Filed under: Articles
Again, many of you may feel frustrated by the tone of my print article. For the most part, I’ve used the print medium to provoke discussion on the blog. I hope you find the time to consider the following:
I ripped the “green” advertising campaign, specifically the one Wal-mart has paraded around. If you expect me to apologize to Wal-mart, you’re dead wrong. However, I will say a few things. First of all, I don’t want you all to feel that you must abandon anything and everything labeled as “green.” Some of these products are cetainly a step in the right direction. Plant-based cleaners are far better than most of the other cleaners found on the shelves in general stores.
What I propose is that whenever possible, choose to not buy. Don’t buy when you have cleaners already. Use them. Use them sparingly. If you have a car that runs well, don’t buy an ethanol vehicle or an electric car. Drive that car until you can’t maintain it anymore. Drive it sparingly. When it dies, bike. Bike until you absolutely need another car. Then use public transport. When you run out of all alternatives for travel, then buy a used car. Don’t put another new car on the road because you’re just encouraging the growth of the car market — a market that requires an immense amount of energy and natural resources to produce. You are encouraging the production of something that is already available on the used market.
Speaking of the used market, let’s talk about necessities like food, clothing and shelter. My parents knocked down an old house in Kirkwood, MO to build another house on the same plot. I have this blog to express my beliefs and my feelings, but I also have it for use in my professional portfolio: Let’s say I’m understating my true feelings when I say I’m disappointed. When you look for a place to live in the future, rent or buy an apartment or house that is old, not new. Don’t support new developments, suburban expansion, or gentrification. Affluency sterilizes cultural diversity in that monetary wealth encourages the most environmentally degradative practices, specifically consumerism and investment in private property, which alienate other more valuable (debatably) forms of wealth (e.g. intellectual, artistic, etc.). The same goes for clothing: buy second-hand. If you don’t buy second-hand, buy American-made. Do your part in suppressing social, environmental injustice around the world.
Lastly, organic isn’t all that bad. Eating organic is not what I oppose. But please be wary when buying “organic” or “all natural” foods. I won’t go into great detail on this, because the argument could go on for several hundred words before I begin to skim the surface. My recommendation is that the majority of the foods you consume should be local. Buy local and support your community.
Thanks for your time.
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
I agree that we, as Americans, live very wasteful lives. At the current moment, I have countless lights and other electronic devices on around my room. I’ve probably thrown away stuff today that I could have recycled. And I know very little about the environmental issues going on today. However, I don’t think it’s because I’m too stupid to understand the issues, or too ego-centric to care about anything larger than the tiny patch of Earth I inhabit. I’m just a product of my socialization, the socialization we’ve all gone through in this country. We’ve all had it ingrained into our heads that every American has the God-given right to live as we choose, and be as wasteful as we care to (and can afford to) be. I often wonder to myself, With so many people in the developed world, most of whom are being at least as irresponsible towards the environment as I am, what do my own actions matter anyway? They should matter though—if not for my own future, then for my kids’, and their kids’, and…well, you get the picture.
Although I’m in no way an environmental scholar (or even that outdoorsy), I do fully agree with you that we need to pay more attention to how our own individual actions detrimentally affect the environment. I also agree with you in the fact that the media should do a better job of relaying important environmental information to the general public. However, the media is a business, and for the most part reports on things people care about. It does present a bit of a catch-22, in that more media coverage of environmental issues would rally up more support for taking better care of the environment, but at the same time more initial concern would be required to spur the media into covering more environmentally-related topics.
Since you also seemed adamant about promoting greater media coverage of environmental topics, I encourage you to lead the way. Inform me, your reader, about the environment. Educate me—don’t belittle me for not already knowing more. Don’t talk over my head. And don’t make me feel like I have to ditch my car, become a vegan and live off of wind power if I want to really care about the environment. Use this environmental forum provide reliable information and reasonable expectations about how someone living in the 21st century can be well-informed and environmentally responsible.
With respect to your first point, I do not think you or any of us, environmentally aware or not, are stupid. I hope you as well as your nature writing classmate, Emily Bevington, do not feel that I’m attacking the general public. We remain largely powerless from, as you say, our socialization in our youth. Perhaps this is why I write with such provocation and abrasiveness. I’ve constructed the first article of my column to, in the best way possible through print, forcefully raise awareness and concern.
Also, I’ll be a little more mindful in the future of adapting the forum to those unwilling to adopt veganism or to those incapable of harnessing wind energy. This forum, after all, is meant to promote change. I’m just glad I have the attention of a few now. Thanks for your comments.
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
I would argue that the “free market of ideas” has not failed us. What
has failed America is lack of caring – intellectual laziness, more
like. With all the opinions out there and the outlets through which
people are sprouting them (magazines, newspapers, TV, forums, blogs,
Web sites, etc.), the “average” American is overwhelmed and does not
want to sift through the piles of content in order to find something
real or worth learning about. The information is there; alternate
opinions exist, if we want to find them. Most Americans just plop down,
turn on the tube, and are presented with the news in a pre-packaged
thirty-second spot without giving a second thought the persuasion
involved.
So although the marketplace still exists, people have stopped showing
up. I think the responsibility now lies in convincing people to change,
not the media/government/etc. There are always going to be biased
writing and reporting. We cannot trust the media to be our
truth-tellers. We have to be truth-seekers.
I align myself very strongly with your call to become a “truth-seeker.” Granted my column, The Monitor Environmental Forum, is merely an opinion, it clearly has opened discussion. I feel that by creating this discussion that interests a group of active individuals, I have encouraged this group to become more informed and more concerned with what they know about environmental issues and policy as well as political and socail conflict relating to the environment. Thanks for your comments.
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
While I am glad to see your passion over environmental issues, I would be careful to start a piece hailing for “more critically reasoned, comprehensive deliberative debate” by stating that “the general American public is equipped with a miserable intellectual capacity.” While it is apparent that you have some solid knowledge concerning at least some obscure environmental references, I have a feeling that insulting the group who would benefit most from education on these matters may not be the most effective strategy in achieving your goal of combating apathy and ignorance. It seems that in hopes of adding an edge to this opinion piece, the writing comes off as more pretentious, not to mention heavy-handed, than may have been intended. While I understand that you are trying to make a statement with this piece and openly acknowledge that you want to see more debate on this subject, the initial condescending tone may have stopped many readers from actually participating in any form of productive debate on this topic.
Firstly, I woudn’t limit my knowledge to “obscure environmental references,” especially with the event that I refer to in my article. The alleged-ELF torching was widely broadcasted on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, and NPR and it was also printed in the Washington Post, the New York Times, USA Today, and the LA Times. “Obscure” would be the wrong word.
Secondly, I am not insulting anyone. I’m lamenting our education system. I’m lamenting our pathetic identity as the free world when we as a people can’t even find the motivation to demand better public education. I went through the public education system in St. Louis and I still find that I’ve suffered at the hands of wealthy special interests and greedy, short-sighted, selfish politicians. If you came from the public school system, I think you should be equally as pissed off. Though, I guess that all depends on the public school you came from. Do you see where I’m coming from? There’s such a large disparity in the public education systems, state by state, city by city, town by town, city by town, district by district. The St. Louis County school system versus the St. Louis City education system is only one example.
Lastly, I can see that I may have alienated some listeners by the confrontation method, as it seems you didn’t investigate into what my argument led. I’m sorry you misinterpreted my article.
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
In response to your September 15th column, a few comments and clarifications are needed to understand why the actions of the Earth Liberation Front (or ELF) have been declared terrorist acts.
First and foremost, the actions of the Earth Liberation Front are an attack on private property and the capitalist system. Private property forms the backbone of the capitalist system and is essential in any attempt to accumulate wealth. Every ELF action has targeted either private property, like unoccupied housing, SUVs, etc., or those that aid these groups, like university labs that conduct genetic engineering or fur industry research, U.S. Forest Service buildings, etc.
The definition of terrorism, and its selective application, is incredibly troubling for environmental activists. James Jarboe of the FBI Counterterrorism Division defines domestic terrorism as “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States … against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population …in furtherance of political or social objectives”. If I didn’t know better, I’d think he was talking about the history of the FBI.
The importance of property damage being included in this definition becomes absurd when one remembers the Boston Tea Party. Could it be that a domestic terrorist attack involving property damage was used to “intimidate or coerce” the British “in furtherance of political or social objectives”? No shit, this country was founded on “domestic terrorism”! If such a phrase had been invented in the 18th century, I’m sure that Parliament would have labeled all Yankees terrorists.
In light of this, incidents like activist Jeff “Free” Luers receiving sentences of just over 22 years for setting fire to three SUVs would be comical if they weren’t true. – Daniel Curtis
Likewise, Daniel. I find the sentencing of Jeff Luers to be quite outrageous as well. Also, I must say that the Brits have a much different view of terrorism than we do. While I worked in London over the summer, a group of radical environmentalists hijacked a coal train and dumped all the coal onto the train tracks. Admittedly these blokes didn’t set fire to anything, but they did hijack a train which is pretty sketchy (or dodgy, as the English would say) for Britain, their history with trains and radicals considered. Domestic terrorism is strangely a greater issue in the US than it is in the UK. For a country founded on it, it’s a sad thing that the right to assembly has so often abused been by the executive branches of government. This is stepping out of the bounds of an environmental discussion, though. Thanks for your comments.
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
I have a few points of contention with the “Initiating a Journalistic Shift” article in the last edition of the Monitor. My first issue concerns Dalton’s quote about the U.S. media’s lack of environmental caution as being “precisely why many Americans are so disconnected from the natural world.” I think this quote grossly oversimplifies not only America’s environmental state, but also that of every other Western nation. To blame humanity’s increasing alienation from the natural world solely on the media is absurd. Industrialization, modernization, apathy…sure. But the media? In the long line of human “progress,” journalism’s connection probably constitutes a small minority of the human condition. Dalton ultimately gives the media way too much power and influence. While I do agree that major news networks should increase the coverage of America’s negative tendencies, I don’t feel like this will be the sole solution to our planet’s environmental woes. It certainly won’t change the mindset of American ultra-consumers. That sort of paradigm shift can’t happen with just a few more stories on global warming or overflowing landfills. Something drastic has to happen, and until then, nothing major will change. It’s a harsh reality, but one that simply cannot be wished away by CNN coverage. – Samantha Lyons
I absolutely agree that industrialization and modernization have contributed to our disconnect with the natural world. I’ll address your point of contention by saying I feel I must have written under an assumption that did not translate well. I claim that we are so disconnected from the natural world because of the media and its capitalist-driven agenda. I am in absolute agreement that several things have led to our separation from the environment, but I am specifically referring to the destruction of the natural world — elimination of biodiversity, more violent and increasingly frequent examples of speciesism — through consumerism. The media is the chief operator of our consumer mind. I must disagree with you in the statement “journalism’s connection probably constitutes a small minority of the human condition,” because I don’t see what else contributes so comprehensively, so significantly to the human condition today. Media dictates our desires, our wants, our needs, our habits: media has become so immensely pervasive in our conduct that I find it hard to understand what inspires people more than watching a television program or a film. I feel that the diversity of understanding our own lifestyles and interests has been compromised by the entertainment and media industries. For this reason, I feel that we have further bastardized our origin — the natural world.
I do agree that something drastic must take place to change our mindset. Desirably I’d like to see that it will come from a social or cultural shift and not by way of violence — but who knows how it will take place?
Filed under: Responses
A response to “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift” found Vol. 15, Iss. 2, P. 4.
I have recently read Ryan Dalton’s piece in The Monitor entitled, “The Monitor Environmental Forum: Initiating a Journalistic Shift.” Dalton makes many good, eye-opening statements that should get readers thinking more about how to help improve our declining economy and environment. I totally agree with the idea that we need to start conserving energy, limiting waste, and cleaning up our communities. Too many people are littering, wasting food, polluting the air, and destroying nature. We truly are ruining the Earth for future generations of humans, animals, and plants. Dalton wrote that journalists all too often present the United States as being, “a superpower without economic boundaries and with unrestricted growth and efficiency.” This is a very good point that he makes because it is certain that many people do perceive our country as being the most superior country in the world. People do this, while also believing that all of our resources and our economy will never take a hit. People do not realize that we could ruin our wildlife, our environment, and our beloved country. Sooner or later, we are going to run out of many of the things that we take for granted. This leads me to wondering why The Monitor editors choose to print so many papers.
The Monitor can be found all over campus. There are always stacks in the library, in dorms, and in classroom buildings. This is a great way to encourage people to pick one up and read it. However, I must say that it is unfortunate to see how many papers are thrown into the trashcan, rather than being picked up and read. It seems to me that there are far too many copies being made. This is a waste of money, ink, and paper. Ultimately, much more trees are being killed than what are necessary.
I wonder why there are so many copies. It is obvious that they are not being used. It is also true that there are expenses that go along with printing papers. Plus, in light of Ryan Dalton’s environmental forum, shouldn’t we be trying to protect our environment more? Thus, I feel like the papers should not be printed, but, rather, put online only. This would save money for Truman students, help the environment, and still be easily accessible to students wishing to read it. After all, if a student truly desires to read The Monitor, they can surely spend an extra minute, get online, and read it then. I feel like it only makes sense to stop printing so many papers—- so many papers that go to waste—- and help our environment. You constantly hear the media telling people to go green, why not have The Monitor be the first to set an example? – Blake Niemann
I won’t say that the question you raise is a marginal concern, albeit pedantic. The Monitor, prior to its hiatus approximately two years ago, printed one-fifth the number of papers The Index was printing. I know our current run hasn’t changed since then (we print two-thousand issues), but I can’t confirm The Index’s numbers (though I am quite certain it is still substantially more than ours).
I know that these statistics may be meaningless to you, but understand this: although The Monitor Environmental Forum appears in The Monitor and is authored by an editor of The Monitor, The Monitor is not an environmental publication. Certainly The Monitor has a very off-beat philosophy and carries a hipster-liberal scent, but it is by no means an environmental publication. If you’re interested in the motivation behind The Monitor, do your research. My forum does not condone wasteful printing nor does The Monitor.
I hope you don’t see very many Monitors in the trash bins, because I usually don’t. I will admit that I have seen a few in the trash in the past; Always, I will pull them out and place them in recycling bins. I hope, considering you’re very environmentally conscientious, you do the same. Thanks.
