Peace..
If you are awake and conscious during the day here in the US, you might of heard some hullabaloo about the condition of our environment. Some say global warming is negatively affecting our planet, others say it is of no real consequence. Whatever side you take, you will also notice the 'green movement' that has become just as popular as the debate that spawned it. Everyone can agree that waste is waste and less waste is better. Why not recycle? Why not use things that need less energy and find alternative methods of producing said energy? It can only be for the greater good.
This is all true, the green movement is an ideal and virtuous way of life. It's just too bad it will never really catch on. It's the same reason Wal-Mart is so popular and the same reason why people drive two blocks down the road to visit a friend. The reason why the green movement will never catch on is because of the big two factors that everyone value: time and money. To put it into more relatable consumer terms : convenience and value. Wal-Mart is popular because it is a one-stop place that you can anything for butt cheap. People love cheap. You drive to your friend two blocks down because you have a vehicle that you don't have to directly put money into that will get you to your destination in the shortest foreseeable time. There are many, many better alternatives to each of these situations, yet these type of things will remain the most popular because they are A) the most convenient and B) the cheapest to your wallet.
This trend will never change. People will always look for the cheapest and fastest. The 'green movement' has caught popularity because certain people can afford it. Large companies can afford the cost of 'going green' and can use it as a marketing ploy. Sure, everyone has the ability to do something 'green', but it requires effort, and sometimes an extra cost, and in the end, those two things are never popular choices. Recycling has been around for as long as I can remember, and it is a task that can be easily accomplished without too much inconvenience (throw trash here instead of here). Carpooling, however is an inconvenience. Hybrid cars? Expensive. Not using bottled water? Bottled water is far too convenient to dismiss. Those compact fluorescent light bulbs? Much more expensive than regular bulbs. But wait, you say, those fluorescent bulbs will last longer and consume less energy, in effect being cheaper in the long run. Yes, yes they are. But you're looking at the big picture. If the popularity of celebrity gossip/American Idol/reality TV has taught you anything, it should be that people are concerned with the here and now, not the long run.
The only way this 'green' movement will be able to gain any traction is if the 'green' methods are incorporated and eased into a common day's activities. I know I always try to turn off lights in empty rooms, it just requires me to raise my arm and flick a switch. I also try to make my errand runs kill at least two birds in one drive, a roundabout way of conserving fuel. These type of things help, and require no more time or energy, just some thought.
The 'green' movement is a great option for those that can afford it. It is beneficial to the community, the people around it and the planet as a whole. It just cannot be expected to catch on universally. With so many people working just to get by, and everyone valuing their dollar more each day, there is no way 'green' can become a majority way of life. It will remain popular and visible for a while (remember Atkins food?) and then regress back to a behind the scenes idea. It will still have its followers and will remain a content notion, but until it can overcome the idea of convenience and value, there is little hope.
My reason for talking about this is to point out that it is very hard for people to do things that interfere with time and money. There are two ways around this. A) The people know they can afford some time or money or B) The people are told without a doubt that it is the right thing to do. I mentioned above that those who can afford it are generally more into these movements as it doesn't mean sacrificing any of this valuable time and money. They just have some extra that can be put to good use. The other factor is just as important. Because there is no definitive verdict about what kind of trouble the environment is in, there is no clear right or wrong and there is no real hard motivation to participate in the movement. An analogy would be the current war. There is no real reason why or why not there should be a war, so getting people to act accordingly is nonexistent. If it was clear that we needed to wage war, then people would sacrifice as needed to get things done (see WWII).
The 'green' movement is doomed to fall short of it's goals simply because it has yet to overcome the issue of time and money. If people can get something cheaper and faster, they'll get it. Green is a great idea, just not realistic enough to be implemented...yet.
Addendum: Turns out just one day after I made this post, the US Goverment decided that it will require everyone to phase out incandescent light bulbs for the new CFLs. There's an article here: http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting. This is the kind of thing that gets results - passing a law. Now there is no argument, and people must act accordingly. I'm sure there will still be bootleg bulbs somewhere, and old coots will refuse to switch over for some reason, but it's a start. As much sense as it made, it takes a law to ensure the populous follows suit. Good show.
No comments:
Post a Comment