Once Upon a Planet Discussion Questions

[Charlie Page]

The article characterizes the primary positions on environmental issues as "blue," "red," "green," and "white." Do you feel that these characterizations are fair? How would you view yourself? Is there any bias towards a certain view in the article.

Is Natural Capitalism a viable system? Are there any flaws or limitations to it? Do you think it will come about organically within our current economic framework, or do you think government or other outside intervention will be necessary to implement it? What signs of natural capitalism are there now?

The article mentions that the “natural capital” revolution would cause current and promising objects of research to be abandoned. What should the priority be for individuals; the advancement of research or rejecting such research on the basis of its relation to the environment?

[ABalko]

In response to question 1, I feel that characteristics of world views; "blue," "red," "green," and "white," are rather fair. The authors give a fairly detailed explanation of each view, and each one pretty much covers a category that almost everyone can fall into. If people are more business-minded, they may favor the blue. If they view the world in a more labor-orientated way, they may favor the red. If they view the world from an environmental standpoint, they will most likely favor the green, and finally the white category is kind of a middle ground for all three. Therefore, for the most part, there is room for everyone to fall into one of the groups. Personally, I would view myself as taking the "white position." I tend to view the world as whatever works at the time. To me, there is no definite way to view the world and the issues we face as strictly related to the economy, labor, or the environment 100% of the time, which is why I believe that with the "white" view, it encompasses everything and allows for aspects of the other three categories to be incorporated when they are necessary. Finally, I do not believe that there are really any biases towards one of the views. On page 214, the authors offer scenarios in which all four views are correct, which I see as placing them all on the same playing field, so to speak.

[Kim K]

To continue the conversation, I don’t know if I know enough about the world to judge if the categories are fair; that may seem like a cop-out to the question, but from my point of view, as A. Balko said, the system seems to cover “a category that almost everyone can fall into,” but just because I cannot think of a standpoint that does not fall into one of those categories doesn’t mean that one does not exist. In short, my immediate reaction is to fear that the categories were created with a Western mindset and may not apply to other cultures as it does to the one I observe everyday.
I think, overall, I fall into the “white” category but at this point in my life I would consider myself “light green.” I do believe that humanity should begin to find ways to limit our environmental impact. I believe this should start sooner rather than later, so to create momentum for the green movement I feel I can inspire others to take action if I appear to support such action. But truly I would probably be considered part of the “white” category because I believe we should preserve the environment so that business and labor can carry on as usual. Also, I see that often, the most successful solutions can balance the needs and concerns of all affected parties.
As a hopeful ending note, in my Energy, Business and Finance class we are learning how economists and financial analysts quantify non-market goods; so there are attempts to place a dollar sign on the priceless valuables of the world, in hopes of giving them a chance to withstand the power of the free-market.

[Shannon Snell]

In response to the third question, I think that we cannot choose only one path or the other. If we prioritize only advancing our research, then we can, in some cases, risk jeopardizing the environment. But if we focus only on protecting the environment, then we could lose out on some important research or business opportunities. I think that everything in the world is about balance. Personally, I call myself an environmentalist and would generally identify either with the green or white groups, yet realistically I know that no one group of people can have it their way. Also, I think we tend to polarize our thinking politically. If we are environmentalists or if we are in favor of labor, we cannot support big business or industrial expansion. There is probably almost always a way to make seemingly opposing ideas exist...they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[Maw5438]

Natural capitalism...so pretty much the economy sustaining itself off the use of the environment? The leading cause of Amazon Rainforest deforestation is to make room for cattle grazing to meet demand for meet. Many livelihoods have been destroyed to extract Marcellus Shale. Many livelihoods were destroyed while drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico last year.

The demand for energy will always surpass the desire for a planet that is not exploited. Somehow, man will probably end up destroying itself.

But what do I know?

[EBjanes]

In response to question three, I don't ever think that more research is a bad thing. The more we know, the better we are able to respond to challenges and problems that arise due to our own foolish meddling in the environment and other more "natural" problems. I don't think natural capital would cause the rejection of research but it most likely would steer it in certain directions that select for efficiency and more profit being produced out of that particular resource.

I think the biggest sign of natural capitalism is seen in mining, forestry and farming. Those companies assign dollar values to the land and the resources that occupy that area. They buy and sell from other companies just like other companies do in other arenas. However, there must be regulations to prevent the destruction of the land, the federal and local governments should both be involved in this regulation.