Environmentalism’s Socially Awkward Side
Here’s another great guest article from my friend Lauren. I think it’s very appropriate given that I worried, with my last post, whether the tone was too preachy or normative. Enjoy!
I recently watched an interesting, if simplistic, video of a man outlining his view of global warming and what should be done about it. At the end, the man urges his viewers to do their part by sharing his video with others and spreading the word about what individuals can do to help slow global warming. His message started me thinking, yet again, about how to balance my desire to spread the word and my desire not to perpetuate the unfortunate stereotype of the self-righteous, superior environmentalist.
These days, I spend a very large proportion of my time thinking about the environmentally-friendliness of my actions. I feel good about some of the things I make an effort to do, like drying clothes on a rack and eating CSA food, and guilty about things I have a hard time stopping, like using hot water and producing garbage. Many of my closest friends feel as concerned about environmental issues as I do, so around them I don’t have to bite my tongue. But I have many times watched friends and roommates and co-workers throw paper and glass bottles in the trash, or leave the water running for ages, and I don’t know what I should do.
I feel very strongly that the man in the video is right. I can make various eco-friendly changes in my life and feel good about it, but if I am one of very few who do so, relative to the population, what effect can it possibly have? Without major changes in public policy (which I strongly believe can and must happen, but that will undoubtedly take years), it is going to require many individuals choosing to make personal changes to produce any positive effect on various environmental issues. Therefore, isn’t it my responsibility, if I feel strongly about these issues, to try to increase that population?
Somehow, despite my conscious knowledge of this responsibility, it still feels just wrong to reprimand someone in their home or office for doing something eco-unfriendly. Or even to suggest that they do it another way. The meager solution I’ve found so far is that I can only try to suggest changes when I judge that the person will likely respond positively, or at least neutrally. I of course end up leaving some situations feeling sad that I can’t comfortably do more to help others understand the consequences of their actions, but if I hope to prevent resentment and loss of friends I don’t really see another solution. Any ideas?
July 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I can’t help but mention that the argument put forth in the video is a variation of an old argument for believing in God, where eternal suffering in Hell is in the bottom right corner and wasting time being virtuous and praying is in the upper left corner.
July 25th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
There’s a fine line between being right and being a jerk who also happens to be right (”right” is operationalized here, of course). It’s not quite the same, since you’re talking about interactions with friends and family, but there’s something about our culture that says that it’s wrong to be right (or to use a more common term, elitist). It’s always a battle of choosing words and intonation wisely, but the ultimate consequence goes far beyond how you feel about your actions (and odds are, by the time the ultimate consequence is revealed — or not — that person probably won’t even remember what you said).
August 4th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Great questions from Lauren; she’s hit upon something in the neighborhood of something that’s been at the back of my mind since I started reading about Josh’s excellent experiment.
I’d be interested to your thoughts (Josh) about the trade-offs you’re willing to make during this experiment: what sort of financial trade-offs and, in particular, what sort of quality of life trade-offs you’d accept. You’ve emphasized the ways in which making environmentally sound decisions benefits you financially as well, which is really cool. I imagine, though, that during the experiment you’d do the environmentally right thing even if it costs you a few bucks. The QoL trade-offs are harder to quantify, and the issue struck me from your very first post: cold showers. . A friend told me when I was looking for my first apartment that two critical items I had to check for were a) natural light, and b) hot water pressure. About b), he said, “No matter how bad things are, if you can get a good hot shower in the morning, you have a chance for the rest of the day.” I’m not sure I should feel any more guilty about taking a hot shower than I do taking showers, period. (I mean, I could get by showering once a week. Or less…) On the other hand I think I should feel guilty if I’m unwilling to take the convenience hit of waiting a few seconds for my TV to warm up when I’ve turned off the power strip for the day. There seem to be lots of things, both little — like hot showers — and big that really make a big QoL difference. I’m be really interested to hear any thoughts you had about where your line is.
Lauren’s post made me think of it because, I speculate, one of the reasons environmentalists can come off sounding a little self-righteous is that most environmentalists’ arguments I’ve heard just don’t mention QoL…which makes people think (wrongly) that environmentalists don’t care about it (or, at least, don’t care about other people’s QoL).
August 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
[...] post by Lauren titled “Environmentalism’s Socially Awkward Side.” Please read it here before reading this [...]