I have managed to turn Blog Action Day into Blog Action Week, and in researching and thinking about how the Internet can apply to environmental issues (which is a little tricky when you take a global, non-digital event and try to talk about how the Internet connects to it), there have been two things that have caused me at least a few moments of concern. While environmental consciousness is rising in popularity, what happens if:
The coolness factor fades. What happens when it isn’t so cool to be green because everyone has talked it and marketed it to death? What if Leo and Cameron slowly tire of the work that they’re doing? What happens when the notion that people should care about the environment will just be a given? When the pressure from the media and marketing campaigns to “be green” fades?
Let me give an example by applying this to cigarette smoking. Today there are no advertisements about how this or that company is so great because they don’t let people smoke at their desks – but in some companies it used to be cool to smoke at work. Now people understand that smoking – which is proven to kill lots of people every year – is not cool. It’s assumed to be bad. So the people who smoke do it surreptitiously, and the cigarette advertisers continue to spend millions promoting smoking, but in a sneakier way than they did it in the past, spending less on billboards and more on giveaways like t-shirts that appeal to young people. Companies are happy to keep things where they are currently – they have a ban on smoking in public places, offer some kind of counseling and incentives to their employees through their corporate health insurance, but that’s it. Do you see companies assessing their employees’ behavior and making changes to try to eliminate all opportunities for social smoking on coffee breaks? Or providing time off to people who need to get into a quit smoking program? Are they taking the mission to eliminate smoking to the next level? Not typically.
So what if we apply this to the environment? My concern is that if companies are no longer getting the marketing benefit and pressure from their employees and consumers, they might take some of the emphasis off their environmental efforts. This is because being “green” is hard work and costs companies money. According to a survey of 500 business executives by Grant Thornton 77% of executives expect to increase spending on environmental programs in the next several years. In their opinion, the three greatest benefits of enacting corporate responsibility programs are: improves public opinion, improves customer relations and attracts/retains talent.
My concern is that these corporations will get to a certain point, and stop. Once they no longer can put out a press release about how great they are because they “reduced emissions” or “implemented recycling” or “saved the environment” will they continue to push forward? And for individuals, I have a similar concern. There will be a certain percentage of individuals and families who will continue to work to make even greater changes to help the environment because they always have and know that it’s important, but what about the people who fade out when it’s no longer popular but still is more work? Will they think twice about not throwing their paper or aluminum cans in the trash or leaving every light in their house on? My hope is that they will, but my fear is that they won’t.
“Being green” becomes an exclusive right of the middle and upper classes. I realize that environmental advocates are saying that it isn’t more expensive to make environmental choices. But even if that is true, I don’t necessarily believe that it’s true. And this is an issue – because if my perception is that being environmentally conscious is more expensive than not, then there are likely lots of other people who think that too.
Right now, the products that are associated with environmentalism (hybrid cars, organic food, energy star products and light bulbs) are the expensive alternative. I agree that if you weigh the cost with the long-term impact, it’s certainly worth the upfront expense – if you have the money. But for the half of the world — nearly three billion people — who live on less than two dollars a day – my bet is that they can’t stomach the upfront expense to make those more expensive purchases that will save them in the long run.
I was at Logan Airport in Boston last weekend looking for a place to park in central parking. It was jammed with cars. I eventually made my way to the 5th floor, and there were a slew of places open, right by the entrance. I drove up to the section and saw a sign “Preferred parking for Hybrid, Alternative Fuel and Powered Vehicles only.” And then in small type below “All other vehicles will be towed.”
I both love (mostly) and hate (just a little bit) this sign. I love the encouragement that it gives to frequent travelers (most of whom do have the money to buy a hybrid car) to think about the environment. But the language of preference – implying that if you have a hybrid car (which you might not be able to afford) you will get preferential treatment…that feels awful close to snobbery.
I was surprised to see that there is something written about this in Wikipedia under environmentalism>popular environmentalism:
Environmentalist action has recently led to the development of a new subculture. It is mainly composed of the educated upper-class. These environmentally conscious types take special pride in their sustainable consumption patterns, shopping at grocery stores that trumpet earth-friendliness (such as Whole Foods Market) and buying organic products.
Some environmentalists complain that this group of elites is shopping under the banner of environmentalism without espousing any of its true ideals. Because organic and sustainable products are often more expensive, purchasing them has become a mark of wealth.
We need to work to make sure that environmental options are not only an option for the wealthy.
~ Colored Glass ~
Being environmentally conscience is trendy right now. Let me be quick to say that I think this is a good thing, I don’t mean to belittle the movement with my choice of words. I also think that the 
