Martha Stewart blisters meat industry in Thanksgiving show 4 Posted 3 days, 1 hour ago
What to make of the new climate poll 39 Posted 3 days, 10 hours ago
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’? 7 Posted 3 days, 17 hours ago
The bad news: Only 22 percent said environmental issues played a major role in their recent voting.
William K. Reilly, former EPA head and chair of the Duke University Nicholas Institute responsible for the poll, states the obvious: "There is a clear disconnect here."
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.
Comments
View as Flat
jdhlax Posted 4:57 am
21 Sep 2005
For example, surveys constantly showed that 85% of Americans considered themselves environmentalists. However, it's clear that the real percentage is around 5-10%, depending on how one defines "environmentalist." The reason is that Americans care far more about material things than they do about the environment. Until there's a significant change in consciousness, environmental problems will continue to worsen, because people would rather, say, drive their cars than save ANWR.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 8:25 am
21 Sep 2005
Like, DUH!
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
Japhet Posted 8:43 am
21 Sep 2005
It found that a majority believe environmental problems are not as bad as they used to be; that stronger environmental standards might bring higher taxes and hurt the economy; and that the issue is not as urgent as jobs and health care.
People are having a tough time paying for higher oil and gas right now, let along taxes. After the massive Bush tax cuts, we are all that much more sensitive to any increase.
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
Japhet Posted 8:48 am
21 Sep 2005
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:15 pm
21 Sep 2005
The environment is the "water" and things like the economy are the milkshakes. I realize that most people have been hypnotized/brainwashed into thinking the opposite, but consider how long one can live without water or air, not to mention food.
My point is that it's the job of any environmentalist -- who's trying to convince people to give the environment priority -- to first show them that even if they don't care as much about say, nature, as they do about say, their cars, they can live without the cars, but not without nature.
I need to make one more very important point here. Some of the writers and posters here have strongly criticized me when I've pointed out half-baked ideas that won't really solve the problems they propose to solve. The reason I'm so strongly opposed to environmentalists touting things like, for example, hybrid cars, instead of trying to convince people to stop driving, is that we'll never convince people that they should stop doing environmentally harmful things if we hold out false hope that taking half assed steps will actually work. People need to be shown, in the strongest terms, the severe damage that their destructive activities cause, and that there's no solution but to cease these activities. For Americans, this translates into greatly simplifying our lifestyles.
Permalink
Japhet Posted 5:34 am
22 Sep 2005
Yeah I guess my analogy was a bit backwards. My point was that the environment will never be on top of people's priority lists until a catastrophe occurs. Obviously, legislative history points to that with the Erie Canal fire and the smog of southern California that helped bring the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act into standing. And now we have Katrina and Rita giving the population an excuse to finally talk about global warming (whether or not you agree with that link, the discussion is out there). But without these natural disasters or threats to our national health we wouldn't have given the environment a second thought. So our priorities change: suddenly we want (like your reversed analogy) the milkshakes because, as far as we're concerned, the water will always be there if we need it. Now, convincing people they can live without the milkshake but not the water is a whole new challenge. I think that is tied to the very soul of who we are and how we define ourselves in the world. For many people it becomes almost a religious discussion, not an environmental one.
And addressing your last point:
I think progress happens in small steps. As much as I'd love for it to take leaping bounds toward a world of ecological perfection, I think there are necessary lessons along the way that enable us a as a species on this earth to better understand ourselves. Those lessons occur in small steps. However, I do agree with you on the whole. Which is why I work with RAN as we are constantly holding the high bar: demanding credible sustainable forestry in the industrial wood sector, demanding zero-emission vehicles in the automotive industry and demanding no investments of ecological destruction in the banking sector.
Thanks for your comments on this...
Jay Els
Educate, Motivate and Bring About Change. http://www.ran.org
Permalink
earthy mom Posted 1:59 pm
22 Sep 2005
I applaud your idealism. However, "greatly simplifying our lifestyles" -- like giving up CARS completely -- is not a realistic option for the vast majority of people. Most people MUST drive to work, grocery, bank, school, etc to take CARE of their biggest priority -- their family. Without a DRASTIC change to our zoning laws that in most places demand that residential and business districts be separate or that require large lots for houses and so on, peope will continue to be forced to drive. I work in a city center. The nearest apartments for rent are probably only 15 minutes away by foot -- but do I want my children to live in a small apartment in a downtown area without even nearby parks? (Not to mention I know of no nearby grocery store) If all my co-workers decided they need to walk to work, competition for those few apartments would raise the rent significantly and still there wouldn't be enough to go around. People want a healthy environment and are even willing to sacrifice. Most people, however, do NOT SEE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES to their current way of doing things. Environmentalists must teach us bit by bit -- describe the long term goals while explaining, baby step-by-step, how to get there. Don't overwhelm a 1st grader just learning to read by giving him Shakespeare to read. He will get there with practise. I love "Ask Umbra" because she provides very practical advice that even "beginner" environmentalists can follow.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 6:01 pm
22 Sep 2005
The issue is priorities, not whether giving up driving is feasible. If your priority is yourself, which includes your family, at the expense of the rest of the planet, then of course it's infeasible to stop driving. If your priority is the planet, then you can find a way.
Permalink
earthy mom Posted 10:38 am
23 Sep 2005
Yes, we all have options based on our priorities. And we are each responsible for the choices we make. The ultimate goal is to bring everyone along -- to inform and motivate individuals AND the masses. We still need to work toward applying environmental priorities to our infra-structure AND legal codes. There is much our government does through public policy, spending choices, and law to make environmentally gentle lifestyles more difficult or more costly or significantly more inconvenient for the vast majority of people. The majority are not activists. The majority do not read this blog. The majority know relatively little about the details on anything. If they really understood or really knew the truth about what's in and on their food and environment they would be OUTRAGED.
In the early 80's I lived in Europe and walked, biked, or took a bus or train everywhere. It was almost always more inconvenient to use a car. In the late 80's I lived for a year in a "3rd World" country without a car -- and a lot of electricity using conveniences we in the US take for granted and think are necessary (like water heaters). I would love to live in SF and not need a car. My family and my vocation keep me in the Midwest instead -- for now.
Permalink