We, as Americans, are not generally the kind of people to change our ways willingly, and this goes along with the environmental problems we face. Its not that we don't care or that we want to see the Earth destroyed, its that trying to undo societal norms that have been in place for decades, that represent what it means to be an individual, are really hard to begin to change. Stanley Fish makes this point clear: “I believe in global warming. I believe in Al Gore. But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require.”
That being said, I think living in an “environmentally friendly” way for most people in the US represents the exact problem that we have – instead of consuming less (flying less, driving less, eating less, buying less, etc.) we continue to consume the same amount, just in a way that societal pressures allow us to feel better about. I will still buy 100 trees worth of toilet paper this year, but it will be Seventh Generation instead of Cottonelle, because consumer America tells me that Seventh Generation is more “environmentally friendly”. I sympathize mostly with what Fish writes about in his article. Its hard to “keep up with the Jones”, especially when defining how much you care about the environment often means whether or not you drive a hybrid car.
Emily Melhorn
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYeah! I feel like that would help set America on a new path. I was listening to NPR this afternoon, and they were talking about how consumption is the biggest contributor to our GDP. But the dual problem is whether as individuals we chose to continue to spend and consume to spur economic growth, or to cut back on how much we consume as a benefit to the economy. The environment really does factor into so much of our life.
ReplyDelete