AndersonDebatePaper2


 * Is American Culture a Sustainability Problem?**
 * Elizabeth Anderson**
 * Word Count: 1886**

American culture today is vastly different from what it used to be, but it has its roots in the past. The United States traces its roots back to the colonists, who were people brave enough or oppressed enough to seek a new life far across the ocean. Although some of the principles of freedom in the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are similar to some Native American beliefs, there was not a great deal of cultural influence from the peoples who had lived in Americas for thousands of years. The idea of the “frontier” was very much in Americans’ mind for many years-unexplored territories that seemed at first endless. Even when the end of the frontier was reached, people still believed that their ever-increasing consumption of resources would do no harm to the environment since Earth was an unthinkably vast and huge place. There were, of course, dissenters to this. Environmental movements came and went, but consumption continued increasing. After World War II, consumption rose very dramatically since people were happy to not have to “do without” everything like they had during the war and the Great Depression before that. Consumption levels have continued to rise since then. The population of the United States has grown, too. As a result, Americans consume a lot of goods as a nation. Also, Americans are very independent and individualistic, a trait probably inherited from pioneering ancestors, who had to be able to survive on their own or with a few others. Are these a sustainability problem? Everyone is a stakeholder in this debate. Not only are all humans stakeholders, but everything else on Earth is.

In a Ted Talk, “Addicted to Risk”, Naomi Klein talks about the BP oil spill and its consequences. She reminds us that the effects of the BP oil spill are working its way up the food chain. To Klein, the BP oil spill symbolizes how many Americans face risks: they rely on a system of cost-benefit analysis, a system borrowed from economics, to justify whether a decision is too risky or not. Klein uses this disaster to discuss how we have similar cultural problems when it comes to climate change. She argues that we should follow the precautionary principle, which means that a product or method is not used until it is certain that it is safe for the environment and people. Klein also argues that the burden of proof should fall on corporations, not the government and its citizens. The problem with using the economic theory of cost-benefit analysis to make scientific decisions is that sometimes it cannot be predicted exactly what will happen. Experts might think that a certain technology will pose no risks to the environment, but, twenty years later, scientists might find out that it does. Klein states that Americans in general are too overconfident and believe that nothing will go wrong. According to Klein, this is especially true for men. “Being paid less and praised less has its upsides, for society, at least,” Klein says, making a slight joke about women being less overconfident (and therefore not as willing to take risks. Most Americans also believe that the world is so big that nothing we do will affect the environment. They believe that “there will always be another frontier”, according to Klein. It is getting harder and riskier to obtain many resources, such as fossil fuels. Getting oil from the tar sands in Canada, a method used because most of the easy sources of oil have been used up, not only destroys the beauty of the land, but also emits three times more carbon dioxide than getting oil the conventional way, Klein claims. Overconfidence, something many Americans share, is therefore a major sustainability problem.

An article by Suzanne Goldenberg in //The Guardian// succinctly discusses further issues with American culture and the environment. Americans consume way more than they need to. Goldenberg states, “[t]he average western family spends more on their pet than is spent by a human in Bangladesh” (Goldenberg). The culture of consumption is a major sustainability problem and a culture shift away from consumption is necessary to protect the environment. Goldenberg argues that even increases in efficiency do too little to combat the excessive consumption taking place in America. Another concern is that many developing countries, such as China, see the American culture of consumption as their goal.

What Klein and Goldenberg fail to point out is that the problems may not fully be the fault of the American people and their culture by itself. Although both seem to imply that American culture is influencing the government, they do not explicitly say so. Laws could be made to lessen the impact that Americans and other people have on the environment. Also, Klein states that we should not rely on technology to save us. Some would argue that technological and scientific advances could be made, at least in theory, to solve the problems of environmental damage and global climate change. Blaming environmental problems solely on people and culture when there may be other factors is not conducive to long-term change, either.

Ronald Reagan, in his speech to announce his candidacy for president in 1979, stated that the problems were not the fault of the American people. The fault lay on government-which he promised to fix-and on the economic system, specifically the tax system. Reagan states that tax cuts should be made and government spending reduced. He believes that these solutions will fix American’s problems. Reagan’s election was right after the oil embargo. He argued that Americans needed to produce oil domestically, not curb their oil habit. He further suggests that Americans use their resources to make the country great. Reagan sees freedom as the value that makes America an example for the rest of the world to look up to. He believes that America is still a great country and that people should not feel like it is all going to ruin because of a few problems. Reagan says that there are serious problems with the economy, and they can be fixed.

Reagan’s views miss some important points, however. He tells Americans that they have lost confidence in their government, and that he will fix that, but he does not tell the people what they can do to help improve the situation. He also suggests increased free trade, which may be helpful in that Americans can get their goods for cheaper, but it can also mean that companies will find it easier to take their factories overseas, leaving many Americans out of a job. If the country tries to use only its own resources out of national pride, these resources will eventually be used up unless they are managed sustainably. He states that solar power may be a useful source of energy in the future, but right now, better techniques need to be developed to use coal. Reagan is not advocating for the sustainable use of resources, but simply for the use of American ones versus ones from other countries. Many environmentalists would look at Reagan’s speech and wonder how he could believe so many of the statements he says, like “And, tragically, as the cost of living goes up, the standard of living which has been our great pride keeps going down”. Reagan does not mention that “the standard of living” that Americans have enjoyed for many years is much higher than the one that most people in the world have had, both currently and in the past.

A study done by P. Wesley Schultz of the California State University, San Marcos, looks at views on the environment in different populations of the United States and other countries. They divide people into three groups, based on their attitude towards the environment and environmental problems: egoistic, biospheric, and altruistic. An egoistic person, according to the author of the study, cares about environmental changes that may affect him or herself. Someone who cares about the environment because anthropogenic changes to it may affect all sorts of plants and animals (including humans, but not limited to them) is considered to have a biospheric attitude. A person with an altruistic attitude towards the environment is concerned about the impacts that environmental change will have for humans, including future humans. Schultz found that people in the United States have more egoistic tendencies than biospheric ones. Other countries in the study, mainly developing ones, showed a higher concern overall than the Americans. Most of these other countries’ citizens placed biospheric concerns above egoistic ones. What does this study tell us? Overall, Americans are not as concerned about environmental issues as citizens of the other countries in the study. Their concern is also focused on problems that may directly affect the individual.

My personal view on this topic is that American culture is not only a sustainability problem, but it probably is the biggest sustainability problem in the world today. Even the other large sustainability problem, population, could in some ways be closely related to American culture, since there have been instances when Americans have made it so that other countries cannot get access to birth control and education about contraceptive methods. Most people in the world want to have similar lifestyles to Americans, which makes American culture an even bigger sustainability problem. Ever-increasing consumption is almost a trademark of American society, and resources are getting scarce. The way I see it, if American culture does not change, there will be serious environmental consequences. I strongly believe that if the human species as a whole is going to survive, there needs to be drastic changes made as soon as possible. I feel like it is almost too late at this point, if not too late to mitigate many of the effects of climate change and pollution. Personally, I feel that Reagan comes across as overconfident, ignorant, condescending, and arrogant in his candidacy speech for president. He does not seem to know his history (even though Reagan mentions historic events, he seems to pick and choose which ones to highlight to prove his points) or really anything about the environment or society. His understanding of economics, as evidenced in his speech, is very minimal. I think that his lack of knowledge about the consequences of American culture convince me even more that it is the problem, since the rest of his speech is so wrong on so many counts. Even had I not already had an opinion on this subject, I think that I would have concluded that Naomi Klein was correct as soon as I read Reagan’s speech. It is imperative that Americans, and other people around the world who look to the American culture of consumption, realize that resources are finite and overconfidence and selfishness in the possible outcomes for the future will do no one any good.

References Goldenberg, Suzanne. “US Cult of Greed is Now a Global Environmental Threat, Report Warns”. //The Guardian.// (1/12/2010). Web. Retrieved: []. 10/24/11 Klein, Naomi. “Addicted to Risk”. //TED Talk.// Web. Retrieved: []. 10/24/11 Reagan, Ronald. “Official Announcement of Candidacy for President”. //Reagan 2020.// Web. Retrieved: []. 10/24/11 Schultz, Wesley P. “Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors across Cultures”. //Online Readings in Psychology and Culture//, Unit 8, Chapter 4, (2002). Web. Retrieved: []. 10/24/11