Letters to the Editor
captainlarab
Published Letters: 539 Editor's Choice: 41
-
I think the idea is that we do this collectively
[Read the article: You are now free to pollute about the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're missing the point. It doesn't make a discernible difference to the broader scheme of things whether you personally fly every day. The idea here is, if we all collectively engage in less air travel, demand will decrease and demand for more eco-friendly means of travel will increase.
Your argument is like saying, "I might as well buy this mink coat, the minks have already been beaten to death anyway." Or "Eh, might as well have steak again, if I don't someone else will just buy the steaks."
-
@ uwes98: How about this for a slogan?
[Read the article: You are now free to pollute about the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Don't take more than you need."
Wouldn't that be a good, all-encompassing environmental philosophy to live by? If you need to travel by plane, then just freakin' do it. My partner does nationwide speaking engagements, I get it, believe me. But if you don't *need* to travel, then try not to. If you do treat yourself to a nice vacation, then compensate for it with carbon offsets.
Do you need to leave your computer on all day and all night? No. So don't do it (it's better for your computer to restart it now and then anyway).
Do you need to fall asleep with the TV on? No. So don't do it.
Do you need to take a 20-minute hot shower? No. Do you need the thermostat set to 65 degrees in the summer? No. Do you need to buy kitchen herbs imported from God knows where when anyone can grow them in their kitchen? No. Do you need to eat meat every day? No. And for the love of God, do you need to drive an SUV? Unless you live on a ranch in Montana, NO!! (And if you do live on a ranch in Montana, see what you can do about those methane cow farts, will ya??)
I think we're making all this more complicated than it needs to be. Americans are now well on their way to taking the same approach to environmentalism as they do to dieting, always looking for some magic formula, when in fact the key is simply to live moderately. We all know what contributes to pollution and global warming, let's just do less of it.
-
@ Tom 70
[Read the article: You are now free to pollute about the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why are we "blaming" consumers? I don't see what's going on as so much a matter of "blaming" consumers, as it is both placing some responsibility on individual consumers to help solve the problem, and giving all people a sense that there is something positive they can contribute to this effort.
That's not to say that the political efforts aren't important. I agree we should do something about the trains and that there are a lot of public policy issues to be worked out. But most of us don't have the political connections, wealth or access to the airwaves that Rupert Murdoch does, so if you're not willing to place some responsibility on yourself as a consumer, you're probably going to be largely limited to writing to your Congressman and posting letters to Salon.com.
What I like about what you consider the "blame the consumer" approach is that I can make a positive contribution all by my lonesome, without having to become an amateur lobbyist. I can drive a hybrid and walk a lot. I can grow stuff in my backyard. I can put energy efficient windows and awnings and solar panels on my house. And to the extent I can't reduce my own carbon footprint to zero, I can at least, as the result of my efforts, more accurately assess the nature and extent of the government intervention that is needed. It's only been through my own experience of trying to acquire a solar powered house that I've realized how much help people are going to need who are of lesser means than I am.
Everyone here is thinking so big--why not start by thinking small? Think about your own backyard first, then think about your neighborhood, your ward, your city. There's so much that can be done that would be good for the environment, not to mention national security (again, I think it's a bad idea on so many levels for those of us in DC to be dependent upon fresh produce from California). If you can't purchase green energy locally, find out why not. If you see wasteful activity at your workplace, see if you can eliminate it. If there's an empty lot near your home, see who owns it and whether your community can grow food on it. If your city isn't a member of ICLEI (http://www.iclei.org), find out why not. If your state provides subsidies to help the poor purchase heating during the winter, find out why they can't subsidize energy efficiency upgrades to the residences of those same people.
You know, a lot of us have been spending the past 6 years now griping about the Bush administration, and I don't know about you, but I for one am relishing the opportunity to actually *do* something that is guaranteed to yield positive results, even if those results are small in scope. If you don't want to go after the air travel issue, then go after the meat-eating issue. Or excessive use of air-conditioning. Or SUVs. Or leaving cell phone chargers plugged in. Start anywhere you like, just DO something. It feels gratifying, trust me.