Overconsumption and The Shaughnessy Family

ONE
I once relished leaving my BOSE sound dock on every morning when I went to class. When I say on, I mean at the loudest level possible. I thought it was hysterical to wake up my neighbors in the morning and then further prevent them from finding slumber by keeping the beats going. I never gave it a second thought.
I never really second-guessed leaving the light on either, I suppose, or standing in front of the refrigerator after a long day of life guarding on the beach. I never once thought of turning the faucet off when brushing my teeth until my mother yelled at me about the water bill. I never gave my aerosol cans the boot and I certainly never questioned the inanity in buying twenty-four bottles of water instead of refilling my Nalgene with equally satisfying tap water. Then again, I never ever threw away an aluminum can or plastic bottle because I always recycle. I thought of recycling as my great “gift” to the security of the environment. My one contribution to protecting this planet now seems like a pathetic joke. I have realized that the repercussions of my daily environmental damage far outweigh my occasional recycling habits.
I agree with Theresa’s opinion. Our perception of the importance of convenience is contributing full force to the challenges facing the global environment. I never left my light on or the faucet running because I wished to destroy the environment. In fact, I always liked to consider myself extremely environmentally friendly. I went to all the Eco-Sense meetings and journeyed to the protests with my picket signs. I thought rallying for the cause was enough. This is simply not the case.
To care about our environment we must first care for it. Our self-serving notion of personal convenience has led to gross overconsumption on the part of many First and Second World societies. The idea of sustainable development is an afterthought for countless global-citizens. Governments consistently call for increased spending on goods and services to further the expansion of their economies. As shown in the eco-footprint, the processing of these goods and the availability of these services contribute exponentially to the defilement of the dream to meet the needs of “current populations without endangering the prospects and livelihoods of future generations” (Princen 4). We leave the lights on because we can. Others live without access to electricity. We exhaust our world’s fish stocks because we are hungry. Others must count them to assure their return. We waste water because we feel entitled to do so. In the Third World, the effects of water pollution are felt in the form of high rates of death from cholera, typhoid, dysentery, and diarrhea from viral and bacteriological sources. And here, in the United States of America—It ’s my money. I’m paying for this water. I can waste it whenever and I feel the desire to do so. This mindset—the conscious or sub-conscious conviction of entitlement—leads individuals with resources at their disposal to use them without regret.
Overconsumption has, in my opinion, been the source of the majority of our environmental and ecological quandaries. Deforestation has led to reduced plant biomass, reduced biological diversity, the loss of valuable species of economic and medicinal value, reduced ecosystem stability, species extinction (projected future extinction rate is 10 times higher than today), rapid depletion of soil nutrients, increased soil erosion, increased local aridity and desertification, as well as to increased global greenhouse effect and the rise of the sea-level. This is only one example of the extent of our damage. We are to blame for the increase in mudslides and other “natural disasters.” The climate itself is changing as a direct result of our abuse and overconsumption. The multi-faceted functions of our environment—the specific functions that allow us to lead the fruitful lives we take for granted—are being rendered ineffectual by our actions.
As global citizens we have abandoned all concerns for our environment in an effort to increase agricultural production to feed the ever-expanding population. However, not only damage to our environment has resulted. We have essentially guaranteed that those living above the subsistence level remain in the upper food-chain echelon. The wealth of our global economy has not spread equally. Half of the world’s population is subsisting on $2 US or less. How can we possibly expect to rise above this environmental adversity when the wealthiest nations of the world refuse to forfeit any amenities? With the hope for equality we would have to spread our resources thin. As discussed in class that means:
 1 refrigerator
 No electronics
 (I honestly cannot recall the amount of electricity available, but it is not much, if any)
 2 hectares for subsistence
 Become a vegetarian (boo!)
1 billion people are chronically hungry. Starvation due to overconsumption? You could argue that point. The more the global economy grows (which it alarmingly does everyday) the more we expend on resources both natural and synthetic. In particular, growing economies require fossil fuel; therefore, more energy is being used and more carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere. More oil consumption also means increased oil prices—it takes more money to ship, grow, harvest, process, etc. your food. Drought in Australia and in Western Europe (possibly the consequence of our greenhouse gas)—there is not as much food as last year; it is going to be more expensive. Developing nations like India and China are eating more meat—more grain is needed for the animals, more money for us. It all inevitably leads to massive food speculation.

__________________________________________________

Affluence=Consumption
The United States is the eleventh richest country. We consume an awful lot. And yet, as the majority of the populace appreciates their considerably comfortable lives, they refuse to allow the populations of developing nations to do the same. The worst part: the negative environmental impacts of globalization and the strengthening of the world economy are felt disproportionately. I feel that we are in no way headed out of this cyclic spoil of haves vs. have-nots. Not as long as the five-year-olds of today do not recognize the environmental impact of their daily activities of convenience. Would I forfeit my comfortable lifestyle for one of squalor? I can’t say that I would. Would the billionaire responsible for recent oil speculation give up their home...and plane, and other plane, five other vacation homes, ten antique cars, diesel powered Mercedes’, Hummer H2, Hummer H3, Hummer H3x, and Hummer H3 Alpha? Probably not. But we can educate. We can make the environmentalist perception something to be talked about, not feared. The government can call upon the people for change and the people can call upon their government for change of epic proportions. It is certainly not a quick fix and it shall be a struggle for centuries to come.

I hope we do not reflect upon this time in our lives and say, “Whoops, I suppose Malthus was right.” The damage is evident, it is felt everywhere, and it is discussed minimally on the world stage. There are no more excuses. We simply cannot rely on the intangible technology of the future to save us from ourselves. I guess I’ll do what I can.


TWO
To be perfectly honest, I have never finished a Tavern meal.
I have always had a special thing for paper napkins. Just like Fish, I hated the cloth ones on the holidays.
I used an aerosol can today.
I left the light on by accident when I went to the bathroom this morning.
My roommate left the window open without shutting the AC off.
I use AC!
I like to listen to music when I fall asleep.
I often listen to music when I am asleep.
I drove over 3,000 miles this summer.
Sometimes, I drove around with my friend for no reason. For three hours.

I waste. But doesn’t everyone? Fish is blunt, but at least he’s honest. I did not raise my hand on the first day of class because I do not truly believe that I live the life of an environmentalist. I have always been told to keep my showers relatively short and to turn off the light but I cannot recall any hardcore environmentalist training in grade school. It is not something I should make fun of because that is exactly what needs to happen. Due to the fact that I grew up unaware of the impact I was making on a daily basis, I continued to live the same destructive lifestyle for 20 years. I still cannot completely comprehend just how much damage I have caused and will continue to contribute to for the rest of my life.
“I’m not the only one doing it.”—It may be negative of me but I feel as though this is the generally held consensus. Well, of course I am not the only one degrading the environment; but shouldn’t that be cause to take a stand rather than to make an excuse? Only when the environmental impact of our personal damage rears its ugly head in one shape or another do we start talking about positive international environmental action. America seems to be slightly selfish in a number of its international dealings; environmental action is not an exception. When it’s America’s problem: it’s everyone’s problem (more like it’s everyone else’s fault); when it’s America’s solution: it better be everyone’s. We can waste all we want and crowd our roads with dinosaur-powered cars but, “NO, India, no you may not have a car for every middle class family because you would be hurting the environment.” This double standard is baffling, but perhaps it is necessary.
What does it mean to live in an "environmentally friendly" way in the modern-day US? I have no idea. I have never a met an individual who is exclusively environmentally friendly, however, my Aunt Eleanor and Uncle Scott do come close. My Auntie El is a pagan (the recognition of the “divine” [higher power] in nature is at the heart of Pagan belief). No, she is not a witch, she is a woman connected and concerned with her earth. About twelve years ago my aunt and uncle purchased a rundown farmhouse in the wild of Maine. A four-hour drive from the bustling streets of Boston where they were employed was never a hassle for the nature-loving couple. Like Fish, they re-did the house with local timber, and shipped in supplies from local dealers.
Four years ago they installed the first solar panel. A year ago my aunt purchased a Prius. Six months ago they took an indefinite sabbatical to get away from it all.
They are by no means living in the lap of luxury in Maine. Their home is not your typical “cottage” or condo. It is woodstove-heated and full of hand-me-down furniture (the woodstoves will soon be replaced by solar-heated floors and walls). Two Harvard grads, with careers to show for it, and they have chosen to take comfort in the simpler things in life. They are avid supporters and members of Greenpeace, involved in countless area farming projects to help feed the local community (many of whom are well below the poverty line), and they are firm believers in the importance of personal responsibility. Do you know anyone who loves vacationing without running water, heat, electricity, air conditioning, a working refrigerator, or television? My aunt and uncle did/do for eight years and loved every minute of it. Social greens? I do not really know how I would classify those two, but I’m pretty sure they are ahead of their time.
My observation of the American view of “environmentally friendly” living can best be described the Shaughnessy family. The Shaughnessy family drives a 15-passenger van. Why? The Shaughnessys have 13 children with another bundle of joy on the way. The Shaughnessys enjoy swimming lessons offered by yours truly, relaxing on the beach, swimming in the pond, and littering. They love littering. Some might be as bold as to call it a passion. Now I have seen my share of forgotten candy wrappers but I have never seen the extent of destruction 13 children can cause. A literal circle of trash follows the 9 sons and 4 girls everywhere they travel. The constant consumption of processed packaged foods was enough for me never to desire a bag of Doritos ever again.
Broken pail? That stays on the beach. Mom is done clipping coupons? Might as well leave the remnants of newspaper scattered along the shore. Dad gives up on the inflatable raft? Why not stick it in a bush where no one will find it? Mom brought aerosol-contained silly string?!?! Well, after releasing the 20-cans of harmful gas into the air and the non biodegradable material all over the state beach, your best bet would be throwing the cans into the woods seven feet away from THREE trash cans. Honestly Shaughnessy Family, either cut-down on littering or quit complaining about the afternoon thunderstorms canceling your children’s swimming lessons everyday.