Blog Post #14

"What surprised you about the process of Environmental
Policy? Do you think that the U.S. Senate should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
Why or why not. Why do you think creating and implementing environmental policy
is so difficult locally, nationally, and internationally? Should communities and
local government do more on a local level to create environmental policy? What
environmental issues would you like to see addressed by policy makers?"

I was not really surprised by the readings - I've had a geology class that went pretty in detail about global environemental policy and the stopping points during my freshman year.  I am surprised, I guess, that under a new presidential administration and almost 4 years later, the environment has still not become much more of a priority in the international arena, or at least enough to bring all the global powers together.

 I do think that the U.S. should have signed the protocol with ratifications.  The articles talked about anticipated growth in the U.S. at 3% per year being directly in conflict with reducing emissions because this meant an increase of 12%.  However, could there not have been any other way to make promises to curb emissions?  I think that just a promise to invest in green technologies that would later reduce these emissions would have been a fair thing to include rather than blanket promises to reduce emissions.  What I am proposing, I guess, is a shift in focus from "what can be done right now" to "what can we do right now that can improve us in the future" - and this may not even be the near future in this sense.  For example, investments in green technology, let's say wind turbine projects, may not return energy savings until years down the road. At the same time, how can we promise to reduce emissions on a year to year basis?  This I think was more the issue that the U.S. faced than anything because it's the underlying issue to their political conflicts with the developing nations.  Changing the terms of the protocol to take into account more realistic and fair measures of accountability for the states would have eased us into signing the protocol, I think. Signing it with such measures would have been an important step to overcome the barrier of simply joining international powers.  According to the articles, it took European nations 3 years to get together the resources for the conference.  With the U.S. being such an important player, backing out of these negotiations means maybe years until the other developed countries could muster up the same or more resources to reconsider envienvironmental concerns on a global level.

Blog Post #13

"What do you think of ecofemisnism before you read, and after? Did you have any strong reactions? What do forms of dominance do you see in the world around you?"

Well I honestly had no idea what ecofeminism was in contrast to other forms of feminism before the readings. The closest understanding I could come to has to do with my study abroad experience in Chile. I had a class in which we studied native civilizations to Chile, and we learned a lot about a certain culture that was actually matriarchal to begin with. That later changed, but before the women were the ones that built certain tales, or myths, surrounding their culture to explain their right to power in their society. Beyond that experience, I would not have thought that ecofeminism was as its most basic definition a study of the understanding of how everything interrelates and the place of nature and women within that web.

I've gained some neat insights from the readings. In the Spretnak reading, she talks about the roots of ecofeminism, and of these I found a few most interesting, and some of the other readings elaborate on them: creation-centered spirituality and ecofeminism as it relates to nature, and more specifically agriculture. The logic in connecting God's (or whatever Creator or Creators) creation of the Earth, to our covenant to defend and protect that Earth, and then to the folly of creating the "myths" that uphold a masculine-centered society that are by no means natural to this creation of God or whomever makes a lot of sense to me. It's a wonderful realization of what is real and what is not. The sun and the oceans are real, but what rules by which we run our societies are not necessarily, and that encompasses the rules that interrelate us. The article about agriculture and India from Huffington post was also something I did not expect to be a part of ecofeminism, but opened my eyes a bit to the breadth of the topic.

Blog Post #12

Would you join the Green Party or not?  What aspects of green values do you believe should be ideally incorporated into a "green" party?  Do these align, do you think, with the Green Party? Also, are the Earth First! activists justified in their actions? 
(Optional extra question for fun: If you were to run for political office with the Green Party/your ideal "green" party, who would you seek out to be your celebrity endorser and why?)

After going in depth with our game and presentation into the Green Party Platform, I think that I would join the Green Party.  And I do think that the Green Party is a good representation of the green values as we have learned them in class.

I agree with a lot of the issues that they are bringing to the table, and I think a lot of other Americans would as well if they were to read more into the specific issues they support. Some of the positions and solutions might be controversial, however, in their implementation (e.g. a living wage or a call for disarmament), and many of these would also be sticking points for me as well unless I were to see more in terms of actual implementation.  On face value, I absolutely align with their 10 Key Values of the Green Party and the four pillars to their platform: Democracy, Social Justice, Ecological Sustainability, and Economic Justice and Sustainability. Particularly, I strongly support electoral reform.  I took AP Government in high school my senior year and learned back then what a complicated topic this is an the myriad obstacles there are to reform. I honestly do not believe that either party in power really does want reform for threat of multiparty power. Some other positions and solutions that the Green Party offers that I most like include their emphasis on businesses not being considered people by the law, their support of the arts to build community, and the creation of job banks and training programs offered by the government to stimulate jobs and incorporate everyone into our local economies.

On the other hand, there are elements of Green Democracy that I do not agree with from the readings. For example, progressive taxes are not the solution in my mind...this is inherently against green values in that different professions should have equal compensation in the first place.  I do not believe that taking away from those who have and giving to those who do not is applied in the right sense with this part of the platform.  I think there must be another solution; for example, raising significantly the wages of all workers and leveling the playing field.  At the same time, I also think you would have to lower the cost of education for the fields that require much more.  As well, I do not think that the Earth First!ers solution is a representation of green democracy either. Their actions are wasting resources, and I think that there are better ways - if longer and more challenging - to go about change.