One of the readings we had in class, Our Planet Is Not Doomed. That Means We Can, and Must, Act, by Dagomar Degroot, explained the situation where doomism regarding the environment may not be exactly accurate. This idea is important because it highlights the sensitivity to doomism, the true harm the Earth is facing, and what people can do to act. This article also reminded me of conversations I have had with my parents in the past, and how I have also believed that the planet was doomed before. I feel as though the article by Degroot also made me understand the idea of sustainability more, specifically, ways to be sustainable and think sustainable. 

Degroot affirms that, “Climate ‘doomism’ holds that greenhouse gas emissions are soaring beyond control, that runaway heating will continue even if emissions decline,and that ecosystems, then societies, will collapse once heating exceeds thresholds that will soon be reached. It’s a terrifying thought. But it’s wrong – and dangerous” (Degroot). From this quote, I questioned how this idea could be wrong, and what danger could come from doomism, considering I also believed we were doomed. Degroot says the solution would be slowing emissions and watching the Earth’s sensitivity. The emissions have plateaued recently and could possibly start to decline. He also states that due to the Earth’s sensitivity is so high, yet the decrease in emissions can determine the heating of the planet. The reasoning that doomism can be dangerous is because it discourages action since it is considered to be destined to fail (Degroot). I found these details in the article to be very interesting and caused me to rethink my perception on doomism, and I ended up changing my opinion. 

Similarly enough, the concept of doomism has been a topic I have discussed with my parents before. I had expressed my opinions on how I believe the emissions were destined to be the end of us, and that it had gone on for too long and in too high amounts. My parents had disagreed and had made several points that Degroot stated about the facts of emissions and the dangers of saying we are too far gone. After reading Degroots article about doomism and further research, I have actually changed my mind regarding if doomism is correct. 

This article also helped me understand sustainability more as well. Learning the correct ways to not only help be sustainable, but also ways to think in order to promote it more ass well has really helped me come to an understanding. We must start to change. Emissions of greenhouse gasses need to decrease in order to stop warming. There is also the availability of new technologies that could possibly help as well. Degroot also mentions the importance of lowering aerosol pollutants and the natural variability in the Earth’s climates. 

Dagomar Degroot’s Our Planet is Not Doomed. That Means We Can, and Must, Act, discussed the importance of knowing there is still a chance for Earth. Degroot wrote on several ways in which emissions are lessening, and how doomism is not the way to go. It reminded me of conversations I have had with my parents and how this article and research of my own has changed my opinion to a more optimistic one. Understanding how to think in a sustainable way and keeping optimistic is an important and necessary way to help the world survive the climate crisis. 

A theory discussed in class that I found interesting and changed my idea of sustainability was the Actor Network Theory. This theory is defined as a theoretical strategy for understanding events, concepts, and situations as systems of relationships. In other words, more things are connected than some may think. As an activity in class, we created a web-like diagram that had actors such as the professor, the students, readings, attendance, discussions, and so on. All of these entities, or nodes. Have relation to each other. For example, the teacher assigns the readings that the students do, then we discuss these readings in class, which one could be a part of depending on their attendance, and so on and so forth. 

A reading from class written by Richard D. Besel, Opening the “Black Box” of Climate Change Science: Actor-Network Theory and Rhetorical Practice in Scientific Controversies, discusses Actor Network Theory in a rhetorical setting regarding the analysis of a study done by other scientists. Besel goes on to assert, “ANT thus provides a critical perspective that moves beyond the traditional  ‘’close reading’ approaches used in rhetorical criticism and environmental communication research. In other words, ANT critics use what Leah Ceccarelli calls a ‘close textual-intertextual analysis’ and more” (Besel 125). This observation really helped me when I was learning about Actor Network Theory, and it helped me be able to visualize it working in the world around me. As Richard Besel went into more detail in the analysis of the study, the idea arose that this theory could be applied anywhere (similar to the example that we used in class regarding the teacher, students, reading, etc. being related). Applying this to the topic at hand in class, sustainability, my idea of the environment and ways to help it became a little more advanced. 

Before learning about Actor Network Theory, a lot of the practices regarding sustainability were all separate entities, I never really put the pieces together. I assumed that the people running companies that produce carbon emissions were completely separate from the government, from the average person, and especially from climate activists and sustainable companies. However, this is not completely true. By using Actor Network Theory and plotting all of these nodes in a web, it becomes clear they are all very interconnected. 

Putting all of the nodes into one web is something that has helped me understand the flow of sustainability that I have seen. Specifically when breaking down each layer into subcategories from what I have read in class as well as out, and also the ideas I have seen in the real world of sustainability being implemented. Using Actor Network Theory in regard to rhetoric has been a challenge, it has become apparent that there is more to look at than what is at face value. Besel emphasizes, “The use of ANT as a framework for rhetorical criticism in this article certainly builds additional bridges between the work of Science Studies scholars and rhetoricians. However, there is still much to be done. Even in this one case, I have only examined the way one node of a network was defended by invoking other nodes of the network” (Besel 132). This passage reminds me that there is always more to be found, sustainability, to me, has become something that is ever changing and connected endlessly. 

Through Actor Network Theory discussed in class and through Richard D. Besel’s writing, I have found that connecting nodes together in the frame of sustainability has helped me reach a certain point of understanding in an endless web of ideas that surrounds being sustainable. The nodes are not separate entities, but rather connected through work, ideas, or actions. This does not equate to a complete understanding of sustainability though, as Besel stated, “There is still much to be done”.

In class we discussed the concept that planting trillions of trees may not be as positive as we thought. In an article written by Benji Jones in VOX, this exact concept is brought up. Jones begins his article by saying that 11 million trees were planted in Turkey in 2019, which set a world record for the most saplings planted in one hour in a  single location. And after three months, 90% of the saplings were dead (Jones). This idea has been done lots in the past years with people going out and planting trees in areas to combat paper usage, maybe not to the scale of Turkey, but still it has been a common practice. 

Researchers have found no evidence that tree-planting campaigns have worked and are seen to have high failure rates. The reason a lot of these saplings die is because the planters do not pick quality habitats for planting. There’s also the chance that animals can destroy the saplings when planting in former grazing lands. Jones goes on to write that a failure in tree planting is not just a failure, it can harm the ecosystems. There have been reports of tree planting campaigns that have cleared parts of existing forests in order to make room for saplings to go into the ground, and also reports that large tree planting efforts have degraded grassland ecosystems (Jones). Even though the effects of tree planting initiatives are so negative, these efforts are still being put in place to try and help the environment. 

In high school, I was a part of a club called the Environmental Club. We did a lot around the school like implementing recycling bins inside each classroom and workroom, made sure the right things were being recycled, and tried our hardest to make sure it was all going to the right location after pick up. We held fundraisers at local restaurants and businesses and even started a program where we went around and planted trees for people who ordered them. This program was put in place in a way for people around my community to purchase saplings and have them planted in their yard, a park, or anywhere they wanted. We had a ton of people send in orders and this event had to take place over a span of a couple days to get done. We sent members from the club out to addresses and parks to plant and everyone was happy. The program was a success. However, now that I look back after reading this article, maybe it wasn’t. 

I think that the club made the same mistake that a lot of others have made regarding planting trees, we did not make sure the areas we were planting in were good, we did not check back in on the trees after a while to help them, and we did not take into affect the harm we could have possibly done to the ecosystem. While we may have made a mistake, I know now how to properly go about a tree growing campaign.

A quote from the article that stood out to me was one from Lalisa Duguma, a climate scientist. She said, “We should stop thinking about only tree planting, it has to be tree growing.” What she means is that there is more to reforestation than just planting trees. There is long term surveillance, commitment of resources, and monitoring each and every sapling. Reforestation is not easy, and when companies, clubs, or individuals try and make it easy, it’s not just a failure, it’s a harm. 

A concept introduced to me during this class that I found very interesting was how environmental beliefs are introduced and formatted in different ways. Julia B. Corbett, the author of The Formation of Environmental Beliefs, writes a lot about how the introduction to environmental sustainability, or the lack thereof, has a large impact in how one may view the world of sustainability when they are older. Corbett states, “Your belief system is both an individual and a cultural product” (Corbett 13). When we are younger, a lot of values and traditions are put in place by our parents, guardians, and just people we are around at that young age. If someone has people around them telling them recycling is not important and sees their parents litter, they will most likely do the same and continue to do so as they get older. If someone is raised on separating their trash and recyclables, composting, and using less energy in the home, they will also continue to do so as they get older. 

Corbett also goes into detail regarding the idea of a “sense of place”. How someone views the place in which they are and the relationship they have with such a place, has a very strong connection with how they will treat that place. This trend continues as one looks at the bigger picture, for example, if someone loves the place they are from, they will treat it with respect, and therefore want to treat other places with respect as well. “Our relation to a physical place helps us make sense of the world and know how to act within it. In other words, ‘Places inform who we are and therefore how we are to behave; in short, to be somewhere is to be someone. . . [P]laces are also imbued with socially constructed (and often politically defined) expectations of appropriate behavior.’” (Corbett 18). As Corbett writes, the relationship between where someone is from and who they are is immense. This correlation, to me, is one that is almost obvious, however that could be me speaking from my own experiences. 

I grew up in a small town in the suburbs of Cleveland, Ohio where my house was a three minute walk from Lake Erie. I had parents that knew how important sustainability is and were knowledgeable on the positive consequences of recycling. Having these two qualities, my hometown and my parents beliefs, I have grown up to care greatly for the environment. 

As someone who grew up with parents that cared for the environment and then passed that onto my siblings and me, I now have strong opinions and act towards helping with sustainability. In high school, I was president of our Environmental Club which helped with the recycling in my school, we held fundraisers, and we visited the Oberlin College’s sustainability center. I can guarantee that I would not have had that much pride and passion for being kind to the environment if my parents had not taught me so. This directly lines up with what Corbett was saying in her article. 

Regarding my hometown, this, again, relates to Corbett’s writing on someone’s place. Growing up near the lake and the river that led into the lake, being conscientious of how I treated the world around me was huge. We were even taught in school to not throw things into the lake or river, to be careful on boats, and to respect the wildlife. Having these experiences on the lake as a young child definitely molded me to have more care for the nature around me and the nature in all other places.