Ironic

Isn't it ironic that a fracking BLOGGER's biggest problem in exam preparation is ... that writing thing?

Seriously.

I'm good with the knowledge.

I'm good with the argument.

But the structure?

Oh, the structure is my nemesis.

Apparently my examiner's are not so thrilled with my waxy prosey style of writing wherein one point flows to another without an intro paragraph saying, "First I will talk about this. Then I will talk about that. Lastly I will discuss this."

Yeah, I threw out that crap in the 9th grade.

But it's back in my essays now! And I suck at it, but am hoping that somehow, somewhere, I'll pull structure out by Wednesday.

So... that's where I am. But meanwhile, there's a cover meme going around wherein people share their favorite cover songs. So, here's mine. I heart U2.

Ahahahaha

Sorry about that guys. I totally left you hanging in the midst of my three part series that none one of you cared about. Sorry!

But in my defense I have been totally totally busy having a melt down over exams.

Today I almost cried in a professor's office. It was that bad. And let me tell you, you do not cry in your very British male professor's office. Because they do not know what to do with that kind of emotion.

Although to be fair to my professor he was beyond nice, and so comforting, and talked me through my panic mode, and then I left his office, and studied in the park and all was well.

But anyway, once again I have to ask you all to just sit back, relax and check your Google readers as we've hit a bumpy spot and I may not be posting much at all for the next ... twenty days. Thank you all for your patience during this ridiculous year.

Wish me luck!

P.S. Am eating a lot of ethically produced chocolate over at just means. You can catch my reviews this week.

Manifesto Part Deux

Last time on Manifestos By Ruchi, I talked about some factors in building a successful social movement, and why some of the past environmental social movements, were, indeed successful. Social movements helped to play a part in the Clean Air and Water Acts and the Montreal Protocol.

But the current social movement focused on climate change has been less successful.

Why?

Recall the factors that characterized some past successful social movements: focus, coordination, and empowerment that does not threaten others' power. All these three are lacking in the current green social movement.

Much of this is because of the nature of the environmental threat. As Shellenberger and Nordhaus noted, climate change is perceived differently by different communities in different parts of the world. The risks we face will be different, and the threats that will emerge will be varied.

This makes climate change difficult to comprehend. Do you know what change climate change is going to cause to your city in the next fifty years? You might be able to hazard a guess, but most of us probably don't have much of an idea. Whereas acid rain, water pollution, and even to a certain extent, the hole in the ozone layer were somewhat easier to conceptualize, climate change is extremely tricky.

As a result, the current environmental movement is fragmented, not focused. Dozens of environmental concerns are lumped together. Climate change, environmental health, peak oil, resource depletion, food security, over-consumption, smog, water pollution, chemical toxins, environmental degradation, poverty ... the list goes on and on. And because climate change is so difficult to visualize, links, sometimes spurious, are made between climate change and a more clearly visible environmental issue.

Consequently we are told to alleviate global warming by eating local food. Or by using paper bags instead of plastic. Or a ceramic mug instead of a styrofoam cup. And then of course, someone will come along and prove that certain local food is less carbon efficient for whatever reason than this other food from New Zealand, and that the paper bags are just as bad as the plastic, and that actually even the ceramic mug might not be immune to criticism.

And all of this causes well-meaning people to alternatively throw their hands in the air and say, "I give up," or to turn on us greenies and accuse us of pursuing our own agenda.

Because the thing is, we kind of are.

Here is the honest truth. I'm not a supporter of buying a lot of "stuff." I'm not a huge fan of materialism in general, and frankly, I'm a pretty big fan of the welfare state. I think we should all give up some of our crap so that we can have universal health care, top notch schools, and subsidized day care. I would be okay with less money and more vacation time, increased ability for flex time, and, while I'm at it, I think we should have four months paid maternity leave and four months paid paternity leave.

I think our material culture causes us as a society to overlook what really makes us happy. I also think that all this "stuff" is resulting in resource degradation and depletion and that a lot of this stuff is made by cheap labor in poor conditions. I think people should be willing to pay more for fewer things so that we can compensate the people who made this stuff fairly.

Notice that none of this mentioned climate change. Because really, I cannot pretend to know how buying a new DVD player affects climate change. I just can't. Sure, we could approximate the carbon footprint of the DVD player, but frankly, there are many variables involved in that calculation. But even if I were able to figure it out ... what would that tell me, really? What does a carbon footprint actually mean? When you take a quiz and at the end you get a little cartoon Al Gore angrily yelling at you that if everyone lived like you, we would need 2,531 planets ... what exactly does that MEAN?! I sure as hell don't know. I mean, maybe it means that human beings should populate Mars.

The reality is, we're trying to simplify something that is incredibly complex. Climate change is going to be experienced in vastly different ways in various parts of the world, and some countries will suffer more than others. Moreover, there is little consensus as to what the "tipping point" is ... hell, there isn't consensus on if there ARE tipping points.

This innate lack of consensus as to what climate change is and how we will experience it also makes it potentially more difficult to coordinate a social movement.

So there are inherent difficulties in producing a focused and coordinated social movement around climate change. And as I mentioned in my last post, the current green social movement is also one that demands a literal sacrifice of power. Because many greens operate under an assumption of fixed (or relatively fixed) power, those in affluent countries must sacrifice some power in order for those in poorer countries to have more. This concept of static power represents another burden for the current green social movement.

Which is why Shellenberger and Nordhaus' argument for a paradigm change is actually very useful for the current green social movement. If we can move from a paradigm of fixed power to one of variable power, the movement may have a better shot at succeeding. Thus, research and development in new technology IS a critical component of the climate change solution.

BUT, research and development isn't the ONLY critical component of the climate change solution, and this is where Beavan and the green social movement are needed.

Tomorrow (or whenever I get around to it) the third part of my manifesto in which I explain what's been left out of the debate, and why we need a green social movement.

Why Beavan, Shellenberger and Nordhaus are Right ... and Why They Are Wrong

A few days ago, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus published an interesting article in The New Republic entitled, "The Green Bubble." In it, Shellenberger and Nordhaus attack the current green social movement, for which, rightly or wrongly, No Impact Man's Colin Beavan is their poster child. Two days ago, Beavan published his own response in which he points to past successful social movements, and underlines the value of individual action.

So who's right and who's wrong in this little war of words? Well ... they're all right. AND they're both wrong. Sufficiently wrong, that I'm taking time out of my VERY HECTIC EXAM SCHEDULE to explain why they're wrong. Are you happy, Colin and Michael? If I fail my land reform question, I'm blaming you.

First, let's start with No Impact Man aka Colin Beavan. Beavan is right to point out that social movements can affect change: both societal change and policy change. But he fails to critically examine why it is that prior social movements have succeeded. A closer inspection of his example, the civil rights movement, reveals a few key factors. One, the civil rights movement was a coordinated effort focused on specific rights such as voting and access. Two, this empowerment that civil rights activists sought did not take away from other people's power. Instead, one can view power as variable, producing an outcome with many winners and no real losers. Sure, some could argue that white supremacists lost, but even they lost nothing really tangible.

By contrast, Beavan, and the social movement he represents, are disappated rather than coordinated. The attention on individual action and individual carbon footprints papers over the role of institutions in shaping those individual decisions. Beavan uses the metaphor of a single butterfly flapping its wings to prove the value of individual action, but what is the effect of thousands of butterflies flapping their wings at varied intervals and in various directions? For, the current green social movement is far from focused. Rather than trying to attain specific rights, the current movement aims to combat climate change by nothing much more concrete than hope, prayer, and line-dried laundry. As a member of this movement, I can attest to the dissatisfaction and helplessness that this strategy can produce.

But what Beavan really ignores, to his detriment, is the different power dynamic at work here. Whereas in the civil rights movement, power was variable, producing a result with winners and no losers, the green social movement operates under a Weberian assumption of invariable power. Power is literally fixed; consequently those of us with more of it have to give up some so those of us with less of it can have some. While personally, I absolutely commend Beavan for giving up some of his power, this is a scenario with winners and losers. Beavan may claim that living with less impact is not a loss, but frankly, a lot of people would disagree. And as someone who has tried and continues to try to live a less impactful life, I will say that in my experience, living lighter IS a sacrifice. I have spent an LA heatwave with no a/c and no fan because I couldn't find a used fan and couldn't buy a new fan. It's not an experience I relished.

So what about Shellenberger and Nordhaus? They're right too, that not all people have the same interests concerning global warming, or even the environment. I also personally believe they are correct in arguing that most people in the global North do not want to sacrifice some of their conveniences and liberty in the name of the environment. But they're also too dismissive of social movements, especially the prior environmental "bubbles" as they term them.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger paint a picture where in green bubbles grow and pop about once every decade, and the current bubble is no exception. But they provide no real explanation for why these bubbles burst:

This isn't the first time an eco-bubble has inflated and then burst. In fact,the modern environmental movement was born in a bubble. In 1969, an industrial pollution fire on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, generated national publicity and outrage. The first photographs of Earth in its entirety transmitted from outer space were received as signs of a new ecological consciousness. The first Earth Day was held in 1970, and, over the next three years, Congress passed and (a Republican) President Nixon signed into law sweeping environmental statutes.
But, in 1973, soaring oil prices pushed the country into recession. By the time Jimmy Carter suggested, a few years later,that profligate American lifestyles were partly to blame, the public reacted with resentment and ridicule.

There are two problems here with Nordhaus and Shellenberger's claim surrounding an eco-bubble burst. One, they fail to acknowledge a key reason for a potential eco-bubble burst: the green social movement attained their primary objective. Recall that one of the key elements of successful social movements are focused objectives. In this case, one could argue that given the fire on the Cuyahoga River, the primary objective of the environmental movement at the time was to get the Clean Water Act passed. When this was successfully accomplished, the energy of the environmental movement disappated as a natural consequence of achieving its primary objective.

But was there a burst of the bubble at all? Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that there was, pointing to the oil crisis of the 1970s, and the angry American response. But here Shellenberger and Nordhaus conflate several separate environmental issues to make their point. The environmental movement of the time was primarily focused on POLLUTION, not energy. Neither peak oil nor global warming were mainstream concerns of that movement.

In their second example, Nordhauss and Shellenberger repeat these mistakes, again failing to note that environmental movement of the late 1980s was primarily focused on acid rain and the ozone layer. Once again, the movement peaked once significant achievements were made in these primary focus areas: the Montreal Protocol governing ozone emissions and The Clean Air Act could both be chalked up as victories for this environmental movement.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus' bubble argument thus takes a wrong-headed view of social movements that skates over the arguable achivements of these movements. By conflating several environmental issues into one, Shellenberger and Nordhaus ignore how and why social movements are successful. Essentially, their argument is that the environmental social movements have failed because they all failed to achieve total success in all areas concerning the environment ever known to man. By setting the bar so high, they ignore the true value that social movements can produce. Worse, they ignore the current implications.

Tomorrow (or whenever I get around to it): Why the current situation is different from either of Shellenbergerg and Nordhaus's prior 'eco-bubbles' and what Nordhaus, Shellenberger and Beavan get right in assessing the current situation, and what they get very wrong.

La Plus Ca Change

Yesterday, I remembered that this is Upfronts week, so I clicked over to Deadline Hollywood Daily to see the television schedules for next fall, and what do I find, but that one of my favorite shows is not coming back, and that well ... this is finally happening.

And, a wash of emotions hit me. I was sad for all the people I know who are looking for jobs right now. I was a little relieved that I'm not currently trying to find a job in the industry given how competitive it must be right now. And I felt a little out of it ... I had heard the rumors of an imminent merger, but I didn't know it was a done deal. All of a sudden, I missed the pace, the drama, the excitement.

I have never talked much about my previous life for a lot of reasons. As most of my fellow bloggers will attest, it's always smart to maintain a pretty rigid division of blog and work.

But the truth is, that television and the entertainment industry were a huge part of my life for such a long, long time. And if you count my time in theatre, well, this is the first time since I was 14 that a huge portion of my life isn't tied to the arts in any way.

I am unbelieveably happy in my new life. You know, when I'm not pulling my hair out of my head studying for exams. But there is, and maybe always will be, a little piece of my heart in entertainment.

We have to do presentations once a term for all my classes. Last term, I decided I was sick to death of Powerpoint, and I just couldn't face one more Powerpoint presentation. So I decided, instead, that I would do a performance studies piece on the Narmada Dam. It's a little hard to explain, but what I did is a kind of performance ethnography, where you cull letters and memos, etc, and you sort of weave it all together, acting in the character of the various writers of memos and letters. I threw a little of my own script on top of that, and voila. I had a one woman show.

It was awesome.

I mean, no, it wasn't awesome. It was okay. Had I performed that piece for a performance studies class in my undergraduate university, I probably would have gotten a B. But compared to the Powerpoint presentation I would have done, it was awesome.

And the whole thing made me think that one day, I might be ready to go back to acting. Not trying to do it professionaly again, or anything like that. But I might be ready to go back ... somehow, someway, in some small community theatre or performing 10 minute plays with a group of friends, or just reading Shakespeare in the backyard to myself.

I guess you can take the girl out of entertainment, but maybe, hopefully? you can never take the entertaining out of the girl.

The Gifts I Want

I'm approaching my thirtieth birthday in a few weeks and I know all of you are just DYING to know what you should get me for said birthday!

Well, here are some things I would like as I approach this major milestone in my life.

Grace- I mean, I would really like to walk gracefully, 'tis true. It would be icing on the cake if I could ever learn to dance gracefully, or semi-gracefully. But what I would really like is to live my life with a bit more grace. I'd like to be a bit more empathetic, a better friend, and a better family member. I'd like to learn better when to give advice, and when to just lend a comforting shoulder.

Patience- I am not a patient person. But I'd like to be. Instead of eagerly anticipating the future, and wondering what will be, I'd like to have the pateince to live life in the present a bit, and trust that things will pan out one way or the other. After all, in the future, we're all dead, and I can certainly wait for that!

Hope- I feel like I've spent much of my twenties on a pendulum, swining back between hope and cynicism. Now most people claim that you lose your sense of optimism as you get older, but wouldn't it be great if I could become older, wiser, and more hopeful?

So those are the things I would like for my thirtieth birthday and beyond. I recognize that they are a little hard to wrap up, but you know, I'm difficult like that.

Living Car Free Should Not Be Challenging

So, the other day Beth, who all of a sudden is going challengicious on everyone's ass, challenged people to live a week without a car and then blog about it.

Now I decided to rise to her challenge because I am hard-core like that.

Heh.

But it is true that I have been car-free since September. And guys, I have to tell you, it's so freaking awesome.

But here's what's really awesome about being car free in London. It's not a challenge. Not even a small one. Not even a teensy tiny challenge.

Because the truth is the fastest way for me to get to school is ... to walk. There's no other faster way. Not kidding. I've tried the bus, I've tried the tube. I haven't tried biking, but given how long it would take me to park my bike, walking still comes out ahead. Walking is simply the most efficient method for me to commute. It's fantastic. I get some fresh air, I get some exercise, and it's about as carbon light as you can get!

Of course, any time I need to get anywhere further away, I rely on the amazing system of public transit that London offers. The tube is beloved by many, and it is a wonderful system (except for the frickin Victoria line. Don't ask me what's up with that line.) But, personally, if I have the time, I prefer to sit atop a double-decker bus and watch the city go by.

So, for me, not driving a car is not much of a sacrifice. In fact, driving a car, that would be the sacrifice, given the insurance, parking, and congestion fees that I'd have to pay. (If you want to drive in Central London during work hours Monday through Friday, you have to pay what's called a congestion charge.) Not to mention the traffic. If I had to drive around in Central London every day, I'd probably go mad. (Well, to be fair, I'd probably die before I went mad because I'd end up driving on the wrong side of the road. But, you know what I mean.)

I think it's great that Beth is challenging everyone to go a week without driving. But from an urban policy perspective, my opinion is, if you live in a reasonably dense area, and it's a sacrifice to take public transit, then that means the public transit system isn't designed correctly and it needs to be fixed. Personally, after living in LA, and attempting to commute via public transit, and then moving to London, I do not think that taking public transit should be challenge worthy.

Fixing public transit doesn't have to be expensive either. There are plenty of examples, like Curitiba, of very inexpensive but well designed public transit systems. What is required is innovative urban planners and some political will. Los Angeles has one line (the Orange Line for the Angelenos in the hizzouse) through the Valley that mimics the Curitiba plan. But, frankly, in my opinion, LA could stand to have a few more rapid transit bus lines in the city. I'd probably add rapid transit bus to Sunset, Wilshire, La Cienega, Sepulveda, and Vermont. You could do that at a fraction of the cost of the planned subway to the West side, and if you had rapid bus transit on those five streets, you could get from Los Feliz to Santa Monica in half an hour. Villaraigosa, do you hear me?!

Anyway, forgive me for rambling on about rapid transit buses like a rapid transit bus maniac, but in the end, here's my basic take away point. Colin once wrote a very nice post about how living sustainably should be like falling off a log. That's how I feel about public transit. Taking public transit, should be like falling off a log.

To paraphrase former Bogota mayor, Enrique Peñalosa, we can design cities to support people not cars.

All it takes is our will to change.

P.S. If you are car-free in general, or willing to go car-free for a week, please do join in on Beth's challenge, and blog about your experiences.