Scarred to Change

I thought Professor Mariates made a good point about the “trinity of despair.” Main stream environmentalist do look at humans and believe that human nature is inherently selfish, everyone has to agree about global warming being a real danger before we can do something about it, and environmental strategy on easy stuff. I don’t understand why we expect all the American population to believe in global warming considering that a large proportion of our population doesn’t believe in evolution. The theory of evolution has been around for a lot longer, and we are still waiting for people to catch on to the theory.

I found it encouraging when Mariates informed us that 69% of the population believes that global warming was a problem. I am rather cynical, so I was surprised to see that the number was so high. I think Mariates brings up a good point, why do we need all 100% of America to believe in global warming for something to be done? He is correct that the Civil Rights Movement did not start with 100% or even 75% of the population believing in equality for all. Slavery was so disputed that we erupted in war. So the environmental movement needs to look past the idea that everyone has to agree. The environmental movement should be encouraged that 69% of the population recognized the threat of global warming, and use this to their advantage. More people believe in global warming than they do not, by almost twice. I think that is encouraging statistics. What is the environmental movement waiting for? If we had waited 150 years to make the theory of evolution a standard theory in science, where would science be?

People are inherently selfish. American policies reflect this assumption very nicely. However in the case of global warming, I don’t think people are being selfish. I work on the Hill, and when people call in upset about Cap and Trade. The number one thing they point out why we can’t implement this policy is either global warming doesn’t exist or it is to expensive for the American public. People are inherently scared of change. It is going to be a large-scale change, when the American public finally decides to implement policies to change our CO2 emissions. People are scarred to change because they can’t imagine what the future is going to look like. No one wants to put their future in someone’s hands when they can’t see the outcome. People also cannot see the big picture. They believe that we need to focus upon the economic crisis, rather than the environment. They view the economic crisis as a more pressing issue. I often wonder what would have happened if we weren’t in recession while President Obama began his term. Would we still be fighting to disbelieve in global warming? Would we still think Cap and Trade was a bad idea? Would the United States become a leader at Copanhagen? It’s impossible to know what is true and what is not. But I still wonder about that.

The environmental strategy of easy stuff is where environmentalist look at this huge problem and proclaim that we must do small things to change the impact of global warming. I found Mariates point to be very interesting, because I never viewed it in that light before. Why do we think planting a tree should be the individual response to global warming rather than policy change? That is nonsensical. I think those environmentalists are so jaded by the lack of initiative to change our ways, that they believe this is the only thing people are willing to do. Working on the hill has shown me that that is not true. Environmentalist should be looking at ways to get people excited and passionate about global warming. The main strategy should be to change our light bulbs out with energy efficient ones. While the recommended guidelines should be followed, this should not be the main environmentalist strategy to get the American Public to change.

-Tracey Swan