Join Our Email List
Email:
Turning environmental values into priorities for Texas
Philosophizing green: What do you think?
Climate change is a huge issue right now. Even people who don’t believe humans are the cause admit that something is shifting. Still, the fact that there even are people who still reject the concept of human caused global warming means that it’s harder for people to figure out what they want to do about it. Most of the debates on the topic involve such polarized viewpoints that we’re still arguing so much about causes we aren’t looking at solutions.
On the other hand, many of the solutions commonly accepted revolve around reducing carbon offsets, so even talks about ways to prevent the earth from heating up too much ruffle feathers.
While I understand the sides to this debate, it does lead me to wonder…what’s the big deal? If environmentalists are wrong and using solar energy, planting more wildlife and using biofuels fail, we’ve still managed to cut down our pollution immensely. And scientists have shown there’s a connection between asthma and other health related issues and smog and chemicals.
I’ve seen a lot of arguments that going green will lose us a lot of green, especially in Texas which has a oil-based economy. Another fact that everyone concedes, however, is that the oil we have in the United States isn’t enough to fuel us for much longer. If we don’t jump on the boat early, we’ll be left in the dust when other parts of the country find ways to continue benefiting from automotive fuel and we’re still desperately looking at possibilities to reach out to other unstable countries that can give us some black gold.
To be honest, I am of the belief that going green to reduce carbon emissions is the right way to go about stopping global warming. You probably are too, if you’re reading this. But a lot of the changes we need to make to bring about a greener United States are worth doing for themselves, not just for the over-arching goal of slowing/stopping global warming. Maybe this form of argument can help get support from people who aren’t sure what causes climate change, but are tired of seeing their children hacking up a lung in the front yard after a bus drives by.
What do you think?
On the other hand, many of the solutions commonly accepted revolve around reducing carbon offsets, so even talks about ways to prevent the earth from heating up too much ruffle feathers.
While I understand the sides to this debate, it does lead me to wonder…what’s the big deal? If environmentalists are wrong and using solar energy, planting more wildlife and using biofuels fail, we’ve still managed to cut down our pollution immensely. And scientists have shown there’s a connection between asthma and other health related issues and smog and chemicals.
I’ve seen a lot of arguments that going green will lose us a lot of green, especially in Texas which has a oil-based economy. Another fact that everyone concedes, however, is that the oil we have in the United States isn’t enough to fuel us for much longer. If we don’t jump on the boat early, we’ll be left in the dust when other parts of the country find ways to continue benefiting from automotive fuel and we’re still desperately looking at possibilities to reach out to other unstable countries that can give us some black gold.
To be honest, I am of the belief that going green to reduce carbon emissions is the right way to go about stopping global warming. You probably are too, if you’re reading this. But a lot of the changes we need to make to bring about a greener United States are worth doing for themselves, not just for the over-arching goal of slowing/stopping global warming. Maybe this form of argument can help get support from people who aren’t sure what causes climate change, but are tired of seeing their children hacking up a lung in the front yard after a bus drives by.
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
I wonder if the issues at stake aren't even more fundamental than "global warming exists / pollution is bad..." versus "global warming doesn't exist, pollution isn't a problem..." (Of course, there's also the middle position which is infinitely more troublesome: global warming is happening, but is caused by natural cycles heating and cooling and is well within the tolerance of the ecosystem, and humans are just along for the ride.)
However, at a very basic level, by asking people to make a shift to green energy, green living, and sustainability, we're asking a conservative base - that is, a large portion of Americans who steadfastly believe that yesterday's methods will work just as well today, and that change is inherently bad (a subtle combination of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "No, it isn't broken. It was designed to do that.") to turn an era of political, economic, and often religious thinking upside down.
The decades of prosperity that the United States has enjoyed are due, in large part, because of the ideologies of and belief in capitalism, market growth, and the illusion of infinite resources. Anyone who takes the time and effort to think about it - I mean, really, truly dig into the problem - realizes how unlimited population growth, unlimited market growth, and rampant consumerism plays right into the idea that we'll never run out of anything. But they'll also realize how utterly and horrifically wrong that assumption is.
But I digress. People need reasons to change, and they need very compelling reasons to change the beliefs that lay at their core, in no small part because the people we're trying to persuade are exactly the people who are unwilling to apply objectivity and reason to the problems at hand. And, because those core beliefs are so central to our identity, our way of life, the only two things that can inspire a change are shock and emotion. If it comes to the point where, each and every day, we can see the direct link between our actions and the (necessarily dire) consequences ($10.00+/gallon of gas or 50% of the population getting cancer...?) then we might begin to see the half of America that is "Red" to start going green.
The government can only do so much to affect change; incentives, regulations and tax-breaks for green products might help, but by themselves they won't get the job done. At the same time, individuals can change buying habits or their lifestyles, but unless the transition to green living is seamless (read: painless, or possibly "cheaper") then it'll be almost impossible to get the numbers needed to cause change the free-market way.
The pessimist's question, of course, is always this: Will things need to get so bad before we make a change that nothing we can do would fix it?
Post a Comment
However, at a very basic level, by asking people to make a shift to green energy, green living, and sustainability, we're asking a conservative base - that is, a large portion of Americans who steadfastly believe that yesterday's methods will work just as well today, and that change is inherently bad (a subtle combination of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "No, it isn't broken. It was designed to do that.") to turn an era of political, economic, and often religious thinking upside down.
The decades of prosperity that the United States has enjoyed are due, in large part, because of the ideologies of and belief in capitalism, market growth, and the illusion of infinite resources. Anyone who takes the time and effort to think about it - I mean, really, truly dig into the problem - realizes how unlimited population growth, unlimited market growth, and rampant consumerism plays right into the idea that we'll never run out of anything. But they'll also realize how utterly and horrifically wrong that assumption is.
But I digress. People need reasons to change, and they need very compelling reasons to change the beliefs that lay at their core, in no small part because the people we're trying to persuade are exactly the people who are unwilling to apply objectivity and reason to the problems at hand. And, because those core beliefs are so central to our identity, our way of life, the only two things that can inspire a change are shock and emotion. If it comes to the point where, each and every day, we can see the direct link between our actions and the (necessarily dire) consequences ($10.00+/gallon of gas or 50% of the population getting cancer...?) then we might begin to see the half of America that is "Red" to start going green.
The government can only do so much to affect change; incentives, regulations and tax-breaks for green products might help, but by themselves they won't get the job done. At the same time, individuals can change buying habits or their lifestyles, but unless the transition to green living is seamless (read: painless, or possibly "cheaper") then it'll be almost impossible to get the numbers needed to cause change the free-market way.
The pessimist's question, of course, is always this: Will things need to get so bad before we make a change that nothing we can do would fix it?
<< Home
