Learn about new perspectives and unique ways of viewing our environment.
In 1969 when Neil Armstrong took his first step onto the moon, it allowed the entire world to see our Earth from a distance in one magnificent view. This dramatically changed our self image, from a dominant top of the food chain perspective, to a not-so-dominant delicate blue sphere suspended in dark space. Our planet is only covered by a thin atmosphere, like a fish tank surrounded by glass. If we destroy our atmosphere through pollution and abuse, there is nothing separating us from the black vacuum of space.
See David Suzuki YouTube-Climate Change Bigger threat than COVID
It is obvious that in a closed system such as a fish bowl, the higher the fish population, the more food and subsequent waste. Earth is close to 8 billion inhabitants and growing and our methods of polluting are much more complex than simple excrement from our bodies. We drill and burn hydrocarbons at an alarming rate, remove increasingly large tracts of irreplaceable rainforest, and manufacture all sorts of plastics and chemicals only to dump and waste. These actions in and of themselves are not devastating if managed correctly. It is the SCALE of our pollution and destruction that is the issue.
I am compelled to mention that drilling for hydrocarbons is not an evil act that oil and gas corporations should be vilified for. Those companies wouldn't exist without demand. We the people determine how high demand and consequent prices are through our everyday consumption. If we want someone to blame it's ourselves because we are all guilty. Most everyone travels, heats and cools our homes, and purchase goods that have been transported by burning fuel. Companies are generally not interested in morality or correctness and only exist to fulfill an existing demand to turn a profit. That's the capitalist system we've built and that is how it works.
My own life and prosperity is deeply entwined with oil and gas, as I along with my Father and Husband worked and made our living in that industry. Am I a hypocrite for advocating environmental cleanup and protections? I don't believe so. We can't expect corporations to act outside of an economy built on the foundations of supply and demand. Companies exist purely to fulfill our own demand- period. If we don't agree with our capitalist system then we need to move to a socialist country or work to change our entire economic system.
That being said, specific oil and gas companies absolutely SHOULD be persecuted for denying and attempting to downplay the detrimental environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels. Companies like Exxon Mobil need to be held accountable for paying and otherwise supporting misinformation campaigns aimed at confusing the public with weak, skewed science. We should not accept or support companies that refuse to acknowledge their responsibility and contribution towards climate change.
Alleen Brown, a writer from The Intercept says, "The story of the climate lie goes back to the 1980s...companies like Exxon Mobil began pouring money into disinformation. To cast doubt on climate science, the industry lobbied, funded new organizations, published ads, paid for studies, bought scientists who would act as media pundits, and of course lavished millions of dollars on politicians who would advance their cause."
Disinformation is all too pervasive in current politics and media, emerging as the new normal for Americans. Unfortunately the general public implicitly trust their favorite political party, news stations and companies. Perhaps we could have trusted our elected officials, news stations, and companies in the past, but full disclosure of the truth is increasingly rare. As responsible citizens it is now necessary to educate ourselves, vetting all information before accepting.
Disinformation campaigns are reprehensible and all companies involved in confusing the public should be held accountable
Still we cannot and should not deny that oil and gas fueled the automobile industry allowing us to travel in comfort all over the world. Burning fossil fuels enables us to live in places that would be uninhabitable otherwise- such as the frigid far north regions of Canada and Russia. Oil and gas fueled our industrialization that lifted us out of harsh working and living conditions. Our entire economy and way of life is built around oil and gas consumption, no question.
So why do we need to consider the environment and changing our ways when what we've been doing up until now has been working perfectly fine? Change is expensive, and uncomfortable so why put ourselves through the labor of it? The answer is that we are at or near the tipping point and our population is simply too large.
There's always push back to change, especially as we age. It's human nature to wish everything could stay the same as it always was. Some say things like, "Back in the good ol' days we could empty our raw sewage straight into the ocean, and the water was still clean enough to fish and swim in." That may have been true then, and I wish it were true today, but it is not.
Just because a way of life worked well in the past is not a valid argument for it to persist into the future.
However the earth's population has exploded to almost 8 billion people so new circumstances require new solutions. As the world keeps turning, our way of life needs to be reevaluated to keep in step with current issues. Extinction is a real and present danger if we refuse growth- as companies like Sears, Blackberry, and Kodak discovered to their ultimate demise. The easy default is to sit on our hands and do nothing. Companies, cities, and nations who don't evolve get pushed aside making way for innovation and fresh vision.
"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'"
Greta Thunberg is a young Swedish activist raising environmental awareness world wide. I know the word "activist" makes a lot of people bristle with judgement, but we should thank people like her for taking the hard line. Any effort to reduce our environmental footprint should be applauded not criticized. If someone is willing to exert effort towards a cause that doesn't harm anyone or anything, it deserves our attention at the very least, and likely our respect.
People love to point out all the ways environmentalists are hypocrites- riding in cars, flying in planes, or eating a cracker from a product packaged elsewhere and transported via gas guzzling truck to the store. Why do we throw rocks inside our glass houses? We are all imperfect people! Not one of us can fully live up to any ideal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It is through this continuous effort that humanity has achieved fantastic gains and progress.
People need to be allowed to live and operate within the current regime- even while advocating to change it.
Should we demand all environmentalists walk, ride bikes, and ride horses like 200 years ago through all manner of weather? That's inhumane, and will never be the solution. The future is about moving forward not back into the 1800's. It's about environmentally friendly simple changes, along side innovation and technological solutions.
Instead of cutting people like Greta down, we need to applaud their tenacity and take what is useful. It's just lazy to throw stones because it's so much easier to swing a wrecking ball than come up with constructive solutions. Any awareness and effort to reduce our environmental footprint should be encouraged not criticized. So what if she doesn't have all the answers and solutions? She is a piece of the puzzle, not it's entirety. Let her do the job of raising awareness, and let the rest of us figure out the rest. Why do we demand so much from others and not ourselves?
Our ears should especially perk up when our own children speak up for a cause. Without monetary investments or political attachments, children generally have clean and pure intentions. When upset about bullying, school shootings, suicides, and our environment, we need to stop and pay attention. Children are the future and their voices are like a canary in the coal mine. If we ignore them it will be to our own peril.
Go ahead and ask any child about protecting animals from extinction, or saving the rainforests. Children absolutely know it is right and good to protect endangered species, and they aren't afraid to speak up. They are the voice of love and truth, even while having little idea about solving the problem. That's our job as adults. Children champion the cause, then it's our duty as mature adults to work the solutions.
Even if for some reason you don't accept climate change, you must admit that we pollute more than we should. Do we actually need all these disposable plastics? Do we really need these pesticides all over our food? There are so many ways we can really do better with a little bit of awareness and effort.
I struggle to answer why many people refuse to listen to the leading experts in climate change. We fully trust our medical doctors with our lives- known experts in the field of medicine. We fully believe in our engineers, lawyers, rocket scientists, pharmacologists, and so many other professional elites. What is so different about the climate change scientists?
We must rely on our educated scientists because they have the full spectrum of knowledge. Yes, there will be fringe scientists that disagree, but that occurs in all sciences and professions.
When the MAJORITY of experts agree on an issue, it is wise for us to listen.
Which brings us back to climate change. Leading scientists world wide agree that climate change is a real and pressing issue. So what is the downside of cleaning up our act and doing what we know is right? The downside of not cleaning up is a risk we should not be willing to take, and certainly not gambling on as it's our great-grandchildren's future.
Perhaps a solution can be found if we work within the existing framework of our capitalist system. Our current economy does not assign our environment a dollar value. Yet if our environment collapses it will take down our entire economy and perhaps lives along with it, so in fact there is a huge cost that needs to be accounted for.
If we want the world to value the environment, it needs to have monetary value.
Until we assign a dollar sign, the environment will continue to be used and abused like everything that is given away for free. This isn't a moral judgement it's just a fact. By nature we do not care or respect things we have received for free. We value and care for items that have a high cost- because there is a limited supply (it's rare), and/or there's a high demand (many people want) for it.
People will care and protect the environment when it has been assigned a suitable price.
That idea may not sit right at first and even feel wrong, but that's how our society works. Not many people, companies, or even governments, are going to "do the right thing" simply out of the goodness of their hearts. Cleaning up after oneself is expensive, and nobody likes to spend if they don't need to. So let's use this principle for good, and assign the environment an appropriate monetary value in order to save it.
People will continue to question why the environment can't stay "free" because it has worked just fine up until now. The earth seemingly absorbed our abuse up until recently so what's the big deal? Our population has exploded and we cannot continue this way without destroying ourselves in the process. We are nearing 8 billion people and decimating our planet has a very real cost that needs to be quantified. Our society responds to dollar signs, so working within our capitalist paradigm can be part of the solution.
If slash and burning of the rainforest wasn't free, it would not be happening on the massive scale that it does. If spraying our crops with pesticides had a cleanup remediation cost built in, other earth friendly pest control methods would be encouraged. If our prescription medicines that pollute our waterways had an environmental tax, it could pay for a mandated clean up by the pharmaceutical industry. These may not be the ultimate workable solutions but at the very least can provide a talking point.
You can see how this thinking can quickly extend in so many different directions, as there are a myriad of ways in which monetizing our environment could benefit us and our planet. However it's also a very contentious, and complex issue. We can't monetize everything and have it work the way we expect. It is a good starting point that may be effective in certain situations. I don't believe any one person has all the answers, and it certainly won't be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Okay, I get it. Many dual income families are already struggling to make ends meet. Should taxation be the answer? Perhaps monetary incentives that reward earth friendly behavior could be part of the solution. The bottle depot model is a wonderful example. The consumer pays a bottle/can tax upfront at the checkout but is rewarded with a refund when they return to the depot for recycling. This is a win-win situation for the earth and the consumer.
In 2015 the EPA warned only 2.5% of plastic was processed for recycling within U.S borders. The rest went to China or landfills. In 2018 China stopped accepting many of America's recycling so just imagine our mountain of plastic waste today.
There are many cities within the United States who are advocating EPR (Extender Producer Responsibility) laws for recycling of packaging or proper disposal. The burden of package recycling costs would go to companies utilizing plastic packaging for their products. This would incentivize companies to choose compostable earth friendly packaging over plastic.
We also need to acknowledge and expect problems. Every effort no matter how noble, will swing the pendulum too far. There will be unexpected repercussions from monetizing the environment and it cannot work as a cookie cutter solution. Growth is about trial and error- determining where and when to apply particular environmental solutions. It will sometimes get muddy with unintended consequences and some will rally to scrap the entire environmental movement because of this. Our growth, personally and globally, is in the testing and subsequent adjustments through our mistakes.
Of course awareness and clean up needs to start in our communities first. We can organize trash clean up days, encourage environmentally friendly lawn care, ensure we are recycling all the garbage we can, organize a community garden, and make sure household chemicals get disposed of properly. With a bit of effort we can brainstorm and have a real impact in our neighborhoods.
It is obvious that one person or company striving to maximize their profit without care or conscience for the environment cannot destroy the planet, the same way one person or company trying to minimize their environmental footprint cannot save it. Keeping our earth healthy and balanced requires a global effort. We can only impact our planet in a positive way when we synchronize collectively.
Does this mean as individuals we shouldn't care? Quite the opposite, as it takes individuals to compose our communities, cities, and nations. Unfortunately this feeling of hopelessness can overwhelm people into doing nothing. We see this during elections when disenfranchised people choose not to cast their ballot thinking it won't make a difference. Yet every vote is important because if nobody votes, there's no election to speak of. This applies to our environment as well. If people don't stand up and take action today, we will have no livable planet left for future generations.
On a global scale our individual contribution is insignificant, yet collectively we combine into a massive force. It's the same way one drop of rainwater did not and could not carve the Grand Canyon. Only as a collective force combining into rainwater runoff could it slice through thousands of feet of rock. That is the mighty power of collective action, and it's readily available when we coalesce towards a cause.
One person, and one company doesn't feel guilty for the present state of our environment because they alone are not guilty- which they are fully aware of. This conveniently allows us all to easily pass the buck.
So who is ultimately in charge of managing our collective destructive impact on our environment?
This is an extremely important question for humanity. We must demand an answer from our leaders, starting at the local level, all the way up to our Presidents and Prime Ministers.
Companies and nations around the world continually point away from themselves and towards others, like children. Nothing positive is accomplished when we play the blame game while shirking our own responsibilities.
No one person, company, or nation "did it"
Our environmental issues need to be reframed into seeking out constructive solutions instead of focussing on blame. No one nation "did it" and it's our collective duty to do our part in healing our environment. Finger pointing isn't encouraged or helpful for our children and isn't constructive for nations that know better.
So how do we deal with countries who refuse to take part in a global environmental effort? As the bigger person, the bigger state, the bigger nation, we need to set a world example by doing our part. We can only control ourselves, our actions, and lead by example hoping others will follow suit. That's what good people and advanced societies do.
We can't expect little Timmy to stop pouring his finger paints down the drain simply because we asked him to. Eventually he'll grow up and realize it's wrong, but until then he may need to be educated and sentenced appropriate consequences.
Nations that flagrantly pollute, over fish, tear down the rainforests and otherwise destroy, are just like little Timmy as they are too selfishly immature to understand and care about the global fallout from their actions. That doesn't mean the rest of us should lower ourselves to their station, refusing to do our part. That's how grade schoolers deal with unequal responsibilities- folding their arms and planting their feet in obstinence. Let's strive for our highest ideals despite the behavior of others.
Regardless of what direction humanity takes, the earth will eventually recover from our environmental violations. It is humanity and all the present inhabitants of earth who will suffer as we send many species into extinction well before their time. Earth and her creatures will evolve over millions of years to reach a new equilibrium of health, there's no doubt. Barring a nuclear disaster, our planet is fully capable of rebounding from all manner of abuse. It just can't recover on a time scale that is useful for humanity unless we contribute a helping hand, starting today.
The earth will ultimately rebalance and it's up to us as global citizens to help her, so she can help US survive into the future.
It is futile to keep questioning our deleterious environmental impact when companies and nations are moving ahead, making constructive changes regardless. Whether it's good, bad, true, false doesn't matter at this point.
Change is on our doorstep
We need to examine whether we, our companies, our nations, are willing to accept and innovate or cling to the past. This question needs to contemplated and answered both on an individual and collective level. Our effort and gains won't be perfect, but if our trajectory is trending upward and true we can leave a much healthier planet to our grandchildren and great grandchildren. That is a future worth changing for.
Comments