a great idea to pressure industries and agriculture to try and cut down on their pollution, waste, and water use, but I also believe individuals should still have to feel some responsibility for contributing to all of these issues. Industries and agriculture are in place because we, the individuals, need them to be there to provide for us. It is not all their fault. If the demand went down, the supply would go down, therefore creating less carbon emissions and waste.
ReplyDeletePeople have become immune to living life how they want to. They get what they want, when they want it. I’m not saying people should all live more simply, but I think there does need to be some awareness raised about the issues we are having. Like Jensen says, any option is better than a dead planet. This is why if individuals are aware of the decisions they are making and how it effects the environment, it may sway the way big corporations and agriculture think about their consumers and environment.
In the article "Forget Shorter Showers" by Derrick Jensen I agreed with some of the statements that he said. I think that one person wont make a big enough change to help improve with the "Going Green" movement. It takes a hand full of people to start something, especially since this is a world wide movement/ problem that is going on. Saying this one person can choose to make the choice to influence other people to taking shorter showers, or recycling. People like trends, and new things, the idea could catch on and by used and liked by many. I think that big business are not the only problem and this isn't all their fault. We need to help make different ways that they can build their buildings using solar panel roofs, and such. This is the same situation with smaller businesses as well. I know that in my town, because its so small this trend could catch on and others would follow. We just need to find someone that wants to set up and take this responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Forget Shorter Showers” by Derrick Jenson, the author Jenson is very passionate in making his point clear. He made me think more about some key points and he brought strong evidence to support himself. I agree with Jenson that an individual change is not going to make any major political or social changes. He makes it clear that he believes in small changes like, taking shorter showers, will make no difference in the whole scheme of things. He’s right in that in order to make a difference it takes a large number of people. Helping the environment is a worldwide movement, and it will take many hands to make a difference. I like when he points out that a lot of our tactics in “Going Green” involve reducing our harmful imprint of the world and ignoring the fact that humans can also help. I agree with this and that harm reduction isn’t enough and that it will take lots of help to try and make a difference. Also in the end Jenson points out that there are many options we can take, it will just need to be a great political movement in order to take action.
ReplyDeleteThe article, "Forget Taking Showers" by Derrick Jensen, explains to those who read his work to understand that those who do contribute to helping the environment by doing the little that they attempt to do. Those who succeed in doing their part need to learn to increase what they do by spreading the word for others to do so in helping the planet, not individually but as a group together, working to save the place we all live. Jensen is pretty brutal in his article but he tells of what needs to be done in order to save this world. EVERYBODY needs to do their part as a group not individually. Just one person cannot change the fate of the planet, but that one person can change others to continue a chain that would likely increase the health of the planet and every living thing on it. Honestly, the article did make me a bit upset. Just Jensen saying that individually, nothing could change the fate of the planet. It kind of made me feel inferior and worthless. But just as he states in his article, "Personal change doesn’t equal social change" is actually quite true. The only way to bring about social change over personal change is to fight for it. Fight and just maybe the change sought could become reality.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “ Forgetting Shorter Showers by Derek Jensen he makes his point very clear at the beginning of the article, by doing this I believe he is trying to convince everyone that he is correct whether some may like it or not. I do agree with what Jensen say because one person taking shorter showers overtime is not going to make a significant difference unless everyone in the world would do so. When we look at the bigger picture I mean as in the whole world doing the little things here and there it is not going to make that much of a difference for us going green. If people are going to go green they will have to do everything from recycling to having solar panels, and driving less. In my opinion if the world was to do so, it would be a cleaner healthier place, because the environment would not have so much pollution and waste. Hopefully this change can start off in smaller towns or cities and eventually grow so that everyone one will realize it is possible to make a difference and will contribute to what will hopefully be a success.
ReplyDeleteThis article by Derrick Jensen definitely has a lot of insight as to what's wrong with our planet's environment and what we truly need to do to fix it. Many people believe that just living a more "green" lifestyle with solar panels and what not will save this earth when Jensen says that we really need to take down our higher energy systems to make things better. I've never really thought of it that way but it could be a better solution if we combine a more green lifestyle alone with taking down bigger and more harmful systems. I'm not sure if Jensen thought about combining those two ideas, but since he doesn't really agree with the idea of solar panels and other appliances helping to save our environment I'm not sure if presenting my combination idea would change his mind at all.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard the title of this article, I was anxious to hear any ideas that would be presented by someone writing such an article. I actually must admit that I thought taking shorter showers and using more green technology would be great ways of saving our planet, and I still stick by those ideas even though I have read Jensen's article and heard his ideas on preventing global destruction. Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughtout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePART ONE:
ReplyDeleteDerrick Jensen’s article, Forget Shorter Showers, was an educated environmentalist ‘Modern-Day Modest Proposal”. The correlation between Jensen’s request to act effectively toward causes of global warming and Johnathan Swift’s plea for the monarchy to help its people eat is drenched in activist irony.
At the end of the first paragraph, following the reference of a few historically nonviolent resistance actions, Jensen asks, “Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solution”?” His tone implies the urgency of action while dismissing shorter showers for being ineffective.
Jensen mentions a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth" and its inability to impact growing environmental issues of 1997. Politically inclined environmentalist Al Gore stars in the 1997 documentary that speaks of only individual impersonal actions instead of a deliberate plan for change. Jensen's tone strongly encourages that change is vital, and activism is necessary. The fact that we as individuals do not make up the larger part of the emissions but that the corporations and industries that makes up the other 78%. Jensen adds a sense of urgency including, “Scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75 percent worldwide”. Facing the serious problems associated with global warming will take far more than an apathetic attitudes toward action, and a solid plan of action. Hence Jensen's point of taking shorter showers is only a small action to take along the way to achieving the larger, macro- sensitive structures of the global system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteART TWO:
ReplyDeleteJensen describes what sociologists call the micro and macro levels of human reaction. While people are thinking in the micro world they do not look from a macro perspective. Jensen emphasizes that on a Macro level no one will survive if the planet does not survive. While individualistic actions are effective the way to make your individual action really count is to actively participate in the system to which one belongs. In a democracy such as ours we have the potential to make a change, where as in many parts of the world they do not have rights to things as simple as education.
Jensen emphasizes his transition from why only
showering less is pointless to induce readers to get involved, and directing confront global issues with effective civil actions.
“So how, then, and especially with all the world at stake, have we come to accept these utterly insufficient responses? I think part of it is that we’re in a double blind. A double blind is where you’ve given multiple options, but no matter what option you choose, you lose, and withdrawal is not an option. At this point it should be easy to recognize that ever action involving the industrial economy is destructive…… If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to five up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone loses. –Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”
This is the turning point of Jensen’s article as he transitions away from the idea of showering less as an effective action and begins to support real actions in order to promote a healthy sustainable change. He then addresses further problems with relating simple living to political action.
To influence activism, Jensen identifies other problems such as ‘Humans are not capable of maintaining and caring for land’, which questions our natural humanity, forcing us to feel native to this planet, to stress the importance of being an active citizen in the changing world.
Jensen successfully identifies issues while verifying efficient actions to take in order to revert to caring for our home, it’s the only one we’ve got.If Jensen’s subliminal notion of this article were to be interpreted by philanthropist, Henry David Thoreau, I trust Thoreau would relate this notion to his idea of civil disobedience
or a citizens obligation to participate in government action. isorder for the government to be effective the citizens of that government must also be actively involved. This involvement is vital when it comes to our humane animal obligation to protect the world from which we came, our home planet.
Quoting Jensen’s article, “We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned – Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more that manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that that role of an activists is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take those down.”
Although I would have to insist we do this nonviolently, because violence may only be overcome by nonviolence.
--AV
In Derrick Jensen’s "Forget Shorter Showers" he states that the little things that people do to save energy isn’t helping the big picture. I think by putting down the little things that each person does he is trying to motivate people. By saying that the action of individuals are doing nothing against the fight for a greener planet is going to get people thinking about what more they can do. In the article, Jensen says the little efforts from individuals have no impact on the big picture. Through his writing he is not trying to put the shorter showers and using solar energy to an end but open the eyes of the people to do more than just take shorter showers to step up and look at the bigger picture. But in the long run I do believe that the little things do add up and can help over time.
ReplyDeleteThe information Jensen presents concerning energy use and waste was pretty eye opening for me. The fact that 90% of the water used by humans is for agricultural and industrial use shows that big companies and industries have more of an impact on our water consumption and fuel usage than we thought, so Jensen definitely proves his point when he says that we are only a little part of the problem compared to the bigger companies. Through looking at Jensen’s ideas of targeting the big companies in these issues helped me see that even though you may think you are doing enough to get, there is always more you can to.
The overall message Jensen seemed to be trying to convey through giving the facts on water, energy and waste consumption is the truth and he states very bluntly what's currently going on. Although the latest "trend" seems to be going green, the facts given by Jensen reveal that even these individual efforts will do little to make a difference in the destruction to the planet. That isn't to say that individual efforts aren't helpful because they most definitely are and should be continued along with people coming together for a greater challenge. Revealed by Jensen, the numbers show that we need to focus our energy on making some huge changes in the way we run big corporations. Although the idea of giving up some of the technologies we have grown accustomed to scares some people, it doesn't necessarily mean we would be living without electricity or anything so drastic. The fact that we are now considered a consumer culture is a huge part of our abuse of resources. Everything around us tells us to shop, to update and to stay connected. But in reality we are losing touch with our fellow humans and also destroying our one planet in one giant blow. Having this type of culture is very demanding on resources and as we can now see, will destroy the planet in hardly any time at all. If we simply took a step back and searched a little deeper we'd realize that what we need isn't these huge corporations creating meaningless things simply for the sake of consuming, but a change. We have lost time for loved ones and the pursuit of happiness or even knowledge without a huge cost in exchange. Instead of continuing this vicious and meaningless cycle by consuming, we should be coming together and demanding a change. We should be angry, not in a violent way but in a strong way that demands change in the form of a change of culture. This may seem like a near impossible feat but really, there are so many different minds in the world and if they could only come together to save the planet and our society from the destruction that will inevitably come being a consuming culture; we could solve corporate waste and more. Jensen's message may be a harsh one, but it's a reality check and should be taken as seriously as it is. Social change as a whole is the only option for changing such a large part of our culture and preserving our planet among other things.
ReplyDeleteBryan- I really like what he's saying in his blog post. He talks about how he believes Jensen's Article has the intention to motivate people. Bryan says that when Jensen criticizes the little things people do to help the environment and that its really not going to make a difference in the big picture, Bryan says that this is motivation to do more and look for options to make a difference; I couldn't agree more with him on that. He later goes on to talk about his opinion on how the little things are sometimes all that people can do. I think thats great and I totally agree that people should do whatever they can.
ReplyDeleteAnya- I totally agree with Anya's point that one person can make a difference on their own and that it takes a handful of people, and from that to continue to grow larger and larger in order to make a difference. She brought up this point because she points out how "going green" is a world wide objective, its not just a town or a county its all across the world. This is why Jensen makes such a strong argument that it takes groups of people to make a difference and help the environment.
Heather- I agreed with a lot of the points that your blog post stated. I also think that we need to start focusing on changing the way our big corporations are being run if we want to seriously help the latest trend of "going green." At the end of your post when you stated: "Social change as a whole is the only option for changing such a large part of our culture and preserving our planet among other things." really stuck out to me the most. I agree that social change is the most needed aspect when it comes to preserving our planet so that we could potentially prevent our ultimate demise.
ReplyDeleteTyler- Spreading the word and getting everyone possible involved with a more green lifestyle is a much needed thing for our planet to continue to survive. Although there are lots of people out there today who really want to help our planet, not many of them are completely sure what to do so they feel as if they can't have a serious impact on our planet's future. I agree with many of the points that you stated throughout your blog post, and I believe that both personal and social change is needed for any major changes to be made to our current environmental situations.
Tyler- I agree with Tyler in that Jensen strives to let people know that individual change is not going to have an effect on the planet. The only way in which we can help the environment is to make a social change, where everyone is doing the little things to help save our environment. We do seem like we can’t do much because most of the destruction is not coming from individuals but the huge companies such as the agriculture businesses that use 90% of water. So if we do cut back on our shower time, that is still only a fraction of the water supply that we use in the world.
ReplyDeleteLauren K- I also agree with Lauren In which Derrick Jensen doesn’t give enough credit to the individual in helping the environment. If no one cared about how much water the used, recycling, or how much fossil fuels we used, we would have more problems than we do know. Instead of not caring, we as individuals need to help save the environment by doing the little things that Jensen says won’t help at all. Like Lauren said 22% less carbon emissions is a lot better than it is now.
Lauren K.- I agreed with your comments about how every small contribution to going green is better than where we are now, and that spreading awareness is something that needs to happen. If more people know the facts and numbers of where our consumption actually occurs, they'd be a lot more likely to do something about the waste problems at big corporations. I also agreed that Jensen was trying to motivate and wake the public with the language choices throughout the article.
ReplyDeleteAlex- I definitely agree that we need a plan of action to solve our consumption problems that also involves people coming together. Yes, this is our home and we do have a democracy unlike other countries, therefore a choice to make a change. I liked how you pointed out that in order for our government to be effective, we the people need to be actively involved. Rather than bashing and going against our government, actually working together to change and better it is a great point.
Reply to...
ReplyDeleteAlexa: I agree with what you said in this article write up. The point you were making about how the big companies are the majority of the problem and if they jumped on board is defiantly the best option to helping the people stay environmentally aware. I also feel that Jensen was a bit harsh with his article, maybe he should have done a little research with what a difference of just shorter showers can do.
Lauren K: Lauren I liked what you wrote about! You made a really valid point when you said that maybe he tried to make the reader angry enough to do something about the issue and go talk to the big companies. I never thought of that option, I just pictured that Jensen was very one sided on the topic.
Anya: I like what Anya said because, I believe it is the most realistic thing in everyones lives rite now no one is going out of there way to make a difference on there own. I really like how she stated that not one person will make not make a big enough change in the whole going green thing that is going on now. And I like how she had ways in there that you could go green for example having buildings or houses with solar panels.
ReplyDeleteBryan: I like how Bryan started off by stating that the little things that people do to save energy isn’t helping the big picture. I think that it stated what the point was rite off at the beginning. And I also liked how you talked about at the end how you learned some new things.
Sam LaMonda: So I agree with almost everything you say. The one thing that I disagree with though is how you say he meant to make individuals feel like that when they read it. Did he? And if that is the case, I think it was somewhat pointless. He therefore discourages the individual about the small things they are doing, so how are they supposed to be expected to want to make a bigger difference and improve other "big businesses?" I just feel like this article may have been the exact opposite of motivating to individuals.
ReplyDeleteBrandon: I completely agree that this article was extremely insightful. I had never really thought of how anyone besides myself effected our planet's environment, never mind how big corporations were destroying it. They always tell you when you are a kid that turning the water off while you are brushing your teeth makes a huge difference, and saves the Earth, but Jensen has a different view to share. I thought this was a really interesting article, but that does not mean I'm going to stop taking 8 minute showers or let the water run the entire time I am brushing my teeth...
My Response is addressed to Brandon regarding his original blog post:
ReplyDeleteThe end of your first sentence read, “ and what we truly need to do to fix it.” Recognizing that we do need to fix it your blog develops to read,
“Many people believe that just living a more "green" lifestyle with solar panels and what not will save this earth when Jensen says that we really need to take down our higher energy systems to make things better. I've never really thought of it that way but it could be a better solution if we combine a more green lifestyle alone with taking down bigger and more harmful systems. I'm not sure if Jensen thought about combining those two ideas—”
I just wanted to point out that Jensen’s example of showering less or less often is an individual “green” action. Whereas, the construction and accomplishment of systems and technologies such as, Greenpeace International’s proposed system “Energy Revolution”, would implement solar panels, wind turbine farms and focuses on the decentralization and regulation of power levels and carbon emissions, to build a healthy sustainable environment for life. We can see the progress of the “Green Revolution” as we look at countries like, China, Scandinavia, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, as many nations move to validate laws protecting the environment that we continuously take for granted. So much so that we have a reputation for it the USA is among the worst offenders, the worst environmental abusers are Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Italy, Paraguay, and the United States.
“—but since he doesn't really agree with the idea of solar panels and other appliances helping to save our environment I'm not sure if presenting my combination idea would change his mind at all.”
ReplyDeleteJensen did not argue against solar panels, he argued against taking the easy way out. The “easy” way out of this environmental crisis will keep all of us on a short track to nowhere. By acting as we do it has been calculated we will not be able to maintain nor survive as consumers for much longer, if we ignore the problems than we go out without a fight, but if we take a chance and invest in sustainable futures the world would stand a healthy more humane chance at confronting and reverting problems of the natural world. Which brings my to my second thought….
Your post ended,
“Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughtout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.”
This stuck out to me for a few reasons, first you declare that in order for this plan to be effective we would have to wait and see if things popularized. The green revolution is a worldly organized campaign to limit the carbon footprint of our species and has been popularizing for decades, with the technological boom of the ninties we opened green doors like never before. Not a capitalistic based economic structure to inherit growth such as our government has been reputed to stand for. Or a “change” that appears identical, but a healthy serious change toward a more sustainable, healthy future. Unlike to real world, the world of the capitalist has unlimited resources and thus may assemble large infinite profits forever. As we are quickly figuring out this world of monetary law is inferior to the “we totally can’t breath without oxygen” law of the human world.
Second many campaigns, clubs, groups, organizations, and parties are emerging to support and defend the natural planet as being our largest, most valuable resource.
The phrasing of the last idea caught me by surprise,
“or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems.”
Sooner rather than later we will no longer be able to ignore these problems, that are only ‘current’ and ‘every day’ because we have continuously and continue to abuse the natural environment, that now has threatening consequences facing not only our community, nation or continent, but world. This threat to our world is manufactured everyday by what has become habitual action and continuous miscalculations of priorities.
“Global CO2 emissions under the Energy [R]evolution scenario will peak in 2015 and drop afterwards. Compared with today CO2 emissions will be more than 80% lower by 2050 when the energy supply is based almost entirely on renewable energies. While global emissions fall regional shares shift. OECD countries reduce their emissions faster which see their share of the global output drop from just over 50% today to 38% in 2020. This is achieved by implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.”
www.greenpeace.org/EnergyRevolution
It is important that individuals feel empowered to be the change they wish to see in the world. Whether that be on an individual or global level, action is essential. I think Jensen’s point is if you’re going to consciously ‘wake up’ and understand that environmental issues are relevant to the world around you, it is vital that reflect, plan and take action in an effective manner. Learn the facts and make a difference, this world is only what you make it. Our future depends on how we clean up a mess that was created decades ago, and it will take a conscious effort from a vast amount of people if they hope to restore the environment. We all have a role in this whether we choose to ignore that or not, we are still a part of this equation and can have an impact on the overall results.
A.Valente
Brandon- I liked how Brandon did not just agree with the article but said that with using the ideas from Jensen's article and other methods of reducing energy consumption. Their doing this he comes up with his own believes on becoming green instead of just taking in Jensen's. He does disagree with the article when it says taking shorter showers and using solar panels is not helping our planet at all. I like Brandon’s idea of combining Jensen's idea of taking down big energy corporations and to do the little energy saving methods too.
ReplyDeleteSam L- Sam believed that Jensen's actions of putting down the little thing that people do to become greener actually has a reason. The reason is to get more people motivated people. I could not agree more with Sam. I think Jensen is doing this to make a point. I also like how Sam talked about this problem as a national problem in the United States, that it is this culture that needs to change too.
Lauren K. – I strongly agreed when you said, “When he says that individuals could only make the carbon emissions fall by 22%, I say that is a lot better than we are doing right now!” We shouldn’t forget about taking shorter showers or any other individual act that would help the environment. And who’s to say that statistic is even correct? It could be a lot more than that. Regardless, doing something to help the environment is SOMETHING and even if it doesn’t save the world, isn’t it still worth making that small effort? For example, littering. It seems lazy when people throw their trash on the ground when you can easily hold onto it until you can dispose of it properly. It is something that small that can help the earth immensely.
ReplyDeleteBrandon- I understand where you are coming from when you wrote, “Even though combining green technology with taking down harmful corporations could lead to a much healthier planet, we'll have to wait and see if these ideas become spread throughout the world or if we continue to ignore our current every day environmental problems,” however I feel as though we shouldn’t “wait and see” if these changes will happen but rather do something about it now so we can see a change in the world in the future. If we want something done, the time is now and by waiting we are only letting the problem get worse by not doing anything about it. If you ignore it, then that is your choice but if you want to see a change in the world for the better then stop waiting and find out what you can do to start seeing a change.