Please either log in below,
or create an account.
Please either log in below,
or create an account.
Login:
Great Wines
Years of Excellence
Cari Kienitz: Fading Sandcastle ~Enlarge
Most conservationists and environmentalists I know recognize that making sound natural resource choices in our daily lives as consumers is not simple. There are always trade-offs, and what appears to be a clear choice may end up being the wrong one for the planet as well as for us.
So it was a little surprising to see an article over the weekend that in many ways stereotyped conservationists and environmentalists as zealots who see day-to-day resource choices as black and white.
The article in question, authored by Greg Breining, begins by saying “environmentalism can be its own kind of religion,” then cites an example of supposedly muddled conservationist thinking: “…[W]hile ardent conservationists may save a few gallons of water by taking short showers, we waste far more than that by brewing a pot of coffee we don't drink. When you consider how much water is used in growing, processing, transporting and selling coffee, the virtual water use of a single cup of is 37 gallons."
I wonder which conservationists he’s been talking to. They’re probably made of straw. I don’t know many that are unaware of the resource consumption involved in coffee drinking, and try to act on that knowledge. There is surely no harm in taking shorter showers even if you drink coffee. It’s not a matter of one or the other.
Here comes the mother of all stereotypes. Pointing out that the making of a pair of leather shoes costs huge amounts of water, Breining observes, “So feeling smug about the water-saving shower head while buying a new pair of Birkenstocks (or Irish Setter hunting boots) is real cause for cognitive dissonance.”
It’s been a long time since I encountered an environmental advocate wearing Birkenstocks or Irish Setter hunting boots. But using the phrase, and conjuring up cartoon images, sure beats thoughtful critical analysis. And again, is it wrong to install a low-flow showerhead even if you wear leather shoes?
About 15 years ago, a reporter called me to pose some questions about consumer choices. The one I remember was, “Paper or plastic?” My reply – neither, use cloth bags over and over again – stunned her. She was sure I’d say “paper,” since plastic bags were being derided then (as now). Of course, paper bags have their own environmental impacts, and one could argue both paper and plastic are bad. The reporter then disclosed that she was writing a story about how environmentalists don’t know what they’re talking about. Hey, it was good to dodge that bullet.
So let’s shun the stereotypes and turn down the rhetoric. Recognizing that most of us want to do the right thing for planetary stewardship, let’s acknowledge the complexity of the choices, and work together to make the right ones with care and compassion.
© 2010 Great Lakes Town Hall.
The Town Hall is a program of:
The Biodiversity Project - 4507 N. Ravenswood Ave #106 - Chicago, IL 60640
773-496-4020 -
project@biodiverse.org
Comments
KISS
If most of us want to do the right thing for Great Lakes stewardship, then the Great Lakes are probably in fine shape because in a democracy we tend to get that for which we vote. That is one of the pitfalls of a democracy.
I agree that the choices are complex–much too complex to be guided and micro-managed by tons of federal regulations– as the Wall Street fiasco and the BP oil spill have demonstrated, and as the "too cheap to meter nuclear power" will eventually demonstrate.
I will also acknowledge that we may want to work together to make the right choices. But how?
Most of us, being products of government schools, think that the salvation of mankind is more government regulation because it seems the simple thing to do. And since we graduate into bureaucratic positions in government and industry, or at least serve them, we may never know that regulation,as well as the current fiscal and monetary policies, are the death of entrepreneurship. And it is entrepreneurship in energy, as in all sectors of the economy, that will steer us into a sustainable future. It is not renewable energy subsidies, that the lawyer and lover of government, President Obama, is promising. Remember, government can not pick winners, All heavily subsidized and regulated sectors–agriculture, energy, water, transportation, entitlements, defense–are failing.
De-Reg Failures
If one looks at the many recent failures, be it Wall St., BP, you name it, de-regulation is at the core, not the too much regulation you cite. What else has been de-regulated? Nuke Power? Do we wait for that catastrophe to display itself before correction?
You say Gov't cannot pick winners. They did it in the (hostile corporate take-over of the Treasury) Wall St. bailout not to mention the corporate boon created by the trumped-up invasion of Iraq. Good for the military industrial complex as well as vp Chenney making 30 million plus on his haliburton portfolio.
The biggest failure we the people have allowed is to watch corporations cut and run without taking with them the exceptionalism that had made us great, common sense labor and enviro standards. It's become a race to the bottom fueled by mindless greed and mans indignity toward man.
Can we work together? Left and right? I doubt it. That has'nt happened since Kennedy. Politically, the Right does not seek negotiation. They want to destroy the left not talk to them.
A shameful left v. a shamless right. Thats my scorecard
'Life is what happens while your busy doing something else.'[sic] J.Lennon
Simple is right
To top it off, this person clearly doesn't know anything about behavioural change research. Appealing to people's selfishness may work in some instances, but in many more instances it does not work. Why else would offering to do things like free home energy assessments not get massive uptake? Or programs that offer tax relief and compensation for protecting wetlands and forests? Because behavioural change is more complicated than giving people economic incentives or appealing to selfish motives. If he thinks it's really that simple, then perhaps he should do some reading in academic journals to learn a bit more about the complexity.
And as far as choosing between one action or the other, it's a completely bogus argument. It's like when people tell an animal rights activist that they are essentially clueless because they are fighting for the rights of animals, not humans. Why can't they do both? Are the two mutually exclusive? Same with the environment. For sure, people only have limited time and resources, but the examples he uses do not put a strain on those limited resources.
As Colleen Patrick-Goudreau says, "Don't do nothing because you can't do everything. Do something. Anything."
Mr. Breining would likely call that statement naive, but I think it's more naive to assume that environmentalists (and people in general) do not understand that decisions involve complexity that cannot always be resolved by making a choice. But that doesn't mean that a choice shouldn't be made.