From biodiversity loss to peak oil to the need for recycling, many of the messages coming from the environmental community have one common underlying theme: scarcity.
Messages of scarcity take their power from the fear they produce. As marketing guru Seth Godin points out, fear is a powerful emotion that can make people act. Tell people that there isn’t enough of something to go around, and you can bet that many will act quickly to make that they get theirs…
That may be one of the supreme ironies of environmental messages involving fear: it may ultimately lead people to desire those things we claim are in short supply. Can you say “Drill, baby, drill??
Finally, there are no shortages of fearful messages out there, and since people seek security when they’re scared, they’ll probably embrace the message that produces immediate comfort… or, at least, validation. “Energy independence” works as a message in one instance because it ties directly to a fear many Americans find familiar: the fear of violence from outsiders. We have vivid images associated with this fear — it’s something we know. Tell people that we take money out of the hands of “state sponsors of terrorism” by leveraging domestic energy supplies, and they start listening closely.
Like many of my fellow citizens, one of my first thoughts after hearing Sen. Barack Obama declared the winner of Tuesday’s election was “I am so proud to be an American.”
Yes, my guy won. Yes, the United States elected it’s first African-American president (and that’s an incredible step forward). Yes, the issues that matter to me (and likely to you) will receive much more attention than they have over the past eight years. All of these are reasons to celebrate.
But, even more important, and more critical to our near- and long-term future: hope won.
While that sounds like a nice, abstract, feel-good statement, I don’t think we can underestimate the notion that Tuesday’s election came down to a choice between hope and fear. Let’s face it: the choice of Obama to lead the country for the next four years was risky. He proved his intelligence, eloquence and resolve during the campaign, but he’s still a relative newcomer to the national stage. He faces Herculean challenges upon entering office: a financial and economic mess, two wars, and, yes, monumental environmental threats… to name a few of the most pressing issues. And, of course, he has critics ready to pounce hard on the slightest perceived misstep.
Americans knew these things as they entered the voting booths on Tuesday… and yet the majority still chose Senator Obama over the much better-known Senator McCain. And while we can parse decisions and actions made by each candidate and his representatives, I really want to believe that what Americans voted for wasn’t simply a man, a party, or a governing ideology, but rather the spirit embodied in the exclamation “Yes we can.”
I wrote my first “Building Bridges” post on a lark: the article I referenced on carbon offsets tied in nicely with ideas about bridging the divide between the environmental community and “Red America” (which tends to distrust, at the very least, environmentalists). Since then, I’ve been digging into existing success stories… and I’d love your input.
For the next round of posts, I’d like to feature “case studies” of “red” communities (and I hate that designation, but it conveys the rights characterization) that are implementing “green” practices. I’m particularly interested in “homegrown” initiatives put forth by local residents, as I think ideas that come from within will get a better reception — we’re all a bit more open-minded about ideas that come from people we know and trust. So far, I know about the following communities:
The stock market is down, unemployment is up, and the political class is falling all over over itself trying to take action (or, at least create the appearance of taking action). Looking for some calm in this economic storm? Two words: carbon offsets.
That’s right: according to the Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, there’s “a bull market in environmental guilt.” Fahrenthold’s tone, and those of several bloggers whom have linked to his article, suggests something nefarious is happening with the sale of offsets.
I don’t agree with that, but I didn’t sit down today to defend offsets from detractors. I think there’s a much more interesting question raised in this article: the sustainability of a “green economy” that’s focused primarily on, well, environmentalists… or, at least those who share our larger set of values. Fahrenthold notes:
…people in this business are worried that the guilt boom is about to bust. Most of their customers — usually college-educated and making more than $50,000 a year — have not been hit hard by the weakening economy. Yet.
“People still come to the site, but where you used to get people signing up [for offsets] every day, now you’d be lucky to get a few people a week,” said Fred Weiss, a small-time offset seller based in Ann Arbor, Mich., who sends customers stickers that say, “Carbon Neutral Vehicle.” Apparently that isn’t as important now.
“Who cares about the environment? Am I going to have a house next week?” he imagined would-be customers saying.
As an environmentalist, it’s tempting to respond to Weiss’ rhetorical questions with something along the lines of “But you should care about the environment because…” — fill in the rest for yourself. More and more, I think that first impulse is probably the wrong one. Rather than focusing on the first question, we should think hard about the second one… and worry if we can’t come up with an answer.
