Jared Flesher discussed this week A Decline in 'Green Guilt' at the NYTimes Green Inc. Blog. Some groups attribute the decline to the fact that Americans are doing more for the environment (more people are carpooling and planting gardens, especially with the economy in its present state) but Flesher gets to what is likely the true culprit: the environment takes the backseat psychologically in times of economic downturn. According to his post:
A recent Gallup poll, for example, found that, for the first time in 25 years, a majority of Americans think economic growth should be given priority over protecting the environment.
Another poll, from the Pew Research Center, found that for Americans surveyed, the environment ranked 16th among a group of 20 national priorities, and global warming ranked dead last.
The economy, meanwhile, was No. 1.
- Log in to post comments
The conceptual leap that needs to be made is that, in the medium to long term, continued economic growth absolutely requires avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.
On the basis of what the IPCC has concluded, it is nonsense to say that we can ignore our emissions and still hope for robust economic growth in the period from 2050-2100 and beyond.
You know, I'm find myself returning to this blog more and more---
Strategies that have brought evolutionary fitness until recently (short term rewards over long term planning, heuristic thinking over critical thinking, story and myth over science and observation, etc.) may at this point be a fitness liability.
Give me that job at the Ford Factory, screw the Polar Bears--
Sad really. I couldn't help but notice the decline in "chatter" about environmental issues over the last 6 months or so. people really need to learn to think more long term. is it hard or more expensive to live "green". does it reaaaally require guilt even? or maybe just a sense of responsibility, consuming less, and wanting the world to remain a beautiful place. but that's just me, a greenie freshly moved to a special place in the bible belt where people would rather dump on the side of the road or in the woods rather than pay $1.00 to take it to the dump around the corner...
Keep up the good work, I was instantly hooked on your blog!
I think part of it has to do with the fact that Obama has been such a vocal advocate for environmental issues. I think that probably makes people more confident that the problem is being taken care of, so they don't have to worry as much. In fact, I'm ashamed to admit that I might be a victim of that effect... which makes me feel all the more guilty...
Adornosghost (poster #2) has essentially hit the nail on the head. Almost every evolved trait that makes us successful is 'uncapped': there has never (for the individual) been 'too much of a good thing'. Collectively, it appears we are running headlong into a previously unseen selection criterion. That there IS too much of a good thing.
.
I'd argue as a scientist that this is an interesting problem to solve in and of itself, in isolation of practical and ethical concerns relating to ecosystem destruction. Stepping outside the consequences of our own evolution - as a species, or even as a part of a species - would be an interesting development. It's probably not going to happen though.
.
But returning to the point at hand, this kind of sine wave in environmental concern is precisely why I don't care for a disproportionate focus on community awareness on a given issue. People can only concentrate their energy on a few things at once, and short term survival IS the first priority. If for no other reason than without it, you don't live to act on your other priorities. Solid, scientific, responsible regulation should always be the approach taken.
people really need to stop seeing environmentalism and economic issues as separate, or even opposing issues. there's many ways, especially now, that going green can also save you money. For example, I've been trying to wean myself off car-use over the last few years. No easy task in the Midwest, and we still use the car in midwinter, but other than that, walking and biking has completely replaced car-use. and so, gas prices are irrelevant to me, and I don't need a membership at the local fitness club.
similarly, our local farmers market has local foods that are cheaper, tastier, and have a smaller carbon footprint.
this is of course all small change compared to what really needs to be done, but this kind of stuff is what people need to stop thinking of environmentalism as a luxurious hobby.
While I know from experience that you can save money personally by changing some behaviours, Jadehawk, it isn't necessarily a general principle, and it's probably misleading to suggest it is.
Inevitably, scale-up capable solutions to environmental issues cost energy and matter, and that means they cost money. Increasing efficiency doesn't (cycling, cutting out transport middle men by buying local WHERE possible), but efficiency increases aren't sufficient to solve problems. Sometimes people really do have to change industry; sometimes businesses do have to spend money. You can't avoid it indefinitely, so it's probably better to talk about how to make it work.
This is because they hype is just that...unvalidated, hype and outright lies. While it is sad that so many Americans suffer from low I.Q. it is a fact that even a fool can know when his leg is being pulled. The current generation of children are pitifully brainwashed. Human beings are the hand of nature the same as bacteria. We change our environment. Weather? It is weather. The seas shall rise and fall. We shall endure more ice ages. I like it warm and cannot cry about waning ice. When earth is in its warm phase the ice on earth is at 3%. THREE PERCENT. We have TEN PERCENT. Meaning the earth is still thawing from the last ice age. Al Gore is a scientific no nothing. Those on his bandwagon are even worse.
I'm sorry, I expressed myself unclearly. what I was saying is that we need to give people examples like that, and similar business equivalents, so that people will start thinking of environmentalism as an investment for their future economic well-being, rather than an expensive hobby, which needs to be scaled down or even dropped when money is tight.