Blog#4:  What do you think of “green values?”  Which ones do you most believe in?  What surprised you the most about the readings?



It is hard to define green ethics and values because there are many branches and directions one could take. To understand what green values are, the relationship between humans and nature must be defined. Some views say that humans can use natures resources and exploit them. Whereas, other ethics says that we must protect nature and nonhuman goods. 

I would say that I agree with a good amount of the green values approaches and ideals. I think that focusing on the community, persons, and environment are all important aspects to good ethics. One area of green values that was new to me was to rid the hierarchy of our society and where everyone's respected equally. This is something that would be incredibly difficulty for most to comprehend. We live in a society that is so anthropocentric that even just putting humans and nature on the same level seems radical. 

Personally, I think that we should have similar levels of respect for nature that we do for individuals. Our natural environment around us has outlived any species and only provides us benefits. But humans think that we can go in and us all of the resources and destroy the land because it doesn't directly effect them. But what most do not consider is the impacts that they have on the environment and how small changes, good or bad, can have large impacts. With green values, this mind set is challenged and helps to open up a new way of thinking. But still many of these values are not going to adapted or accepted by the general public. 

Lobby Day

Yesterday was quite an experience when we went to the State House to lobby..

Prior to this, I had met Debbie from the Conservation Voters when she came to talk with my environmental ethics class. She told us about their mission and what it was that they try to accomplish while the senate and house are in session. The amount of time and action that is required just to try to convince these members of office, is a crazy process. I don't think that this is an area that I would ever want to get involved with but it was very interesting to see how it worked.

While I was there I was overwhelmed by the amount of people that came to lobby the Senate. There were groups from all over the state that wanted to push their bill or funding just as much as the others. After talking briefly with Prof Whiteman and Jenny I was able to look over the packet that they provided. It gave us what the bills were, who exactly to talk to and even what they looked like. I felt out of place from being from out of state but once I saw others in my class talking to Senators it eased my nerves a little. But if I did talk to one questions ran through my head like, how would I know what to say, where do I say I'm from, why am I trying to push this bill? And even more so, why wouldn't they want to pass it?

This got me thinking. There are always two sides to each sides to an argrument, and it is important to see where others are coming from. This is true with many environmental issues and the resistance that they may receive from opposing parties. Sometimes it has to do with politics and sticking to their word, other times money is the main reason, and sometimes people simply just don't care. So how do we approach these issues and come to a compromise or agreement that makes both parties happy. Personally, I don't think that an answer will come from lobbying alone. It comes from a mixture of awareness and education on these issues and then stressing the importance and sharing personal experiences. People won't respond unless you use a combination of communication techniques and networking. This is a problem that is very apparent with environmental issues in our country and it is hard to tell which direction it is going to go, but hopefully our actions will impact at least one person.

Food Inc.

For as long as I can remember, fruits and veggies were as important as any protein that I would consume. Before I was served dinner I would have a cup full of raw vegetables and my dessert would include some fruit. The main course would typically include a steak, chicken, or fish and sometimes both. But I growing up I never thought or questioned where my food came from.

It wasn't until I started cooking for myself in high school that I had to encounter cleaning a chicken or de-veining a shrimp. This got me thinking about why I had to do this and what would happen if I didn't clean it properly. With this I started to look into where my food came from and how it was produced. What I found, at this time, astonished me but I couldn't do anything about it. While I lived at my parents house I was not allowed to become a vegetarian, vegan, or pescatarain because they did not want to support this lifestyle nor pay for it. What I was served I had to eat, as it had been my whole life.

So, once I got to college I started eating less meat and fish because frankly I didn't like any of the food on campus and didn't trust most of the processed foods. So I resorted back to my parents style of cooking and consumed large amounts of vegetables and raw foods. But as you can image this is expensive and hard to do with a college lifestyle. 

Once I moved into my first apartment sophomore year I was able to cook for myself and shop for foods that better suited my lifestyle and eating habits. It was around this time that I first saw Food Inc and other similar documentaries. What they showed disgusted me and turned me off to the meat market and production. I couldn't imagine eating an animal that suffered and was put under such conditions just for me to enjoy a little protein. I think the whole process is very cruel and unjust. However, there isn't much that we can do about it because of all the food subsidies and the amount of mass production that we have in this country. Just today I drove through Delaware and Virginia and passed countless chicken farms and supply stores. I can not describe the horrible stench that followed these chicken coops, even with my car windows up. The processing farms, owned by Tyson and Purdue, were also massive and left horrible feelings and smells.

Don't get me wrong, a good juicy steak is my favorite meal and will always be. But now I can at least monitor where my meat comes from and how much I eat of it. I have tried to become more educated on what it is that I am in taking and where my food comes from because this directly effects my health and the environment. All of these poultry farms are hurting the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding areas with their run off and pollutants. This is something that I do not support and I try to not support them through not purchasing their products when I can. I just hope that others will also become aware of this problem and its impacts to our health and environment. 

Green Politics

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?

Personally, I think that the United States is ridiculous for not moving forward with energy and environmental policies. We had the opportunity to join the Kyoto Protocol when it was first organized and the United States backed out and did not approve it. I think that this decision caused the overall Protocol to not be as successful as it could have been. Our decision negatively impacted the rest of the countries involved because we are one of the largest contributors to emissions. If we can't move forward and recognize our impacts on global warming and rising green house gas emissions, why should other countries work hard to make changes. 

This is a hard topic and often debated because there is little understanding over environmental issues and support in our government. Many policy makers are not educated on the these issues or are too stubborn to want to believe them. When combining these problems with the economic factors of environmental policy, policy makers are scared away. Committing and admitting to environmental policies and laws are touchy subjects because of their unknown potential and impacts. 

Therefore, it is important to educate our policy makers on issues relating to environmental policy and support. If they do not know that these are issues that citizens feel are important, they may not put as much attention or concern for them. I am concerned with our energy policies and the security of our natural resources. Of course, also the construction of the XL Pipeline, in which the US will not benefit from but instead support the increased emissions and transport of cheap quality oil. 

Green Democracy

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?  

The Green Party is a group of "greens" that are comitted to the environment with non-voilence, social justice, and grassroots methods. With that being said, I would support their values and motives because I think that they are important. Their structure is based off of the green values that we have studied in class. The ones that I feel are most important to emphasize are Green Democracy, Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, Non-volience, and Future Focus. The others may seem too radical for those that are not interested or educated in this party and their ideals. I can not say wether I would be interested in joining the Green Party but it is something that I would definitily look into when looking at whos running during an election. I think that the more support and Green Democracts in office, the better because they may be able to help influcence policy making. 


The Earth First! group's actions and ideas are good in some ways. Based on what I know and have read, they take a very forward approach to saving the environment and getting the message out there. Their methods of "monkey-wrenching" are detailed and thought out, which is a good thing when you are targeting and forcing an action to be stopped. However, I think that it is a little extreme. I wouldn't even think to vandalize a piece of machinery so that their actions don't harm the environment. Personally I dont think that this is fair or just because it may not be workers fault that they are instructed to bulldoze a peice of land and I don't think they should be punished. I would take a larger approach of going directly to the company or contractor and try to work something out more maturely.

Spiritual Ecology

What religion were you raised with and how does that affect your view of spiritual ecology? What are your opinions on the Gaia Hypothesis? Do you agree or disagree?  Do you believe we live in a hyper-masculine culture? If so, how do you see it changing?

My religious background gets a little confusing and has changed greatly so far. My father was raised a hardcore Irish Catholic, attending church a least once a week and going to Catholic school his whole life. My grandmas is 95 and still goes to church 3 times a week and volunteers regularly. My mothers side was not as intense with religion, but attended a Presbyterian church. Growing up religion seemed to be something that we just did. Becuase my dad required a church with communion, we became Episcopalian. I am baptised, had my holy communion, and confirmation, and participated in youth groups. My mother, now Buddhist, was an active member on the vestry board and we fit in with the community. 

As we got older and busier, church became more of a chore and just another activity in our busy lifestyle. We slowly stopped going to church and I started going with my best friends family. It was what I thought I was supposed to do and to believe in some higher figure. My parents supported my decisions and would facilitate it. Religion was never something that my family debated or questioned, it was always just there if you wanted to believe.

Today, I have found that I do not have the same beliefs that I did as a child. There is too much science against how the Bible states humans came to be. I am open to the idea of Jesus and God and their society and stories because those events may have taken place. But I think that religion is more of an escape for human nature to want to believe in something, blame something, strive to impress. I do try to be openminded with religious beliefs, though, because I feel to each his own. For example, my oldest sister and her family are very religious and rely on praying to achieve things. "God helped us get this" or "if we pray it will be okay" are things that I have heard them preach. Personally, I feel that self realization and happiness is what we should strive for. I have started to follow my mothers new path to Buddhism and mediation. Where there is respect for others and the earth but I emphasize less on prayer and reliance to the gods. 

It is probably no surprise then that I understand where the Gaia hypothesis comes from. I think the approach that Lovelock took is interesting and makes sense. I believe that our world is bicentric and that everything is connected. Our earth is a living being in itself through what it provides us and the cycles that are natural processes. I think that the hypothesis as a whole may be a little extreme but the founding are good. I am interested to see my peers, who may be more religious than I am, opinions and feelings on this hypothesis. Also, how defensive and stubborn some will be about views that are opposing to theirs.  

Social Ecology

What is Social Ecology? What are your reactions to the readings? What forms of hierarchy are in our world today? Are these hierarchies natural? Are there any better alternatives? 

Social Ecology is somewhat related to Deep Ecology except for how intense it is. While Bookchin thinks that deep ecology is too radical and hard to implement, many of the concepts are similar. Social ecology breaks down the image that we have put on ecology and nature. That it frees nature from any anthropogenic sources and market-placed images on what nature truly is. It also is structured on a non-hierarchal democracy and deconstruction or submission to the market.

Personally, I feel that it is hard to describe what social ecology really is. The Bookchin reading was difficult to follow but from what I grasped, social ecology takes an ecocentric approach. This means that instead of focusing on the individual, the ecosystem as a whole is studied. 

I think that social ecology may be easier to integrate into our society than deep ecology while still maintaining similar respect for nature. Social ecology is about breaking down hierarchy and taking a more egalitarian approach. This is something that our society would have difficulty with because, whether we like it or not, class systems are all around us. Just within our university there is hierarchy within our governing structure, between students and a professor, within classmates and peers. It is a process that has become natural because as humans we are taught to strive to be the best and on top of the rest. These standing and class systems have become natural to our society and our economy. But as a whole nation, it is interesting to see the impacts that we have on less developed countries. It is was interesting to make these connections and see the impacts that we have on the environment and nature when approached from this direction. I do know that as a successful nation we try to help the less developed nations and their impacts on the environment.