A Conundrum

Michael Maniates makes an interesting point regarding the emphasis on proposed simple fixes to save the environment.  I agree with his point that the tone of publications such as The Lazy Environmentalist and other publications that preach that we all can prevent climate change and other ecological disasters merely by taking shorter showers or using the right type of light bulb is a bit condescending. Fixing/saving the environment is not so simple.  The government and environmental organizations should be asking for more from people, but general consensus seems to be that people are not willing to do more. Maniates does not seem to agree with this and thinks that people would do more to combat climactic instability if more was asked of them.

One on hand, I agree.  Many of the people who do make the small changes in their lives, particularly the ones who were recruited to the green lifestyle by their favorite pop stars, likely are not aware that they are not doing enough.  As a result, they do not know what they should be doing, and the government, environmental organizations, and eco-minded celebrities (essentially those groups with a public platform) need to stress that more significant action is necessary. They control the information; yes, the facts are out there, but most people won't put in the effort to find them, but that is not to say that people would not take more drastic action if they were fully aware of the scope of the environmental problem.  In that sense, the aforementioned groups bear the responsibility for getting the word out, and by understating the problem, they are not only treating the general public like children but are, in fact, perpetuating the problem that they are tasked with solving.

Conversely, however, I am not sure that people would be responsive if asked to do more to protect the environment.  People in general, especially the American populace, have a long history of laughing in the face of fact.  For instance, there is a sizable portion of the population that still denies climate change entirely, which, after decades-worth of evidence, is completely ludicrous.  As such, if people were asked to  dramatically alter their lifestyles; I generally question whether they would or if they would seek out the sources that make them feel better.

Finally, I want to touch upon the strength of interest groups in American government and the role that they play in preventing the type of strict and comprehensive environmental policies proposed by another one of our bloggers.  Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big-any-industry-that-is-fundamentally-detrimental-to-the-environment have a lot of money and, as a result, a lot of power in influence in Washington.  They can rally supporters among our elected officials both directly by contributing to their campaigns (thanks DC United) or indirectly. I am not saying that our representatives our all corrupt and in bed with big business, but a Fortune 500 corporation can devote a lot more resources to preventing more environmental legislation than an NGO can to promoting it.