Unfettered Blather

At what point did “being green” change from a positive concept where you and the planet would mutually benefit to one of staving off some kind of water bottle and carbon fueled apocalypse?

My family has always been resource conscience. Not because we were really environmentally motivated, it offered us a tangible value and the other side effects were simply beneficial pluses. We considered and tried alternative power sources because of the savings it offered in conjunction with a sense of independence. As I was growing up my family read magazines like “Mother Earth News” and alternative lifestyle magazines because to them it offered options that might be healthier or less expensive than a lot of mainstream choice. Despite my family being composed of white collar professionals, we had a large garden we would tend for vegetables.

Not paying for electricity or reducing our consumption was a way to save money and make life better thorough added security and in times of trouble would help us maintain stability. We had our own well that could be manually pumped. As a kid, actually paying for water was not something I was familiar with.

Our central heating system had a furnace attached that could burn coal as opposed to always relying on natural gas.

My mother recycled all the glass bottles and aluminum cans because the state paid a dime each from them and the total could be reduced from our grocery bill like a coupon. My family drank a lot of pop so there was always bags filled with cans and bottles. Our neighbors even gave us theirs. We weren’t hurting for money, we were just careful with it.

My family used to farm and we tried alternatives to pesticides because it was healthier.

All of the above had one thing in common, it made our lives better then and our hope was, later as well. When people talk about environmental causes, I have a simple question.

“Whats in it for me?”

Most people seem to treat this as an unholy question, but its really just logical. If I do something I want to know exactly what my efforts will garner. This flies in the face of most current “green” efforts as they are the reverse of how I grew up. The nebulous, long-term goal of “saving the planet” is the supposed payoff and any benefits for the participant while a “quaint” feature, isn’t the point.

You aren’t supposed to worry about what you get out of the deal and thats exactly when I stop caring. The murky “a healthier planet” is an automatic no sale from me because I know there are plenty of other people out there mucking things up more than my foam cup in the rubbish bin does. I belong to the good steward mindset that states careful management of resources and responsible use coupled with advances in technology is the way to go. I do not treat the earth as sacred, I respect it a great deal but that doesn’t mean I am afraid to use what it offers.

Frankly, if I don’t get something out of the deal, I’m not going to bother and thats the end of it. I won’t be accused, shamed or bullied in to doing it. I’m too old even in my twenties to be outraged or hyped in to caring so you better try something else. You can’t scare me in to thinking if I don’t drive a hybrid that I’m killing the planet. I always get the feeling I better reach for my wallet when people talk about doom and gloom, just to make sure it’s still there.

Environmentalism seems to play on the fact that people like to feel good about themselves through the prism of “helping”. First however you have to be made to feel bad. If you don’t feel bad already then they can accomplish that first before giving you the prepackaged answer.

The crass nature of the environmentalist movement is what really make their cause weaker and less interesting to people.

People can only be made to feel bad, guilty or fearful for so long before it gets old and they don’t care. If you want to sell alternative fuels and power sources? Then it better be cheaper and offer the same level of service and flexibility. If not, nobody will want it and thats perfectly understandable. People are not interested in making their lives more difficult.

Alternative fuels for example to me mean two things, lower cost and the use of national resources as opposed to depending on foreign ones. I am not interested in using anything that doesn’t save me money or increase the stability of said cost. These lazy ideas about making the planet a better place while we are supposed to accept lesser service or products doesn’t motivate people to overcome and find true alternatives. Technology isn’t an advance unless it improves on existing standards. A fuel that costs me the same and is used at the same rate is not something I care about. If it pollutes less, thats a nice byproduct but not a reason I’ll use it, unless perhaps it’s easier to get. Bottom line, appeal to the consumer.

The flaw in the logic seems to be the implied sense of sacrifice that must accompany earth-friendly activities. People are so wrapped up in the hype of “do anything now to stave off doomsday” that few are saying we should demand real changes, not silly notions or being told we should feel bad for expecting a better world now with real advancements for our change..

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.