It seems like you can’t very far these days without hearing something about the environment. That there are real environmental problems being caused human activities, that we are affecting our habitat in a negative way, is not in dispute by anyone who is bothering to look at the facts being presented by scientists around the world.
So, it’s no wonder that phrases like “eco-friendly,” “greener (fill in the blank),” and “sustainable development” are being used to market all sorts of things. And, indeed, using these terms does help the bottom line, or we wouldn’t see them being touted so often.
That phrases like “sustainable development” are successful marketing tools shows that the public is at least somewhat aware of the damage being caused by runaway consumerism and land development, and some want to help lessen the impact (or at least feel less guilty about their own personal contribution to it).
But the more I hear about “greener” things, the more cynical I find myself becoming.
It’s not that I don’t believe in environmental causes—I most fervently do. But I think these phrases are being used to divert attention from the real environmental issue, which is that at its core, our way of life, as it is, is not in any way, shape or form sustainable, and any real sustainable society we create is going to require some major changes in the way we think in this country.
At first that sounds like a very scary prospect, one that brings to mind dreary pictures left over from the ’60s and ’70s of depressing, under-heated and dim dwellings reminiscent of Soviet Russia. (Indeed, this impression may have been purposely left to discourage any real conservation efforts on the part of the public. It may sound paranoid, but it’s been proven that some so-called grass roots efforts have in fact been funded by large corporations, such as petroleum industries, to promote or oppose efforts on those companies’ behalf.)
Other “conservation” efforts may have left the public with the impression that public transportation or bicycles are the only real alternatives to owning a car of one’s own, and both of those options are perceived as being not only inconvenient, but for the lower classes (busses) or health nuts (bicycles).
We are told over and over that new, cleaner technology is a few years down the road. We’ve been told this for decades, but it never seems to materialize. In 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter climbed to the White House roof to show off the building’s new solar energy system. Granted, it did not power everything, but it was a start, not to mention a major show of support. The system supplied hot water to the entire White House until the end of Carter’s term. Upon taking office, Ronald Reagan had it dismantled and taken down. Guess which president had major stock and friends in the petroleum biz.
The technology doesn’t materialize because the effort is not being put into it. I can’t believe we can figure out how to find whole new ways of getting more oil out of shale in just a couple of years, but no one has managed to make and market an efficient solar collector in three decades. The answer lies in motivation—here, shortsighted profits. I have every confidence that if half the effort were put into marketing and developing reliable clean technologies, they would be very profitable—just not necessarily for the oil guys.
But new technology is just a small part of the picture. Our overall consumption and business models that are dependent upon ever-increasing profits, both nearly inextricably linked, have a lot more to do with our situation—and the solution.
First, let’s start with the idea that creating a truly sustainable society will require major sacrifices on everyone’s part, and that our standard of living will be lowered. I guess it depends on what you mean by sacrifices. If you will miss the countless tons of packaging that is created specifically to become trash, well, I suppose that will be a sacrifice. But if you realized how much of the price you pay for any given item is tied up in unnecessary packaging, you might feel differently. And, if you or your child were healthier, and say, didn’t have asthma as a result of all the extra pollution that wasn’t created while not creating all that extra trash (which not only takes up precious space in a landfill, but used natural resources such as petroleum and trees to create, and used other natural resources to transport from its origination point to assembly point to store to your trash bin, where it finally is picked up by and takes up space on a garbage truck that also uses petroleum) you might just decide you’re entirely better off without all those pieces of glitz designed to convince you to buy something whose lifespan was all of 35 seconds, but whose utterly useless remains may be with us for the next 20,000 years.
In many cases, the things we think of as more permanent aren’t much better. Durable goods and household appliances don’t have the longevity they once had, by design no less. The calculation of this started decades ago and was chronicled by Vance Packard, of “The Hidden Persuaders” fame in his aptly titled book, “The Wastemakers.”
You see, the things we so often take for granted in today’s marketplace were actually carefully calculated and engineered decades ago, after World War II. The problem is, what was good for the short term then is definitely not good for the long term now, but we’re told over and over, “This is the way it is,” with the implication that we’re stuck, that there is no other way.
George W. Bush has proclaimed this country is addicted to oil, but it was force-fed to us, along with the concept of never-ending increase in profits and a throwaway society—and now our infrastructure is geared to it. We, the public, are not addicted to oil, but its purveyors are definitely addicted to its ever-increasing profits as it grows scarcer. We, the public, however, are definitely addicted to luxury and the “quick fix.”
And, as long as everyone “needs” a new cell phone and computer every year, with no way of recycling the old ones, as long as everyone “needs” the latest, greatest bit of plastic crap or gizmo or toy that will undoubtedly be outdated by next week, necessitating a completely new one, as long as everyone “needs” a new kitchen every few years instead of every few decades, this will not end.
Overall, the idea of changing our ways for real does not have a very good chance of succeeding if we don’t embrace some of the ideas of our forefathers, who got along very well with what they had. Well enough, in fact, that we call that undefined era as “the good old days.”
Which isn’t to say that we should go backwards, or that everything in the past was rosy. Certainly, it wasn’t. But there are some “old fashioned” ideas that, perhaps, should have never been discarded, and could even be expanded on.
Things that seem small, like the concept of returnable soda bottles, could really make an impact if implemented. Considering that it’s a pretty safe bet that on average there is at least one bottled or canned soft drink consumed per person in the City of Easton per day, in just one local urban municipality, 27,000 containers could be kept out of a landfill daily, not to mention the amount of energy that would be saved by not having to remanufacture or physically recycle those containers, but only wash and sanitize them for reuse.
“Yes, but what about all the different brands?” you ask.
Well, that’s where the problem of infrastructure comes in. But it’s not too difficult to solve, if we just had the motivation. Bottles could always be returned and sorted at their point of origin—in other words, where one bought the product in the first place. Certainly grocery stores would have no problem coming up with gimmicks to go with this and to entice customers to participate. And, then there’s always the idea of generic bottles, with paper or printed labels.
Another concept that shouldn’t have been abandoned is the well-stocked corner grocery store. While the big box grocery stores we have become accustomed to may seem like they offer more, very few really offer a better selection than one could get close to home in the past and actually offer the consumer less convenience, not more.
The big box store you have to drive to is placed for the corporation’s convenience, not yours. While it might seem efficient to have a tractor-trailer have only one central destination and unload, it is only efficient for the supermarket, not the consumer. The consumers all drive individually to the store, racking up the miles at their own expense, and much more gasoline is used than if the one tractor trailer delivered the goods to, say, five smaller locations that were actually located closer to where the consumers lived.
That’s not to say it’s a good idea to have a Wal-Mart every 10 feet (though things seem headed that way anyway), but for something basic that everyone needs, such as food, it seems only logical to make it more immediately accessible. Assuming that one big box grocery serves 10,000 people who drive an average 5 miles to get there, wouldn’t it make more sense to have five grocery stores serving about 2,000 people apiece that only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 miles? The same 10,000 people would collectively drive 20,000 to 30,000 less miles per grocery trip, and collectively save 800 to 1,200 gallons of gas (using an average of 25 miles per gallon) per trip, each gallon of which would have contributed 19 more pounds of greenhouse-gas building carbon dioxide into the air.
These are just a couple of small examples of how we, as a society, are not really putting our money where our mouths are when it comes to the environment. “Greener” may sound good, but if it doesn’t address the issues of waste that got us here in the first place, it’s just another way of fooling you into thinking it’s all okay. It’s not really green at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment