HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Global Warning - Nov 24, 2004 - Printable Version
- It's the Environment, Stupid!
by Robin Buckallew
For the past couple of weeks, there have been a tremendous number of polls conducted of the American public. It seems the pollsters are trying to figure out what America is thinking, so they can explain it to those of us who are thinking it. I wish them luck. I think when John Edwards posited that there were two Americas, he was off by at least an order of magnitude. Anyway, a typical poll that is conducted about this time involves what issues were the most important in the election. In a poll taken of twelve issues, it seems the environment came out eleventh. That really shouldn't surprise too many people, since the environment was hardly ever mentioned in the election at all. The candidates avoided it like it was Anthrax. In the wake of this poll, of course, environmental groups everywhere are debating the issue of how to raise awareness on this issue to a higher priority. One discussion that particularly caught my eye was asserting that the environmental movement, to be taken more seriously, needs to include "values statements". I have a great deal to say about this. Nothing new, you mutter. Sometimes, dear reader, I am sure you wish that I would quit reading the newspapers and take up a nice new hobby - perhaps sky diving or bungee jumping. I'll give it some thought. It has to be safer these days than being an environmental scientist. In assessing the worth of values statements in getting a point across, I would like to begin by directing your attention to the Democratic National Convention, held in Boston in July. Democrats were told they needed to address values. I don't know how many of you watched the convention, but if you didn't, you might be unaware that God was prominent there. In fact, God was more prominent that any other factor. The candidates, the Constitution, the Democratic platform, were all offered up as token of our love of God. I would also like you to notice something else. The Democrats not only lost, they lost big. The Presidency went to the Republicans. The House of Representatives - Republican. The Senate - Republican. I'm afraid God didn't help much. I'm not in any way impugning the sincerity of the decent people who spoke from the platform, proclaiming their love of God and country. But what was lacking was a new, visionary, forward looking platform that people could understand and embrace. Also, it became quite obvious from the polls that the people voting for "values and morals" weren't looking for God - they were looking for a particular God. Their God. And they didn't see him at the Democratic Convention. They saw a God that tolerates and even welcomes diversity, that accepts homosexuality without condemnation, and that has no problem with women in positions of power. This is not the God they are looking for in the Bible Belt. Trust me, I live there. I know. And the God they are looking for does not care about saving the whales, because he gave the whales to us to do with as we will. The problem the Democrats faced wasn't a lack of values - it was that they have the "wrong" values. So values alone aren't enough.
Another point about values statements in the environmental movement. Statements advocating for addition of such things usually leave me scratching my head in total bewilderment. You see, values statements are already present in abundance. In fact, much of environmentalism is based upon values. Many religions, including most Christian denominations, are very supportive of the environmental cause. Values statements are, in fact, the key defining feature of environmentalism. This has not helped the movement. In fact, it has often hurt. You see, such values statements often lead to rhetorical excesses on the part of enthusiastic tree huggers, and these rhetorical excesses are easily demolished in the cold light of science. They rarely stand up to an aggressive anti-environmental campaign waged by a ruthless oil company or chemical company. What the environmental movement really needs is a commitment to answer science with science. The environmental scientists have been able to do this in many cases, but they do not often get the press. Why not, you ask? There are a couple of reasons. One reason is the disparate resources of the environmental movement when laid beside the resources of the large corporations who seek to influence opinion. I routinely see the press refer to the poor corporations struggling to hold their own against the "well-funded environmental interest groups". This makes me laugh. Actually, it makes me cry. The budgets of environmental scientists and lobbyists are paltry compared with the budgets of corporate scientists and lobbyists. Another reason lies in the nature of news itself. It is very easy to sell corporate owned newspapers on the idea of carrying corporate friendly news. And when corporations are putting their stuffy, verbose, and hard to understand scientists on against the showy flamboyance of eco-activists speaking about the aesthetics of polar bears and redwood trees, people might be sympathetic to the eco-activists, but they believe the stuffy scientists even as they are tuning them out. Graphs and charts are pretty impressive, especially graphs and charts you don't really understand. The people creating them must be extremely smart.
If the environmental movement doesn't lack for values statements, what is the problem with getting it prioritized politically and socially? This, like most issues in modern society, is a highly complex issue, and cannot be reduced to a simple answer. However, I will attempt to answer the question to the best of my limited ability.
One main problem is that the environmental movement is seen as elitist. The average American might think it would be nice to save the polar bears and baby seals, and protect the redwood forests from clear-cutting, and even identify themselves as environmentalists when polled. But for most people, they fail to see how it touches their daily lives. It is seen as a movement populated by rich young slackers driving Jaguars who have too much money and too much time. This view is encouraged by the powers that be, as it tends to marginalize environmentalism as a hobby and a luxury that people can ill afford. For most of us, the presence or absence of a few polar bears seems to be of less than monumental importance. This perception of elitism is not only damaging, it is untrue. The environment is something that truly affects every living person. This is not just about saving a few tigers, or a spotted owl. This is about clean air, clean water, and clean food. This hits us where we live and breathe. It is hardly an elitist issue, as the elitists are the least likely to be affected by the impacts of environmental destruction. In fact, they are raking in the dollars from devastating the resources that we all depend upon. The impacts of dirty air, dirty water, and dirty food are disproportionately felt by the lower class and the working class. Most waste dumps are sited in their neighborhoods. Most of the unclean food is dumped in the lower price grocery stores, and eaten by the people who can't afford to go organic or buy the higher priced cuts of meat. Asthma is most common in the poor. Lead poisoning is most common in the poor. E-coli outbreaks rarely happen in wealthy neighborhoods. It is not elitist to be an environmentalist; it is only perceived that way because of bias in media presentation and encouragement of this bias by the corporate sponsors.
Another problem the environmental movement has is getting heard above the clamor of other important news and issues. People spend hours talking about problems in the stock market (no disrespect intended to the other fine writers in this newsletter), about high-profile celebrity crimes (sorry, Scott Peterson, I'm a little sick of hearing about you), or about whether gay marriage is going to destroy heterosexuality forever. They are focusing on issues that involve their wallet, their curiosity and their soul. They do not have any time left over for issues that involve their very life and well-being (such as breathing and eating). And at some point, there is a realization that there is nothing they can do abut the stock market, high-profile celebrity crimes, or homosexuality. They are easy to get outraged about, because you can talk for hours without being expected to take any action. But on the issue of the environment, there is always this little nagging fear that talking about it might not be enough. This is an issue where we, as individuals, might have some impact, no matter how small. Every change in our lifestyle is a small step toward a bigger change in the dynamics of environmental protection. And changing the way we do things is the hardest thing for almost all of us. We are nothing if not creatures of habit. So, if we ignore the issue, we can perhaps quiet that nagging feeling in the back of our brains that we really should be doing something about it. We tell the pollsters we believe in environmental protection, but what we are really saying is that somebody should do something. Some vague, amorphous "they" that just isn't doing their share. As long as it doesn't mean we are expected to help. After all, we're busy.
There is also a perception nationwide that something is being done. We have the EPA, we have the Sierra Club, we have the Nature Conservancy, and they are all out there doing the work. And if you like something a little more radical, there are Greenpeace and Earth First! to speak for you. And there are things being done. Some wonderful things. Some battles that are won, some that are lost, some that are draws. Some dedicated people fighting on the front lines to preserve the environment. And the rest of us are out there putting our recycling bins out by the curb and feeling very noble. But for every step that we take forward, the system pushes us two steps back. We think we are gaining ground, and often we are losing. Or at best holding our own. It's sort of like the old saying, "I don't beat my wife as often as I used to". We are giving ourselves a large amount of credit for a small amount of success.
Finally, my last reason for why the environmental movement is listed eleven out of twelve. It is the nature of the problem itself. There is an old adage that tells us if you put a frog in boiling water, he will jump right out, but if you put him in comfortable water and raise the temperature a little bit at a time, you can boil the frog alive without him jumping out of the pan. We are like frogs in slowly boiling water. While stock market crashes, murders and terrorist attacks are big, sudden and showy, most environmental degradation happens relatively slowly, in gradual increments. We don't notice it. Oh, we might notice some events, such as a Wal-Mart suddenly sitting in a spot where there was a forest when we were growing up. But overall, the immensity of the problem doesn't hit us, because it has crept up on us over decades, centuries and millennia. Many of the models are giving predictions in time frames we can't understand. This will happen in a decade, that in 50 years, still another event may not occur for another century. It is easy to look at such large stretches of time and believe that we have plenty of time to do something. It is only when something sudden and unexpected (and therefore newsworthy) happens that the environment moves to the top three issues that are on people's minds. Remember Chernobyl? Three-Mile Island? Love Canal? Remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire? Following these events, for an all too brief period of time, the environmental movement enjoyed a place in the sun. There was immediacy to these events. People noticed. Of course, each of these disasters was, like many other environmental issues, a long time in the making. Each was extremely preventable, but only if we took action long before. What major disaster is brewing right now? What monster is hiding under the bed, ready to pop out as soon as he thinks we're asleep? Why do we refuse to look at the 900-pound gorilla sitting in the corner? Until we begin to think about environmental protection before disasters occur, we will continue to have these sporadic, catastrophic events that capture the headlines and make us think about the environment. Where will you be when the next disaster strikes? Perhaps you'll be the one standing next to it. Think about it.
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).