|
by Lisa Rogers Sykes, Eco-Friendly Specialist, Universal Companies
In recent months, there have been some rumblings among bloggers concerning "classicism" in the green movement. They cite celebrities and magazine ads as pushing the anti-populist, eco-exclusivity agenda. Some of the general public is blamed too. For example, during a recent news show, one political pundit mentioned that presidential candidate Barack Obama appealed to "elitist Prius-driving" voters. This type of furious finger-wagging is unfortunate. Sustainable living doesn't belong on a carefully designed economics chart nor should it be a platform for classicism or arguments concerning classicism. Environmental affairs affect everyone: the affluent, the middle-class, and the poor.
I grew up in north Florida, along the St. Johns River, in a lower middle-class neighborhood. My parents grew their own vegetables and sold them at the Clay County Farmers' Market. We bought our eggs from an elderly lady who raised chickens, we fished mullet and crabs from the river, and we bought milk produced at Gustafson's, a dairy farm two miles down the road. It was the late 1970s/early 1980s, and terms such as "sustainable gardening", "free range", and "local food" weren't used by journalists or advertising executives to describe our way of life. The only term we had for it was "necessity".
Today, it is necessity again that directs us to incorporate sustainability measures into our learned behavior. While these measures are partially derived from economic downturn, they are also in response to the outcry of scientists warning us of our reckless destruction of the earth. If the environmental movement gets "free press" by way of trendy celebs or conscious capitalism, fine. The more people—either influenced by profits, trend, or passion—working toward a cleaner, greener earth, the better. Arguing that it belongs to only one group is erroneous. We all benefit.
The problem with the green movement isn't classicism; it's lack of education. After all, sustainable measures weren't created by the financially secure. While pricey "green" products do get hype and media attention, there are several low-cost or free actions that people can do to support the cause and save money: replace burned out bulbs with CFL bulbs, recycle, turn off water while brushing their teeth, grow their own food, reduce meat consumption, use public transportation, make homemade cleansers, and buy in bulk. Green educational programs and topics are beginning to filter through television programming, such as those on PBS, CBS, and NBC. There are also handy books that specifically address easy, cheap ways to save money by greening your home, such as Living Like Ed: A Guide to the Eco-Friendly Life by Ed Begley, Jr. It's unpretentious, loaded with achievable tips, and written in a concise, friendly tone. The last few pages also feature helpful workbooks where the reader can keep track of how much money s/he saves by conserving resources. (Besides, I don't think anyone can accuse Ed Begley, Jr. of being an elitist. He lives in a modest home and rides a bicycle!) So, while sustainable education isn't perfect and we need more of it, it is becoming available to nearly everyone who seeks it.
Lately, environmentalism has generated growing interest, and even if that interest was created by fashionable celebrities, at least it is garnering much needed attention. Like all important causes, the green movement needs an audience, one that is willing to learn and, more importantly, act. Those who dismiss environmentalists as "elitist" or "wealthy" trivialize the movement and paint it negatively, which may cause it to be dumped by the general public, a group whose participation we need most.
|
|
