PennacchiaDebatePaper2

Andrew Pennacchia Sustainability Problems Word Count: 1652

Issue 3: Is American culture a sustainability problem?

 Following the industrial revolution in the 1800's, America's superior advancement in industry and technology have allowed it to become one of the most powerful and influential economic and social powers in the world. These advancements have influenced the lives of American people, and has created a unique culture that is socially dependent on technology and products that are developed by the burning of fossil fuels. The people's need for this way of life has increased the need for more fossil fuels such as oil, resulting in the use of different drilling methods, which have questionable risks to the environment. While the need for more oil is a sustainability problem for many other countries, the main issue is regarding the nature of American culture as a sustainability problem in itself. The main stakeholder involved in this issue is the planet earth and the environment in which we live. Changes must be made to take more action against harmful environmental practices so that the planet's resources will remain abundant for future generations.

 At a recent TED conference, Nancy Klein gave a speech entitled “Addicted to Risk”, where she explained how the American culture has driven a way of life that takes risks with the safety of the environment. She bases her argument on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and how it was an environmental disaster caused by the carelessness of American industry. She feels that the American culture has become willing to gamble with the environment without thinking of the consequences it may have. This attitude is also seen in other areas of culture such as in the financial district. Bankers making ridiculous annual salaries only care about making the most money possible, without thought to how or what has to be done to get it. This attitude can only be defined as greed. It is also relevent with the issue of climate change. Instead of thinking of what we can do to solve the problem, economists think only in terms of what will least affect the GDP, asking questions such as, “How long can we wait before we actually have to do something to make a change?”. The country puts more emphasis on questioning a scientist's belief in global warming then the actual consequences of global warming on the environment. Americans think that they can control the temperature of the earth like a thermostat, but the reality is that we have no idea how badly we have impacted the planet until it is too late. But what Americans do is fall back on technology and believe that if there is a problem, we can just invent a solution. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP was quoted stating that the Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean, and the oil spill is very tiny in comparison. This attitude is no surprise, since it follows suit with the rest of the country's greed. Klein states that when civilization hits a problem, it always looks for a new frontier to take advantage of. This has resulted in drilling for oil in the freezing arctic ocean, where a cleanup from a spill would be impossible, and the tar sands in Canada which has destroyed a large portion of the environment. Klein closes her argument with her belief that this is exactly how civilizations commit suicide, by stepping on the gas when they should be slamming on the brakes.

 This speech is compelling in that it reacted to the BP oil spill as a hole in our society, shedding light on our carelessness to take risks with the environment just so that we do not have to alter our way of life. While this attitude may be commonly known, I feel that it describes a cycle that will be very hard to break. Industries such as oil drilling are doing their job to make money, but our culture is giving the oil industry their money so that they can take advantage of the products created by oil. If a change must be made, it is not going to be made by these industries that are built on greed, but by a change in the way of life by our society. Klein's speech accomplished her goal of letting the American people know what their attitude has caused, and what will happen if it does not change.

 While Nancy Klein argues against American culture in the present time, Ronald Reagan argued the opposite position during his announcement of candidacy for president in 1979. Although this was near the beginning of the “energy crisis”, Reagan stated his position that the American people live in anticipation of the future, rather than fear the future as a repetition of past failures. His speech was developed into three main issues, the first was the restoration of the American economy, the second was the energy crisis, and the third covered foreign affairs. He began by blaming the federal government for the disaster in the economy stating that, “ The people have not created this disaster in our economy; the federal government has. It has overspent, overestimated, and over-regulated. It has failed to deliver services within the revenues it should be allowed to raise from taxes. In the 34 years since the end of World War II, it has spent $448 billion more than it has collected in taxes -- $448 billion of printing-press money, which has made every dollar you earn worth less and less.”(1) Reagan also stated that the tax system must be replaced in order to restore incentives for workers and industries so that the economy can grow and prosper. He believed that the American people should not have to change their way of life, or sacrifice anything regarding the growing cost of energy, and that all of our time should be spent exploring and developing domestic oil and natural gas, rather than relying on foreign countries. While he felt that solar energy may provide much of the answer in the future, and that scientists should continue to find substitutes for fossil fuels, he put emphasis on engaging in the wider usage of nuclear power and coal for our energy needs. Reagan ended his speech with the idea that the United States should develop a relationship with Mexico and Canada, and feed off of each other for natural resources, and eventually become the world's strongest and most self-sufficient continent.

 I was surprised at how easily Ronald Reagan attacked the federal government and blamed it for causing an economic crisis, and that he would be able to make a complete change. But he did focus his argument on lowering taxes for the people, and stating that Americans do not need to change their way of life, and that the government is the one that must change in order to solve the economical and social issues during that time. It is hard to say how much of his speech was actually true, or just to win the appeal of the people. Reagan was very forward about continuing to use fossil fuels as our main source of energy, and he took on the attitude that Nancy Klein discussed, believing that Americans will prosper no matter what and technology will be able to save us in the future.

 A related article written by US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg talks directly about the role that the American culture has played in current state of the environment. The article titled, “US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat, report warns”, provides compelling facts on the American culture and how its greed in excess consumption is the biggest threat to the planet. Goldenberg states that the average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, which has fueled a global culture of excess that has recently spread around the world. Excess has been adopted as a symbol of success and power, which an attitude that is not a direct result of normal economic growth, but a result of the greed in industry and businesses to make money off of consumers. The article states that there needs to be a transformation of values and attitudes in order to make a change, and that cultures cannot be solely centered on consumerism and growth.

 American culture is most definitely a sustainability problem. Our country has made it difficult to be or even think sustainably, with how effortless it is to be unsustainable. And the bottom line is what Nancy Klein stated in her speech, American culture is addicted. Americans are addicted to power and success, and whatever they can do to keep it that way. In my opinion it comes down to large businesses that control entire industries. They are not only making ridiculous amounts of money and controlling the markets, but they are controlling the American people. Americans as a culture are completely influenced by the popular markets, and will do anything to maintain their image with no thought of the consequences. I feel that the large industries have the power to make changes in the way our culture consumes, mainly because they have the most influence on the American people, as well as the most money. But the fact that they will lose money in the process is enough to scare them away. There have been encouraging efforts in the past decade to make a change in the way we live, as stated in the last article, and I truly feel that our culture has the ability to change.

(1) "OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDENT." N.p., 1979. Web. 25 Oct 2011. .

(2) Klein, Nancy, auth. "Naomi Klein: Addicted to risk." //TED// <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. 2010. Web. 25 Oct 2011. <http://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_klein_addicted_to_risk.html>.

<span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">(3) Goldenberg, Suzanne. "US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat, report warns." <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">//The Guardian// <span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">. N.p., 2010. Web. 25 Oct 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/12/climate-change-greed-environment-threat>.