Response to Prompt 2 Environmental Democracy


During every election, there are always people that are displeased with the way the previous term was ran, no matter which party a person belongs too. The same goes with Environmentalists. There will always be a person who wants more from the government and thinks enough hasn’t been done. The damage that has been done to the environment has taken place over many years and can’t be simply fixed in one or two terms of a President. Over time, with policy’s implemented by the government and more people becoming aware of what sustainability is, I feel we will see some change in the environment in future generations to come.


I think if the radical approach occurred and the face of the government was changed, there would possibly be a lot of rebellions going on by people who don’t agree with it. When something is completely changed, many people are surprised by it and don’t know how to react. If we prepare people for the change, they won’t be surprised by it and will accept the changes that are going to be implemented and integrated in the current government. Reforming the current system by moving the environmental issues towards the top is key. People are so set in their ways that you can’t wipe what has been done completely in the past, however you can modify it. The state of the economy that America is currently is does make it hard for environmental issues to take place, but I feel with time the two issues will become intertwined and it will become more of a pressing issue.


One response »

  1. The topic of “environmental change” can’t be pushed aside any longer. From the stance that you seem to be taking, environmental relief still just seems like another political talking point. While politcs do come into play in terms of forming policy, we can’t remain satisfied with our current situation. Yes, Obama claims to have “reduced emissions” and “taken mercury out of air”, but what does that really mean? It’s just more rhetoric to try to keep environmentalists on his side of the voting ticket. By 2050, this world will be very different in terms of population and remaining biodiversity. Forty years is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of time. We have been pushing off this sensitive topic since the 1960’s and 70’s and expecting it to gradually work itself out. The fact of the matter is that sometimes, in order for actual change to occur, rebellions need to take place. The change will be difficult, and it needs to be more pluralistic and less capitalistic (as seen in the motives of the Green Revolution as a developmentalist). Evolution and transformation (the general trend of increasing biodiversity throughout time) have had to endure times of stress to revamp a system and form a new and more efficient one– but humans are destryoing this growth at a completely different magnitude. If we don’t own up to the precautionary principle of fitting into nature as a part of biodiversity, it will be destroyed. The time is not next term or the term after– whenever people “feel comfortable” and whenever the economy is more stable. The destruction of diversity that we have caused in the past 100 years should speak for itself. If we don’t wake up and snap out of our liberal “individual” point of view, there will be no more economy for future generations. Staying engulfed in the present is no longer an option. Your indifferent approach seems far too concerned with comfort only to be enjoyed by a minute generation and class of people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s