Caring for the environment

I've always been concerned about the environment at a very basic level, but yet I feel I have been concerned more than many around me. I'm not even sure if my concerns are rational, but I have had the concept of 'limited resources' on my mind since I can remember. My parents and my Montessori elementary schools taught me to care about the earth. At one school we raised the Earth flag in addition to the American flag. I owned a tote bag that read "hurt not the earth, neither the sea nor the trees." I knew the Lorax speaks for the trees. But I started to really notice the little things when I got to college. Here I notice the waste of electricity in an elevator ride to the second floor when you're fit to walk up one flight of stairs...The waste of electricity in pressing the 'handicap' button so doors automatically open when your perfectly able to open the doors yourself...The dripping of water in bathroom sinks and tubs with knobs that just need to be tightened...The concept of using only one paper towel when drying your hands...Reusing a dish if it's clean enough... All very very seemingly insignificant things which, again, I have no real proof make any sort of difference. I just assume that they do, and they make me feel like I am living a little bit more sustainably than if I hadn't been thinking about them. Saving the earth one paper towel at a time, right? I think often about the need for buildings, houses in particular, with electric outlets in more easily accessible places so that things can be unplugged when they are not in use. I also think often about the need for a better system of recycling, or reuse, or even the elimination of the need for packaging and other products that are frequently ignored and trashed. Still, these are the little things. Perhaps the little things add up, but that's part of the problem: Where do we begin? How do we best, most efficiently affect change? How do we determine what change should be affected in the first place? How do we determine what we want the alternative, the 'new' that results from the change, to be? I am becoming more aware of how complex the whole idea of 'saving the environment' is to implement. The NY Times published a relevant Op-ed recently. Check it out if you have a chance, but first here's a quote:

"Unfortunately, the sustainability movement’s politics, not to mention its marketing, have led to a popular misunderstanding: that a perfect, stasis-under-glass equilibrium is achievable. But the world doesn’t work that way: it exists in a constant disequilibrium — trying, failing, adapting, learning and evolving in endless cycles. Indeed, it’s the failures, when properly understood, that create the context for learning and growth. That’s why some of the most resilient places are, paradoxically, also the places that regularly experience modest disruptions: they carry the shared memory that things can go wrong."

I also just generally like the concept that it's the failures that "create the context for learning and growth." It's a good message that can apply to many aspects of life. 

There's much more to say about the environment and sustainability, about capitalism and policy, and about concept and practice. Perhaps I'll write more about this at a later date. The article mentioned previously in combination with my studies this semester have me thinking about how time and space have changed our approaches to problems and have shaped the actual creation of the problems themselves.