Honestly, I’m tired of hearing about the terrible future awaiting us if we don’t change our ways.
There’s too much fear in the way we talk about our environment: fear of running out of oil, fear of climate change, fear of pollution, fear of diminishing biodiversity, to name a few.
Often, science turns to dramatic, fear-inducing predictions to convince people that environmental issues are important and certain changes need to be made immediately. Act now, or it might be too late, we’re told.
But it’s not working.
Fear of something in the distant (or even not-so-distant) future is a lousy motivator of sustained action in the present. People lash out against fear; they rarely take calm, rational action against it.
The debate over impending climate disaster is, in my opinion, a giant red herring. While world leaders and scientists bicker over statistics and studies and theoretical legislation, nothing gets done and everyone else gets sick of hearing about it.
Don’t get me wrong – climate change is an important issue. But exactly what do we hope to accomplish with summits and speeches to the choir? Is our goal to reach a scientific consensus, to shame our opponents – or is it to actually make change happen? Do we expect that, if we hold enough meetings and show enough scary statistics, everyone will suddenly agree on what must be done? If scientific consensus, legal restrictions, and scary factoids were enough, no one would do illegal drugs.
Fear of climate change/deforestation/doomsday isn’t enough. And it’s certainly not what we should be celebrating on Earth Day.
Grassroots Change (pun intended)
Environmental issues aren’t the responsibility of national or international governments – they’re the responsibility of individual people like you and me. We can’t solve environmental issues by passing laws alone, especially not when our governments are paralyzed by politics and corruption and empty speeches.
Big change starts with small, easy steps, and with simple changes that make the right decisions easier and the wrong decisions harder. Instead of eating less through sheer willpower, for example, many dieters have more success by simply using smaller plates.
This Earth Day, instead of talking about fearing the future, let’s talk about enjoying and improving the present.
- Emphasize the benefits of changing now, rather than the dangers of NOT changing later. Instead of lecturing people on how wasting energy is harmful to the environment, show them how conservation can save them time, energy, money – and can even be fun – right now. We might teach people creative ways to reuse old items, or hand out a simple checklist that could help people save 10% on their monthly energy bills. The key is that people benefit from these changes immediately – it’s a lot easier to think about making a stylish handbag from old t-shirts than about reducing the rate of landfill consumption.
- Sidestep the hangups. Sometimes we tackle problems head-on and wind up running headfirst into a wall of resistance. Telling people to throw away less stuff, for example, often runs into excuses and irritation. Instead, why not show people the benefits of buying a few high quality, durable items? Turn people into connoisseurs of quality goods, instead of misers of cheap ones.
- Start with incredibly easy changes. There’s a temptation to skip over the small changes, because they’re, well … small. And supposedly insignificant. But nothing could be further from the truth. Saving the earth is just like writing a novel – it starts by committing to one tiny thing every day or every week. Don’t make people feel guilty for doing little things – praise them for it.
- Don’t preach about respecting the environment – let people experience it. Turning off the lights for Earth Hour is a nice symbolic gesture – but what does it really do? Celebrate blackouts? Teach people that using electricity kills the environment? Why not give people activities to do outside for an hour and enjoy nature instead? What’s going to do more to make people appreciate the environment more – an hour spent without electricity, or an hour spent playing on the beach?
- Shrink the scale of the change. It’s hard for the human race to band together and save the Earth. It’s hard for people to wrap their heads around the drastic changes proposed by scientists and politicians. It’s paralyzing when we hear about the monumental task of saving the environment. It’s a lot easier (and ultimately more useful) for a class, a neighborhood, a city to band together and tackle one local issue. Remember, small changes ripple outwards, but the prospect of big changes can paralyze.
- Start at home. So much energy is spent directing our attention abroad, at a threatened species on another continent, an island of trash in the ocean, a rapid rate of deforestation in another country. But while these are important issues, the feeling of distance creates a barrier to action. Better to first direct people to small challenges here, at home, in front of them, then ride that energy to create larger changes elsewhere. It’s a process, not a switch.
- Look for reasons why we can, not reasons why we can’t. Many people refuse to even consider the possibility of nuclear power as a replacement for oil and coal – but the fact remains that, despite its risks nuclear power is the only alternative energy source which has been proven successful on a large scale. That’s fear at work. We start looking for reasons why nuclear power simply won’t work, instead of looking for ways to make it work.
- Reward progress instead of punishing shortfalls. Big businesses are often treated as scapegoats for environmental advocates – scapegoats to be criticized, restricted, legislated against. Worse, when corporations respond to public pressure by undertaking a few green projects, they’re subjected to even more criticism about how much more they should be doing. It’s true – more can be done – but that shouldn’t keep us from rewarding what’s already happening. Would we teach our children to improve by reminding them how far short they’ve fallen? Constantly harping on “not nearly enough” is not only ungrateful, but serves to discourage further change. What if, instead, we lavished praise on companies (and each other) for making little changes – wouldn’t that create a better environment for even more improvement?
The message of Earth Day shouldn’t be that nature is something to be feared, or that change is something to be feared, or that technology is something to be feared.
Rather, it should be that we have something wonderful here on Earth, something worth celebrating and enjoying and protecting, not out of a sense of duty, but out of love. It should be that we can change in ways that protect our natural resources and make our daily lives better at the same time. It should be that big changes emerge from small actions, that every little bit counts.
At least, that’s what I think. An Earth Day without the guilt, the harshness, the impending doom. We can save the world, but we don’t need a lot of fear to do it.
26 Comments on “How to Save the Earth (Without Fear)”
says:
That’s an interesting message, at least better than those summits where people just showcase their ego instead of doing things. You’re right with that – we’ve got to get down to our basic levels and make small changes in the community instead of thinking in monumental terms (although I like that in terms of business).
The problem is, that most people just write about stuff that resonates and makes sense, but don’t actually do anything about it themselves. I hope you don’t belong to that category ;)
says:
Haha, I hope I don’t belong in that category either. A few things I’m doing in my life: buying fewer clothes/shoes and wearing those clothes/shoes longer; cutting down on paper waste by going digital with as many things as possible; buying a few quality items (even if they cost more), then using them for years. I’m also trying to spend more time outside, particularly on weekends – though that’s also for health reasons.
That’s a start, anyhow. More to come :)
says:
Nice write up – I do agree with many of your points. I had thought through a lot of them as well before creating my blogspot.
I choose to do my research on helping create a healthier planet by:
First – listen to the horror stories, but decifer what is really the truth and what is a bit exaggerated. I realized many years ago that anything can be constrewed in whatever way you wish to send your message. Drama doesn’t impress me, action on the dramatic findings, that is what I want to see.
Second – I then sift through my findings to look for patterns, and what touches me the most personally and heart felt. That is what I post to my site, and facebook, and twitter. And those are the small things that I change in my habits every day, and try to get my family to do the same (minus the forcing of course).
Here in Minnesota, we are coming around, but there are SO many people around me that give me such strange looks when I reach in the garbage to take out a recycleable item, or if I suggest that we don’t use so many paper plates/paper towels/ plastic utencils. They think I’m from Mars because “It is just too much work to do it that way and we want easy and convinient. I’ll be long dead before the planet is so what does it matter”. I cringe when I hear someone say that!!!! YIKES!!
Anyway :) Enjoyed the reading :) Tonia
says:
“It is just too much work to do it that way and we want easy and convinient. I’ll be long dead before the planet is so what does it matter” – In my opinion, attitudes like that usually spring from an overdose of “it’s too late” rhetoric, which is exactly why we need to reach people in small, easy ways that make a difference in their lives in the short term, as well as in the long term.
says:
oh please forgive the typos! I really wish that these comment boxes came with spell check!! :)
says:
Haha, no worries :)
says:
It’s so true, the simple things matter most. The little changes, as long as they aren’t too little. We need to do a better job of pointing out the small changes people can make to make a difference.
Here are a few small changes off the top of my head, that I’m already doing my best to do myself.
1. Ditch the car, permanently. Self explanatory. Bike or walk — it will make you healthier and will your individual impact on the environment will plummet. (For everyone who will say ‘but I live in LA or in a rural place: move to a place that supports this lifestyle.)
2. Eat local food — walk to the farmer’s market instead of the big chain grocery. Food that’s shipped across the country is not as healthy for you and has a larger environmental footprint. Support local permaculture! Don’t buy the supermarket trash.
3. Don’t buy things for entertainment. Too many people are hooked on small doses of adrenalin they get from purchasing new things every weekend. We don’t need all of this stuff. Stuff is making our lives sadder, tying us to our locations, and keeping us poor. Also, mass consumption on this huge scale is having a huge effect on the environment.
I guess these things are slightly larger than small changes — but the important thing is these are individual changes that are possible. I know, because I’m doing these things!
I’m seeing a lot of posts today from bloggers about not blowing your nose and turning off the lights at night. These are a good start! Everyone needs to screw in environmental lightbulbs too — but if you don’t blow your nose, and you’re still driving a car, there’s something hypocritical about that in my mind. Ditch the car and you can blow your nose all you want and no one will care.
What I’ve found is when you do the three things I mentioned above, you need to make less money and you’re healthier too. I believe this is in the best interest of everyone.
says:
I wouldn’t necessarily think of people as hypocritical for doing one thing and not another. In the realm of personal finance, for example, Dave Ramsey advocates paying off debt using a system called the Debt Snowball, where the smallest debts are paid first. A financial advisor might look at that and cringe, saying, “If you care about eliminating debt, isn’t it hypocritical to pay off that tiny bill first and leave that high-interest loan in place?”
But that misses the point – it’s not about whether paying off the small bill is mathematically sound – it’s about the feeling of accomplishment from successfully paying off one bill, instead of draining motivation by contributing funds toward a huge debt that doesn’t seem to get any smaller.
For many people, jumping onto the big changes leads to immediate resistance. If we start by getting them to agree to small changes, they’re much more likely to identify with and accept bigger changes later on.
says:
“Environmental issues aren’t the responsibility of national or international governments – they’re the responsibility of individual people like you and me.”
A more untrue statement could not have been made. Obviously responsibility lies within the individual to a degree. However, sorry to burst bubbles; no matter how many Americans decide to stop using as much toilet paper or to put CFLs in their homes, there are still going to be millions of cars, companies and other individuals in other places (including America) who continue to ignore the obvious science. Without legislation, we are dead in the water. Without DRASTIC change we will continue to alter the earth for the worse. It may not happen in our lifetimes, but in a few generations, our earth WILL show major changes. There is no refuting the evidence anymore. Scientists have basically come to a consensus about the fact that humans have caused detrimental global transformations.
So, how do we stop it? Sure, the small stuff works, but aren’t you just “preaching to the choir” here? We all know that. We all know we shouldn’t drive 1 mile and instead we should probably walk. But do we still drive? Probably. Hypocrisy is human nature. It’s the classic Tragedy of the Commons: my little addition to the CO2 output wont hurt that much. Well, everyone is saying that. Starting small is only the beginning. We should all live simpler lives, yes. But unless the government enacts legislation that improves walkability of towns, curbs greenhouse gas emissions, controls major companies waste product, etc. etc. etc., then we are screwed.
Sorry for fear mongering, but it’s not that we are trying to produce fear. It’s just a byproduct of the facts. People — indivudals AND the masses — have to change enormously, and not just in small ways, for this to work. Here’s a nice little article that says HALVING CO2 output by 2050 COULD stabilize global warming: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090502092019.htm
says:
I agree. People are lazy, and no matter how much you may preach to them about doing these small things like use less, drive less, be more aware — they will ultimately do what is most convenient for them. I wish it wasn’t true, but you have to look at the reality of matters, here. People NEED laws and legislation. That is the point of having a government in the first place. To protect us from ourselves. And, in this case, the government needs to act in such a manner that is protects the overall public from its own damn wastefulness and pollution.
I agree wholeheartedly that people do need to make efforts on the individual level, and SOME will. I personally am a fan of “negawatts” and the preachings of Amory Lovins. Basic efficiency is one of the best way to avoid unnecessary power consumption and overall wastefulness. And yes, small efforts, when all added up, have the potential to make a huge difference. However, I think it is naive to think that only asking this of people, without enforcing it in any manner, is going to make any big changes.
Look — it’s too late for us to only “start small.” For those who have made no differences in their lives, regarding wastefulness, then yes, starting small is the way for them to spark a personal change. And yes, many of these minor personal changes can add up to make a large impact. But something more needs to be done. It’s too late for just this — we waited far too long. When there were (I guess there still are) debates regarding global warming — whether or not it is fact or fiction — we had two choices in front of us. Either do nothing, and see what happens, or take preventitive action without waiting to see who was right. I don’t see how people thought the first option was the best one, given that our futures were at stake and that changing our desctructive ways for the better could only help the environment. Yet, somehow, that is the path we chose. And now, drastic action does need to be taken.
I do agree that Earth Day should be a day we celebrate the earth — because it is a beautiful, wonderful place. And as a gift to it, why don’t we take steps — however small OR large — to help maintain its beauty? We, as average citizens, should do what you say and make those small life choices and changes to protect the planet. And our governments, in turn, should do their part and – yes – bicker over how to tackle global warming, because we all know that this is the only way an overall solution will be reached.
says:
You ask: “… why don’t we take steps — however small OR large — to help maintain its beauty?
Which is exactly the question I’m asking. Why don’t we take the right actions? I don’t believe it’s because of a shortage of fear or a dearth of scientific evidence. No, what’s holding us back is an inability to translate that scientific evidence into something more motivating, something people can identify with and devote themselves to.
You say: “Look — it’s too late for us to only “start small.” Really? What if the price of “going big” is paralysis, and not starting at all? All the government bickering in the world won’t do anything in the face of human psychology.
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, Anonymous, even if we don’t agree at the moment. I do wish, however, that you had revealed your identity and taken ownership of your remarks.
says:
Thanks for your input, Bob, even if you disagree with me. I think we may be misunderstanding each other a little bit, so let me clarify a bit and see if that helps.
First, in the quote you cited, my intent was to point out that we can’t sit around and wait for governments to solve environmental issues. It’s not that governments don’t have a role to play – it’s that we can’t get complacent about shoving problems onto “the leadership.”
Second, I’m not arguing that serious changes aren’t necessary. Nor am I arguing that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong. What I’m pointing out is the difference between stating the importance of a goal and the actions needed to actually get there. You can scream and shout about the urgency of the situation until you turn blue – but if people feel offended, threatened, condescended to, or simply annoyed, no change will happen, and everyone loses. You say that “scientists have basically come to a consensus about the fact that humans have caused detrimental global transformations” – but if a large portion of society says “so what?” then what has that consensus accomplished?
“We all know we shouldn’t drive 1 mile and instead we should probably walk. But do we still drive? Probably.” True. But I doubt that lecturing people about the plight of the Earth will really improve this particular situation.
I ask again: “Is our goal to reach a scientific consensus, to shame our opponents – or is it to actually make change happen?” The question isn’t whether creating big changes is worthwhile; the question is HOW we make those big changes happen.
In short, my contention is this: we need to make changes. However, we will NOT get the change we need by proclaiming the need for immediate, drastic measures, OR ELSE. The fear approach invites resistance – often, irrational resistance, which no amount of scientific lecturing will overcome. Any legislation (grudgingly) passed in the face of this dissent and opposition will necessarily be half-assed and probably do more harm than good in the long run.
Rather, we should look to create meaningful change from the bottom up. Are the companies investing in green technology doing so because of a government mandate? Doubtful – though I will admit government subsidies probably play a part. I believe that the progress we’re currently making comes more from companies responding to public enthusiasm for a greener lifestyle and less from legislative summits.
I understand why legislation looks attractive. It’s fast. It seems more powerful. But laws often create as many problems as they solve, and more often than not spawn entire industries dedicated to circumventing them – observe that the economic collapse was birthed within the single most heavily regulated industry.
Not to mention, it’s doubtful that any useful laws could get passed without creating a stronger public (NOT scientific) consensus over what needs to be done. Laws are an attractive shortcut, but are useless unless the people under the law have the right mindset as well.
says:
Every time we rely on laws, we rely that a group of people that have often their own best interest in mind talking to another group of people who have their interest in mind trying to make rules that benefit the rest of us and potentially damage their own interests. Uh, humans don’t usually work like that unfortunately. People want to stay in power and companies want to continue to earn money.
The point I think is to help the masses make different decisions. If corporations do not have money to lobby, they can’t do it. I don’t believe there is legislation that enforces bad ecological decisions, just supports them.
says:
Quite an interesting post. One of the things I have realized reading it, is that the American society seems to look at the environmental issues differently than the German one. I moved from the US to Germany 2,5 years ago. I sold my car and bought a bike. This afternoon I walked home from work. There have been posters all over town about how the government is offering very cheap credit for people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Ok, we still have lots of cars and people buy stuff and watch TV, but the attitude is different.
These are supportive programs instead of abrasive. The point seems to align what people want with what is good for them (and us). When people see the benefits of what is good for them, the cycle goes on. Get people to want to do these things, as opposed to enforce them.
says:
“When people see the benefits of what is good for them, the cycle goes on. Get people to want to do these things, as opposed to enforce them.” Exactly! Enforcement always leaves loopholes and breaks down in the end – but if people truly want to change their lives, if they see benefits for themselves, their businesses, their families, their wallets, positive action becomes natural, and people become receptive to advice on how to improve further.
There’s also the side benefit of disarming the opposition. One of the biggest (and probably legitimate) concerns about environmental legislation, for example, is that it will unfairly boost some businesses/industries at the expense of others, thus having a negative impact on the economy. But if we focus on building change from the ground up – in essence, using market forces to effect change – the economy will adjust and prosper instead.
says:
Jeffrey, Thanks for the provocative post. I enjoy reading something that generates various points of view (if they’re expressed respectfully). Personally, I tend to be somewhat sceptical of the focus on individual actions.
However, I was really appalled when I moved from Seattle a few months ago and realized that there’s no recycling where I’m living now. In Seattle they recycle cans, glass, plastic, and paper, which gets sold. Food waste, yard waste, and shredded paper goes to a composting facility. Everything else–which isn’t much–goes to a landfill.
Not only is it good from an environmental point of view but also from an economic point of view. The idea is to extend the life of the landfill. Closing a landfill or expanding it takes very big bucks. Siting another landfill anyway would be a hugely expensive, contentious, and lengthy process. Just thinking about it is a good motivator.
says:
I was rather surprised when I moved to Austin and discovered that the recycling programs here seem spotty at best.
Sometimes it’s hard for me to focus on individual actions too, especially in the face of a global issue. But in the end, I believe that it’s not a question of whether we need big change or small change – it’s a question of how we’re going to get there. If we paralyze and irritate and frighten people with the prospect of changing quickly on a large scale, we get immediate and violent pushback, which means the changes may not happen at all. We’re already seeing a lot of that when it comes to environmental issues.
On the other hand, if we focus on small, individual actions first, if we focus on changing people’s mindset through encouragement and support, instead of guilt, the big changes then become much more possible.
says:
Hi Jeffrey,
You raise some very interesting and important points… Motivating people with guilt will not get us far. And its neither pleasant nor sustainable to drive change that way.
At the same time, companies are irrational “creatures”, they know neither guilt nor will they respond to encouragement. They are required by law to do whatever possible to maximize short term profits (and damn the environment, if they can get away with it!).
For example, one of the most effective ways to have a MAJOR impact on the environment is to have mass transportation systems like local trains. Thanks to the fantastic network of trains, trams and buses in Melbourne where I live, I am able to have a wonderful life with minimal impact on the environment. But most cities in the U.S, don’t have a rapid transit system, in part due to lobbying by the car industry. What a wonderful opportunity to drive LARGE gains wasted!
So may I suggest a 2 pronged approach “carrots for people and sticks for the lobbyists and giant companies”. Remember tobacco (and lung cancer) has gone out of fashion in a large part because of taking the offensive on companies. On the other hand, as an individual person, nothing motivates me to do the right thing by the environment more than spending “a day in the woods”. The sights and sounds of nature is a great motivator here…
What do you think?
Cheers,
Krishna
Cheers,
Krishna
says:
I will agree that changing corporations is more difficult than changing people, simply because they’re bigger, more cumbersome organizations.
However, I disagree that corporations don’t feel guilt or respond to encouragement. Even if the “company” as an entity does not, the people working there do. Monsanto, for example, may have done some terrible things – but does that mean that everyone working there is evil? I hope not. Wherever they are, wherever they work, people want to be good; they want to do the right thing – what we have to do is open their eyes, show them that they can lead change, and make the right thing easier to do.
Right now, many companies are taking at least small steps toward becoming more environmentally friendly. Sure, some of this may be due to government pressure and regulation, but I would argue that the vast majority of positive change is happening because companies can see that public opinion is beginning to change. It’s becoming more profitable to be green than not – and not because there’s a law making it so, but because people are voting with their time and their money. The funny thing about laws is that there’s always a way around them. The more laws you put in place, the more time and energy people will put into circumventing them. See Prohibition for a great example. Laws are a RESULT of social change, not a CAUSE of social change.
An interesting thing to consider: why is it that car companies are able to push their systems on people by lobbying – if not because the government interferes in the economy? On the other hand, if the government adopted a strict hands-off economic policy, lobbyists would be out of a job, and would have to answer to the market and the people instead. In this case, the government means well, but may be doing more harm than good.
“So may I suggest a 2 pronged approach “carrots for people and sticks for the lobbyists and giant companies.” I think there’s a strong social trend now toward blaming industry and big companies for everything. I also think that’s a terrible idea, because it’s just another way of shifting responsibility away from ourselves. Yes, some corporations have done terrible things – but who kept paying to keep the corporations around? We did. Who worked at these giant companies? We did. Who is willing to sit down, shut up, and let things go wrong in exchange for a paycheck. We were. Remember, it’s easy to blame the abstract idea of the corporation, but not quite so easy when we remember that a company is made up of people just like us. We create change by dealing with people, not by blaming companies.
“On the other hand, as an individual person, nothing motivates me to do the right thing by the environment more than spending “a day in the woods”. Absolutely. People will protect the environment if they love it, not if they fear for it.
says:
Well, I think it was delightfully refreshing to read a more positive approach to the whole situation! Fear is a tool of control, and, sadly, it IS employed in the education of our children, crushing the creativity and imagination from them, and making so many believe that they are powerless even when they are adults.
We are nNOT powerless in the face of government & big business – they need our money and our co-operation to achieve what they want. If we refuse to buy the products of unethical companies, and make it clear why, they will be forced to change in order to stay in business (no sales = no business, basic fact) This approach has affected many corporations, why else would there be ‘greenwash’? It’s solely to stay in business, to keep us buying. As to government, have we all forgotten the effect of books like ‘Silent Spring’ which took DDT off the market? And the work of Martin Luther King and his supporters, who forced civil rights legislation? And those who worked so hard to force the motor manufacturors to make cars safer? Government is powerless without our consent, that is the beauty of any democracy, no matter how faulty.
There is a lovely aconym used by self-empowerment teachers ‘FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real’ and in 63 years of living, I’ve found it to be true, bullies only suceed if you don’t stand up to them, and an avalanche starts with just a small slippage!
Lovely post, Jeffery, am greatly enjoying subscribing to your blog, you give me hope for the future ;o)
says:
“Government is powerless without our consent, that is the beauty of any democracy, no matter how faulty.” So true. I think we’ve lost sight of that fact a little. The point of a democracy is that it ought to derive power from its people!
As I said in a previous comment: laws are the RESULT of social change, not the CAUSE. When we as individual people change our views and our actions, when we inspire others to join with us and believe as we do, then the government and the economy change too.
Big change looks hopelessly complex until we resolve to tackle it bit by bit, action by action, person by person. There are no shortcuts to change, legislative or otherwise. But at the same time, there are few barriers to change that can withstand a flood of small, but growing, people.
I’m so glad you’re enjoying my blog, Michele!
says:
I love the points you made! This can apply to so many areas of life, too… What is it about humanity, or is it more specific to Americans – That we feel we have to use such negative tactics? We always try to correct behavior by focusing on what SHOULDN’T be done and why it shouldn’t be done. I really appreciate your approach. We should think much more on why we SHOULD do things, and giving rewards for succeeding. With a husband who thrives on positive & verbal affirmation, I’m really working on this in my life.
We celebrated Earth Day by starting a garden, by the way. :-) We planted a strawberry plant and a rhubarb plant, and I have a pot ready for today because I’m going to plant a mango pit and grow a pretty tree –hopefully!
says:
Thanks, Michy :) And good for you on starting the garden! Did it have to be a mango tree though? (I don’t like mangoes.) On the other hand, strawberries are delicious, so it’s all good.
Happy belated Earth-slash-garden-starting-mango-tree-planting-day!
says:
Jeffrey -
A practical, rational and realistic approach to saving the planet – hallelujah. Keep spreading the word. It is the tiny steps that will add up to a long term solution. My favourite concept is the idea of living sustainably. That doesn’t mean going back to living in a cave. As you say, there are real benefits that come with sustainable living and it can be a high quality lifestyle. I encourage every reader to make one small change today to be more sustainable – it costs you nothing (probably gains you something) and will contribute to safeguarding our future.
Phil
says:
there is another way to effect large-scale change via small-scale change: nurturing. in other words, fetch up your kids right (to recycle, choose quality over quantity, walk instead of drive, etc.) and chances are they will carry that set of values into their adult workplaces. every earth-raping capitalist had a childhood at one time; chances are it didn’t bear much resemblance, value-wise, to any of ours.