In an exasperated post on his PR Junkie blog, Mark Ragan says that despite his own lifelong support of environmental causes, he’s had his landfill of contradictory demands about how to be a greener fellow.
I think we adults are starting to remember what it feels like to be kids:
Lots of different grownups telling you lots of different things: You can fart (and say "fart") at home, but not at school. You can’t wipe your nose on anybody’s shirt but Dad’s. You can jump in the puddle in your purple sandals but not in your pink ones. You can stay up late when lots of people are over and Mom and Dad are distracted, but you have go to bed right on time on Wednesdays. And not another word out of you!
You ask why, the answers don’t add up, but who are you to complain, you’re just a kid.
Isn’t that about how we all feel about this environmental stuff?
And from the sounds of Mark’s rant (and its likely resonance with readers) we’re all about to hit adolescence.
I feel this way about work. One person likes this work style, another has this process, another hates this word. In the context of work and getting anything done (and feeling “engaged”), it’s ludicrous.
I agree. I try so hard to pull recycled materials out of the trash, put them in our little blue recycle box, only to have the recycle guy pick through and leave some items and take the rest. And there’s no explanation/rhyme/reason to his decision. So I’m left saying “Forget it, I won’t recycle anything then.”
One week, triple-ply cardboard is recycle-worthy for pick-up and the next it’s not? I don’t think so.
One of my favorite TV shows is DIRTY JOBS. Last night I caught the one entitled BROWN BEFORE GREEN. In it, smart, studly Mike Rowe makes his point over and over again that armchair environmentalists are full of you-know-what, and that REAL environmentalists are brown, not green. Real environmentalists are the people who haul mosquito-laden tires out of the woods by hand, power their homes using methane from their own cows’ poo (that’s one of Mike favorite words: “poo”), use actual muscles to free a stream that someone had blocked with concrete, and generally get filthy, sweaty, and sore trying to make a living–MAKE A LIVING–by being good stewards of the earth. His message: Sure, go buy your little hybrid car and some squiggly light bulbs, but it doesn’t amount to a hill of poo compared to what these businessmen do. I loved it!
What I’m hoping is that we come to some semblance of a social consensus–as they may have done in Europe, perhaps–about the seriousness of the environmental problem, and the most important things our government, corporations and individuals can do about it.
Right now it’s all just liar’s poker, or at least it seems so.
I agree with you, David. Along with my own American Idol, Charles Krauthammer, I am a “global warming agnostic.” Whatever the truth is, I want to know; I want to be shown–by objective, impartial experts. Contrary to what the media would have us believe, scientists are split down the middle about how much effect human actions actually have on the environment and whether we can actually change cyclic shifts that have been going on for millennia. I wish common sense would prevail and we could all start by being just a LITTLE more thoughtful about what we do to our planet AND how we treat each other. People with a “cause” can get so ANGRY with their planet-mates.
The trouble with this agnosticism, Jane, is that the principal is that it’s hard to imagine what scientist we could all agree was “objective” and “impartial.” Too many people on both sides discrediting opposite views … again, it seems like liar’s poker.
So I gravitate toward the safe side: If one person says the burner’s hot and one says it’s not, I don’t touch the fucker unless I absolutely have to.
I also look at the people on each side of this: You’ve got oil industry goons on one side, with a profit motive. And aside from some cottage industries springing up to serve the green movement, you’ve got mostly idealists on the other. Again–in a vacuum of objective truth that I trust–I’m going to go with the idealists, however dippy, however angry.
That’s why I stand where I stand. Carefully, reluctantly, but firmly on the side of people who talk about that most boring concept in the history of the world, “sustainability.”
Okay, now you pushed a hot-button.
“Oil industry goons” employ hundreds of thousands of people, many of them–and I’m talking about the manual labor, the guys who get dirty–making more than you or I ever will. Isn’t that the American Dream? Oil companies make a FOUR-TO-SIX PERCENT PROFIT from every gallon of gas you buy, and then turn around and spend a lot of that profit on exploration and drilling. Oil companies are NOT responsible for $4 gas. No really HIGH-profit enterprises, such as the movie, tobacco, and alcohol industries, are being targeted for tax hikes, but there are those (and we know who they are) who want to take even more of the meager profit from the oil companies.
What that says to the oil companies is, “We want you out of business. We want you to be less successful. We want you to stop exploring for, drilling for, refining, and transporting oil.” This country would screech to a halt in one day if that happened. It’s idiotic.
Sustainability doesn’t have anything to do with idealism, David, and it has everything to do with REALISM. “Sustainability” means, “It can work in the real world.” Absolutely, let’s find other ways to power ourselves. Absolutely, let’s waste less of everything and explore new technology. But WE NEED FUEL, yet we pretend that the guys who help this country GO are the bad guys. Why?
Jane, I don’t think they’re bad, just self-interested.
But the oil companies’ best interest has less to do with sustainability and realism–how we’re going to live for the next century or two or three–and much more to do with next quarter’s profit (and, yes, employing all those people, etc.).
Don’t believe me? What organization that you’ve ever worked for has been susceptible to the argument, “But what about our corporate culture three decades from now?!”
Business thinks mostly in the short-term, and it thinks mostly about making money. It gets a voice, but surely not the only voice, eh?
Yes, the oil companies are self-interested. We’re ALL self-interested. It’s how we surrive. It’s how we stay…sustainable.
We’re both (I think) yearning for someone who is knowledgeable AND objective. And maybe it’s not possible. It can’t be a politician. MAYBE it could be a scientist–but most scientists are either receiving federal funds for research (so they sing the federal song) or working for a large corporporation (so they sing the corporate song). Who can help us think straight? This is the real problem, isn’t it?
And this recent mess, where our good intentions to develop biofuels have ended up starving people on the other side of the world? The problem with knee-jerk reactions is that we sometimes hit somebody in the groin.
Like Jane, I’m not convinced that global warming is a human byproduct, at least not the bulk of it. The planet seems to have a history of warming and cooling, a rhythm of its own that we don’t live long enough to catch onto.
There are a lot of good reasons to try and live more lightly on the earth, but they have more to do with logic and quality of life(like, grow some vegetables because they taste better the day they’re pulled from the ground, and I know they weren’t treated with any chemicals that might be bad for our health, plus it’s just fun to grow stuff, to watch little shriveled seeds turn into big green plants that give me food and flowers). I bought my Prius initially because I liked the idea that it emitted very little bad stuff into the atmosphere, which is a good thing here where we have inversions in the winter months that hold all that crap close to the ground and cause people breathing problems; but now I’m glad I have it because gas is $4.39 a gallon now here in Alaska and it’s saving my bacon.
Michael Crichton wrote a book a few years ago that I found fascinating, called “State of Fear.” He footnoted the entire thing, and I found myself reading all the notations (something I NEVER do unless forced), and it caused me to rethink global warming. Now, granted, it was sci fi and improbable, the story in his book; but the human motivations weren’t so sci-fi. For example, having worked for an environmental public interest law firm, I know that fundraising is fundamentally important to their survival. Preying on people’s fears is a great way to raise money. So the more worried we keep everybody about global warming, the more likely people are to contribute to their causes. It’s more of this “green” consumerism that Mark referred to in his blog today, which is pretty much all fear-based. We try to ease our consciences by making purchases that are earth-friendly. But now EVERYTHING is earth-friendly–just ask any manufacturer! Nobody makes anything that’s bad for the planet these days. Hogwash.
So, like Jane, I believe we should remain calm, listen to everyone, weigh the evidence as well as we can, and then make the best choices for ourselves, in the context of the world as we view it. Try and be a good person, try to use our brains as well as our hearts (and fears).
Joan: Marry me?
Jane: I’ve thought for many years that a woman would make a better spouse than these men I keep marrying me. I’ll keep you in mind for my next ex. 😉
The responses I see here suggest (and apologies in advance if I’ve misunderstood) that we do nothing really differently than we have been on this issue.
All this “let’s keep looking at all the information” idea – the information about global warming has been coming at us for more than a decade. And most of the people in North America are doing very little differently today than they were 10 years ago. So, what exactly would it take to convince us that we SHOULD do something differently?
Jane – how would you define “an objective, impartial expert”? I think its fair to ask you to actually put some specifics against your demand for such an expert.
It seems to me that many of these demands are simply convenient excuses to keep doing whatever we like. And, if that’s your choice, you’re absolutely entitled, but I think we should be more truthful about the fact that this has to do as much with the fact that we don’t particularly WANT to change, and less to do with “well I haven’t heard the right evidence from the right person yet”.
“It seems to me that many of these demands are simply convenient excuses to keep doing whatever we like.” That isn’t what I was saying, nor what I heard from Jane.
When it comes to global warming, even scientists can’t agree whether or to what degree any climate change has been caused by human activities. There’s evidence that points to many cycles of warming and cooling throughout our planet’s history, and little reason for many of us to believe that this isn’t yet another.
That is not a convenient excuse to do whatever we like, but it is reason not to overreact and cause a whole new set of unforeseen problems, like creating a food shortage that is killing people in other countries. Taking a more cautious, reasoning approach can open many opportunities to alter our behavior in ways that benefit the planet. For example, trying to reduce nonbiodegradable waste that goes into our landfills: simply switching from bottled water to using a reusable water bottle makes a huge difference. Planning out errands so that we can combine the drive home after work with shopping and appointments in a route that wastes the least fuel saves money AND resources. Common sense changes without emotional overreactions is what I think both Jane and I were driving at.
And this current “green” bullshit is just annoying. It actually confuses things, at least for me, because where before this trend, I was pretty sure of where I could get organic foods, non-toxic cleaning products and the like, now that everyone claims to be environmentally friendly, I don’t trust ANY of them.
So I don’t think it’s fair to accuse either of us of being complacent or unwilling to change. For myself, I’m just unwilling to go off the deep end and cause even more chaos. And I’m tired of being viewed as a guilt-ridden sucker by some marketer who’s glommed onto “green.” I’ll stick to being as conscientious as I can with the information that makes it through my common-sense filter.
Jane, are you indeed doing that stuff? If so, you’re doing more than I am. Hell, I just bought a third friggin’ car because I need to be able to take my kid to school when my wife is at work and I just “can’t” get rid of my old IH.
But I won’t advocate for drilling on Ft. Meyers beach or in Joan’s Alaskan forest just so we can get gas back down to a tolerable roar of $3. I don’t think that’s the way it should go: I’m glad it’s $4, and I think it should go up to $6 so we start to change our lives rather than go back to sleep and put off the inevitable.
My 84-year-old dad said it well in an essay a few months ago: He said he grew up in the era of miles per hour and he’s now living in the era of miles per gallon.
Does anybody really think that’s some sort of fad put on us by self-interested alarmists?
Kristen, I don’t think it’s possible to find one perfectly trained, perfectly objective scientist to answer all our questions. What needs to happen is that we ALL need to grow some scientific skepticism. Because when skepticism dies, it’s not science any more–it’s a crusade.
Let’s call scientists who DON’T believe we’re in a global crisis “Group A.” Their numbers are legion, but they don’t attract the talking heads on the nightly news. Group A may or may not be right, but they DO present facts that truth-seekers would do well do consider. Group A, almost without exception, says that although there is no “crisis,” it would be stupid of us NOT to learn to live more intelligently and gently, with an eye toward the distant future.
Group B–scientists who think they can prove a global warming crisis–offer critical and disturbing facts and evidence, too.
The difference that I see between the two groups of scientists is that Group A has retained its scientific skepticism. They have not become crusaders. They came to their scientific belief by carefully studying Group B’s theories and determining that they contained some fundamental flaws. Group A understands the economy and how it affects human lives. They know that higher carbon dioxide levels often come as the result of widespread prosperity. And they know that for any change, there will be trade-offs. They’re not saying “Don’t change,” they’re saying, “Let’s change in ways that are least destructive to our economy until we know exactly what we’re looking at here.”
Group B, on the other hand, has, I think, LOST its scientific skepticism. They are now crusaders rather than scientists, unwilling to consider any new evidence that is contrary to theirs.
I believe some of what Group B tells me, but their attitude–that if I’m not completely for them, I’m against them and I’m the enemy–makes me skeptical of their motives, which makes me skeptical of their information, as it should.
I’d love to see a roundtable forum where Group A and Group B could respectfully argue this important issue.
David, it should thrill you to know that you and Krauthammer are of like minds. In a recent column called, “At $4, Everybody Gets Rational,” Krautie says, “You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don’t regulate. Don’t mandate. Don’t scold. Don’t appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing: Hike the price of gas until you find the price point.”
Who among the candidates or the Congress is brave enough to do this necessary thing?
You know what wears me out? The colorful array of excuses used to justify widespread complacency.
I’m no scientist but maybe I can lead the wandering masses out of their desert of confusion with a few common sense tips.
Green products: If your cleaner has a skull and crossbones on it, it’s probably not green. If the label on your cleaner advises you against ingesting the product and/or breathing in its vapors, it’s probably not green. If the label suggests you keep the product out of the hands of your children and away from your pets, it’s probably not green. If, however, the product is marked as environmentally friendly and the ingredients are non-toxic, biodegradable and vegetable based–with no phosphates, dyes or fragrances–it’s probably green.
Plastics bags: Confused about this issue? Can’t decide if you should recycle your used plastic bags at the local grocery store because there are too many conflicting stories about plastic bag recycling? Is it effective? Is the process too expensive? Is it detrimental to the environment in other ways? What’s worse–buying the plastic bag and throwing it away or using the plastic bag and recycling it? Shut your pie hole, buy a canvas reusable bag and stick your green cleaner in it now that you’ve had a primer in identifying the thing.
Climate change: Not sure if this is a natural cycle in a long series of natural climate cycles or whether it’s a wholly unnatural shift? For shits and grins, let’s presume that we find ourselves in the midst of a natural phenomenon complete with record-breaking temperatures and the melting of the icecaps at an unprecedented rate. All of this? Just the natural ebb and flow of the universe.
Now that that’s out of the way: Could someone please tell me what it is, exactly, about this presumption that gets us off the hook? What is it about the presumption that climate change is “imagined” or “natural” that forgives us our relentless pumping of carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, sulfur, CFCs into the atmosphere?
Now that we’ve established we’re on the same page for the purpose of this exercise, tell me: What are we going to do about the very real problem of global pollution?
(This sort of tangential mammering reminds me of some of the “issues” we had to endure during primaries, e.g. who said what to whose second cousin. Anything to get off point and not take responsibility for the real issues at hand.)
What is so difficult about erring on the side of stewardship?
It’s not that confusing. If you think there is a chance that public transportation might be a better option for the planet than your car, then why not get on the train? Why is it so difficult for us to open our minds to what is common sense and apply it to our daily lives? If, in a million years, they look back on us in the history books and laugh us off the page, what harm will we have done by trying to be tender with the environment? But, no: Our collective behavior says, “We will not act in earnest until our lives are at stake.”
I understand the saturation with green.
Me? I’m saturated with the neon glow of excuses—scattered across the land and humming on the Hill in red, white and blue.
Suki – Will you marry me????? Alternatively, I hope I grow up to be as well-spoken and wise as you!
You said all that so well. Thank you!
Dearest Kristen:
I actually intended to ask for your hand in marriage yesterday. But in the end, decided to save the proposal for a new day.
And now, here you are before me on bended knee.
The answer is “Yes.”
Yes, I will marry you.
What say you and I–and Jane and Jean–have a double wedding?
California, anyone?
Sincerely,
Mrs. Kristen
Egad! California?!?!
(OK, Jane. Massachusetts? I’d prefer the east coast anyway, truth be told.)
Hey David! Don’t you just LOVE how all us crazy people routinely take over here on your blog and bring the conversation to new and weird heights?
P.S. Suki (and Jane & Joan) just let me know when and where I’m supposed to show up. FYI – I also would prefer Massachusetts to the state of nuts and flakes (even though I freely admit being a card-carrrying flake myself!)
My husband says I have to bring him….
Jane: That works out perfectly because then we’ll have someone to carry all the flowers and purses!
…and he likes being called “Honey,” no matter who’s doing it….
Um, oil is a backbone for many, many, many other products that we use and depend on besides cars.
Susan, to whom are you directing your “um”?
Alright. Signing off for the day. Kristen: I’ve rented my tux. Jane: shove Honey into his flower girl dress and get him to the church on time.