Leaders and light bulbs

How can we get people voting green? 4

OK, can we agree? Tom Friedman should never write about anything else but green. As daft as he is on some other subjects, every time he writes about green he hits all the right notes.

To wit: "It is so much more important to change your leaders than change your light bulbs."

Now, you might want to add, it's important not just to elect good leaders but to pressure them once they're in office. To do that you need an active, organized grassroots movement, preferably supported by public opinion. You can change public opinion by modeling green behavior and you can create an organized grassroots movement by helping to organize one. So there's plenty you can do other than campaign and vote. But it is nonetheless vital to get the people running sh*t -- everything from neighborhood councils to cities to countries and international coalitions -- on board. We need to elect people who get it.

It's well-known that voters broadly support green goals, and are even willing to pay a little extra for them sometimes. Support is woefully shallow, though; for only a tiny minority of voters is green the top voting issue. One of the most important things greens can do is raise it to the top of the priority list.

How to do that?

I'm convinced that telling people the world is going to hell will never do the job. Why are healthcare and "the economy" always top issues? Because voters face those issues -- if they haven't run into health or economic problems, their families have, or their friends, or other people in their concentric circles of care. They sense immediate dangers and opportunities around those issues. At least in the U.S., nobody faces climate change, at least perceived as such. You want to get voters to really care about green, in a votes-on-it way, you need to show them two things:

  • How climate change will take something from them, their families, or people they know.
  • How "going green" can offer something to them, their families, or people they know.

Both these are useful, but as I keep kvetching, we could use a hell of a lot more of the latter.

That's why Friedman's story about NYC's cabs is well-chosen: Millions of people are directly familiar with those cabs, and like magic, they just got greener, with both economic and environmental benefits and, crucially, no reduction in service. No sacrifice. This might give people the idea that, hey, maybe there are other win-wins out there, ways to make both kinds of green at once ... and if there are ... hell, I want to find one. Then lots of people start looking.

Once they start looking, opportunities will pop up all over the place. As Amory Lovins says, "the low-hanging fruit is still mooshing up around our ankles but the tree keeps growing more fruit and dropping it on our heads." Get people in the habit of picking it up and you'll stop hearing arguments about whether we "have to" go green. You'll stop hearing partisan arguments about the cost of addressing climate change.

You'll get people voting green, not instead of voting on healthcare and the economy, but precisely by voting on healthcare and the economy. After all: green is healthier and more profitable.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Kit Stolz's avatar

    Kit Stolz Posted 4:33 am
    22 Oct 2007

    leaders and lightbulbsTrue, but as regards to the "leaders and lightbulbs," I have to say I heard almost exactly the same line from Bill McKibben months ago. He said: "First, you screw in a new lightbulb, and then you screw in a new Congressman."
    Coincidence?
  2. wiscidea Posted 7:34 am
    22 Oct 2007

    It is in everyone's interest......to become "green".
    Environmentalists can start by severing the association of environmental protection from other liberal, progressive, left --  whatever you want to call them -- causes.
    There is a tendency for voters to assume environmentalists are also opposed to gun ownership, support gay and lebian marriage, tend be soft on crime and terrorism, want to free Tibet, don't support military action (even if it is justified), want everyone to ride bicycles, oppose GMOs, generally waste tax dollars, are going to make everyone wear hemp clothing, support legalization of all drugs, are going to take away property rights, et cetera.
    Such an image is not helpful.

    Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
  3. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 1:12 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Sorry, Wisc...this is not the time to repudiate the values that inform environmental leadership.
    Such an abandonment would not be helpful.

    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
  4. lfrankli Posted 11:00 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Don't forget..."Now, you might want to add, it's important not just to elect good leaders but to pressure them once they're in office."
    Of course, but we also must pressure them before they get there.
    Enter Step it Up and 1 sky.
    Just a small reminder.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement