Practical Environmentalism
Woe be the environmentalist who wears her concern on her sleeve. Just as she espouses positions on consumer purchases, so too can she be criticized for an endless spree of life decisions. Can a real environmentalist live more than a bike-able distance from work? Can she own a car? Can she participate in a consumer society? Can she purchase non-local food? Can she live in a climate where carbon release is a necessary component of comfort? If she wears her cause on her sleeve, then she cannot do these things without being called a hypocrite.
Yet environmentalism is necessary in our society. As natural resources become more scarce, as global climate change affects more life and is further linked to man, as it becomes easier to understand our impact on the world: all these factors, and more, make environmentalism the cause du jour, and a necessary cause as well.
We must then pity the dedicated environmentalist. She must be a citizen of the world, yet never travel by non-human-powered means. She must delight in fine culinary tastes, yet never purchase non-local foods. She must stay well informed and connected, but power her home with sun and wind. And she must evangelize, but practice what she preaches as well. A dedicated environmentalist has no easy road to walk.
Since this is the case, we should worry about the future of environmentalism. If each time we make a purchase without environmental considerations, we are called a polluter, an ignoramus, or worse, a Republican, then what motivation do we have for continuing our considerations? And if when we do make a purchase that we hope will minimize our impact, we are told that we are not doing enough, then at what level can we begin to feel good about our efforts? If environmentalists cannot find a way to encourage practical environmentalism, then their movement has no future (and perhaps our planet will share the same fate).
Rather than focus on understanding how our every action detrimentally impacts the earth, a better change would be to promote the benefits of “going green” rather than the downsides of not. In marketing (and persuasion), this is called a “gain framed” message, and it is generally understood to be more persuasive for prevention behaviors (i.e. stop a problem before it starts), as opposed to “loss frames” which work better for early detection behaviors (i.e. catch a problem before it spreads). By selling the benefits of green living, an individual making positive changes can feel good about her efforts and, more importantly, begin to change the way she thinks about herself and make even more “green” decisions in the future.
For the environmentalist who is excited about the cause (and how surprising it is to find so many newly passionate people; ah the power of passing trends), do not spend your time preaching about the evils of consumer society. Unless you are living the most spartan, austere lifestyle, it is likely that you too are guilty of several oversights; you are not living as greenly as you could be. Instead, focus on simple changes that take advantage of our consumer society. The market has responded to a demand for more environmentally-friendly products. Many large companies now make recycled versions of popular products, cleansers that purport less environmental impact, and products with reduced packaging that is easily recycled. This would not have come about were it not for a perceived demand, but similarly, to ignore it because of its producers would be a grave error. Every day, corporations pay to advertise your message of sustainability, albeit indirectly.
While it may be difficult for environmentalists to fully embrace our consumer society, it shouldn’t be difficult for them to perform a simple thought exercise. What agency is most likely to bring about positive environmental change for the country? Is it large corporations? Is it individuals? Or is it the United States government? And from whom does that body get its spending power? The answer is virtually the same for all three. The economy powers corporations to make money, consumers to stay employed, and the government to collect taxes. If our consumer society were to collapse, then environmental issues might be solved. But, I don’t think many environmentalists would trade their job and their spending power in exchange for societal collapse on the global scale. A world in economic and political turmoil wouldn’t be worth saving, no matter how much it would reduce pollution. If environmentalists aren’t careful, they may be orchestrating their own demise through hypocritical and non-practical solutions to this global problem.
Related posts (automatically generated):