Americans have it easy. Make no mistake about it; Americans are better off than the rest of the world. The problem is: they know it. Even worse, they expect it. Americans have grown complicit in their own comfort and prosperity, almost to the point of apathy. There appears to be a belief, evident from the President downwards, that whatever fixes need to be made to our society (which are plenty), they will come easy. “Not to worry, everything is still status quo here. The problem will almost rectify itself as long as we keep to our normal patters of recreation and consumption. Miraculously, the solution is already present and it will come to the forefront of its own accord.”
However, you cannot solve deeply entrenched problems like that. Some of the issues America is facing – like a sluggish economy, energy uncertainty, a war on both terror and Iraq – need more than a smile and a sound bite. They require sacrifice. Sacrifice on the part of the American people. These problems we face are not easy, nor do they possess simple solutions. They are solvable, and in order to attain resolution, require that we as a people alter our own traditional behaviors.
Energy: Every time a poll comes around, people complain more and more about the rising costs of fuel in this country. Yet the prices keep going up, and the American citizenry refuses to do anything about it. They are content to sit back and bitch about how much it costs to fill up their Ford Excursion while letting the problem escalate.
One of the largest issues that are facing America right now is our energy usage and dependence. Simply put: we use too much oil. It places us into uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situations with unstable regions of the world. And at first glance, this would luckily have a simple solution: use less oil. But it doesn't quite work like that. The technology to reduce our usage of oil is vast in variety and mostly developed. Hybrid vehicles, biodiesel, ethanol, all of these exist and are in limited implantation across the country. Fuel cells are along the way. Most of these only need a better distribution network to be truly accepted alternatives. But Americans balk at the idea of being made to give up something in exchange for a modicum of energy independence. It would require that they not purchase their beloved SUVs or pick-ups, as they are the worst class of fuel economy vehicles. It requires their demanding of the auto and oil industry that alternatives be made at a nominal cost to them. But this is too much. Americans are resolute in their adherence to the consumption lifestyle they have produced for themselves. They are all in favor of the idea of fuel economy, but when it comes to their own personal situation, they'd prefer to pass the buck onto someone else. They take no personal responsibility to rectify the problem at the source: themselves.
Obesity: Again, this is seemingly a simple problem facing America. YouÂ’re too fat. You eat too much junk food, you do not exercise enough, therefore you are growing larger and are going to shorten your life and cause a great number of health costs to be generated due to your condition. Obese Americans will cost the health care system $117 billion this year, according to a new estimate. Also, there exists a deceptively simple solution: eat less and exercise more. But again, Americans refuse to take a hand in their own salvation. Give up the greasy, fatty foods we love to consume? Think again. Better to find a cure for the diabetes we're inflicting upon ourselves, or find some lower calorie substitute so we can still drink coke and eat all the sweets we want. That is not progress; that is laziness. That is not sacrifice; that is social suicide.
War on Terror: This myopia on the part of this country – of which the above cases are two small examples – can be perhaps best exemplified in the situation immediately following the September 11. We had just gone to war. Everyone believed that we were entering a war period of a new type, one without a foreseeable end (and also an extremely nebulous enemy). And, as was demonstrated through our previous engagements, war requires sacrifices. Yet, in spite of the gearing up for this new pan-continental conflict, the populace was encouraged to shop. "America is open for business" was the slogan for the latter part of that year. Why worry about conserving resources, minimizing consumption, as long as you can still buy that plastic toy you've had your eye on? The war won't affect you as long as you can still have what you want, when you want it. It was with this cavalier attitude that we went to war, and this is the wrong way to go about it.
I do not know where we got this attitude. As I mentioned earlier, we have gone to wars before and made immense sacrifices in our civilian lives in order to support that war. In WWII people collected tin foil and bottle caps to re-process into weaponry and armor. In WWI it was corsets. Some have pronounced that our smooth and painless defeat of the USSR in the 80s made us complacent in our approach to global conflicts. Perhaps that is part of it. Maybe it is just that we won. Maybe it has nothing to do with Communism and the USSR at all. The point is that we now possess this nonchalant attitude until it becomes overbearing, and then we decide we need the government to step in aid us in our time of distress. So the government has a long history of legislation, tax implementation, and other means designed to get Americans to do what they should do in the first place of their own volition and sense of social responsibility. It also plays into personal responsibility as well, but that can expand into a topic beyond the scope of what weÂ’re here to discuss today. Relying on the government to mandate fixes to our problems is a problem in and of itself, not a solution.
We live in a complex society, one that possesses complex problems. And to solve these, it will not be in the form of a quick fix or an instant, overreaching miracle. It takes hard work. It takes dedication. All of these issues we have facing us as a country, as a society, can be solved. But only if we are mature enough to make the sacrifices necessary to stay the course and see it through to its resolution. Mature enough means that to find a solution our citizens first must become aware and then actively involving themselves in the process to achieve that goal. Even if it means a bit of discomfort, some sacrifice on their part to purge this country of another of its evil facets. That is something to be proud of your country about. That is what sacrifice is about.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
A Little History Lesson
The biggest part of the news coming from the Near East in recent weeks has not been from Iraq. That some other piece of news would eclipse the ongoing trauma that that country is enduring is somewhat surprising, and definitely depressing. The last thing that region of the world needs is more drama, more aggression and sadness. The Near East is a truly remarkable place; the so-called birth place of civilization, it has seen empires from the Greeks to the Persians to the British cross its sands, and at one point harbored the greatest wealth of knowledge and scientific advancement on the globe. But the news today is about Iran. Specifically it is their continued nuclear development program, the end result of which is the spark behind the current news. Some think it will be nuclear weapons, bent on exterminating the Israeli people and re-introducing a nuclear-enforced Persian Empire. Iran claims it is for domestic energy production. Yet the constant vitriol put forth by the president of Iran makes this claim, to say the least, suspect. And, interjecting itself into the politics of the region is the United States. There is wide-spread debate on what should be done about Iran, be it economic sanctions or military action. No option seems to be extremely enticing.
However, quite lost amongst all of the clamor over what to do now that Iran has the potential to join the elite group of nuclear-capable nations, is the lesson we learned 50 years ago about meddling in Near East politics. A lesson we should have very much taken to heart. A lesson that seems to have fallen from view, and should be remembered, as it has grave consequences for how we came to be in this current situation.
The British controlled Iran for a long time. They were there for colonial purposes, until the first decade of the 20th century, when oil was discovered under Persian soil. This began a long string of unjust agreements and corrupted officials that kept Iranian oil flowing for British business interests. In the meantime, democracy stagnated in the country, and public ire grew. People had long protested these abuses, these neglects, but they mostly fell on deaf ears. In the late 1910s the Iranian people wanted freedom from Britain. After WWI their chance came, and they were supported by the United States in the form of Woodrow Wilson. He went against our allies’ desires and gave his support to the Iranian people. America was supporting democracy in the simplest way; to allow a people to decide their fate on their own terms, without foreign threats or influence. We were loved as a country there.
Britain did not follow suit, and continued to keep a ring of bribed officials to maintain their now-substantial business interests – oil. They were very effective at keeping Iranians as workers, while bleeding the country of their oil resources. There was thought to be no hope, as the Shah was kept isolated from the anger of his people by the relative comfort brought in by the oil. (In fact, Iran was going bankrupt from the Shah’s policies… he kept borrowing money to furnish homes, vacations, and the lot… all gladly loaned by British banks and persons.) No hope, at least, until Mossadegh came. This simple man was fiery in his approach, and his love, of his native country. He worked his way up the political ladder until he reached prime minister of Iran in 1951.
Then came the unthinkable. He had the power to put his ideas into place. Mossadegh demanded Britain release their oil interests in the country; he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Britain balked at the offer, turning again to America to mediate. This time it was Harry Truman who again sided with the Iranians, refusing to back Britain’s claims to the oil fields. Britain took its case to the World Court and the United Nations, where Mossadegh repeatedly came through the victor. He became wildly popular at home, championing leftist policies of land redistribution and poverty reduction. He was named Time’s Man of the Year in 1951. Mossadegh even had the support of the more moderate mullahs in the country. Democracy was moving forward. Dawn was on the horizon for Iran. Britain attempted to plan a coup, but Mossadegh found out and threw all British diplomats out of the country. Britain needed help.
Their help came in the form of Eisenhower’s ascension to the presidency of the United States. Churchill and Eisenhower both held that a military coup would be the only way to oust Mossadegh and keep Iran under control. As well as grant Britain its oil fields once again. For 8 months they worked on this plan, the CIA being majorly involved (since the Brits were exiled from Iran). And then in August 1953 the plan was sprung. Uprisings, military occupation, the whole works. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and the Shah was ushered back in as the main political authority in Iran. Concessions were made to the British, and life seemingly resumed. But it hadn’t. People in Iran knew the US was behind the coup. With the Shah returned, he resumed his despotic ways, bringing Iran further into debt and poverty. He retaliated against anyone who had supported Mossadegh, including the clergy. A young Ayatollah Khomeini was among those ostracized. His later role in Iranian history is well documented, and the revolution in 1979 had Anti-American rallying points focused on Mossadegh.
Even now, Mossadegh’s importance in Iran is officially mild (as he was against creating an Iranian theocracy), but his importance, and the importance of American infiltration into the politics of the region, remains very current. In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her reflection upon the ousting of Mossadegh: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."
After all of this, there are many conclusions that can be drawn. The most glaring to me is one of missed opportunities. America in the 1920s was well-loved by the Iranian people, as much as they hated the British. We were seen as champions of democracy, harbingers of good futures, justice and the triumph of people over aggressors. In less than 30 years we had reversed that position in the minds of the Iranians 180 degrees. Now we were the suppressors; we were the greedy people aiding the colonial ambitions of Britain. It was a hard lesson for the Iranian people, one they have never forgotten. Now all of our actions regarding Iran are skewed by this instance. We even re-enforced this opinion when the US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Another missed chance to help be the true spreaders of peace and democracy. Then in 2003 with the final deposing of Hussein from Iraq’s throne. Still no democracy.
And now this saber-rattling from Iran in the face of American opposition to its policies? Is it any wonder Iran questions our motives and our abilities in the region? Is it any surprise that they feel the need to stand up against us now, as they once stood against Britain? Is it a shock to find them still angry by this betrayal, inflamed by the theocratic rhetoric of the current leaders? But this time it is not oil that is the dividing issue, it is something much more terrifying. I am not debating whether a nuclear Iran is a good or bad option for the world. Rather, I would like to counsel how we once had the influence in the region for good, and we threw it away for short-termed gains. How we squandered the opportunity to be the guiding light in this region that has brought so much trouble to modern times. It is the aim to gain a bit of perspective as to the current thought trends in that troubled country, and to hopefully remind Americans we once stood for positive ideals which won us admiration and respect the world over, two attributes we are sorely lacking as a nation right now.
However, quite lost amongst all of the clamor over what to do now that Iran has the potential to join the elite group of nuclear-capable nations, is the lesson we learned 50 years ago about meddling in Near East politics. A lesson we should have very much taken to heart. A lesson that seems to have fallen from view, and should be remembered, as it has grave consequences for how we came to be in this current situation.
The British controlled Iran for a long time. They were there for colonial purposes, until the first decade of the 20th century, when oil was discovered under Persian soil. This began a long string of unjust agreements and corrupted officials that kept Iranian oil flowing for British business interests. In the meantime, democracy stagnated in the country, and public ire grew. People had long protested these abuses, these neglects, but they mostly fell on deaf ears. In the late 1910s the Iranian people wanted freedom from Britain. After WWI their chance came, and they were supported by the United States in the form of Woodrow Wilson. He went against our allies’ desires and gave his support to the Iranian people. America was supporting democracy in the simplest way; to allow a people to decide their fate on their own terms, without foreign threats or influence. We were loved as a country there.
Britain did not follow suit, and continued to keep a ring of bribed officials to maintain their now-substantial business interests – oil. They were very effective at keeping Iranians as workers, while bleeding the country of their oil resources. There was thought to be no hope, as the Shah was kept isolated from the anger of his people by the relative comfort brought in by the oil. (In fact, Iran was going bankrupt from the Shah’s policies… he kept borrowing money to furnish homes, vacations, and the lot… all gladly loaned by British banks and persons.) No hope, at least, until Mossadegh came. This simple man was fiery in his approach, and his love, of his native country. He worked his way up the political ladder until he reached prime minister of Iran in 1951.
Then came the unthinkable. He had the power to put his ideas into place. Mossadegh demanded Britain release their oil interests in the country; he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Britain balked at the offer, turning again to America to mediate. This time it was Harry Truman who again sided with the Iranians, refusing to back Britain’s claims to the oil fields. Britain took its case to the World Court and the United Nations, where Mossadegh repeatedly came through the victor. He became wildly popular at home, championing leftist policies of land redistribution and poverty reduction. He was named Time’s Man of the Year in 1951. Mossadegh even had the support of the more moderate mullahs in the country. Democracy was moving forward. Dawn was on the horizon for Iran. Britain attempted to plan a coup, but Mossadegh found out and threw all British diplomats out of the country. Britain needed help.
Their help came in the form of Eisenhower’s ascension to the presidency of the United States. Churchill and Eisenhower both held that a military coup would be the only way to oust Mossadegh and keep Iran under control. As well as grant Britain its oil fields once again. For 8 months they worked on this plan, the CIA being majorly involved (since the Brits were exiled from Iran). And then in August 1953 the plan was sprung. Uprisings, military occupation, the whole works. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and the Shah was ushered back in as the main political authority in Iran. Concessions were made to the British, and life seemingly resumed. But it hadn’t. People in Iran knew the US was behind the coup. With the Shah returned, he resumed his despotic ways, bringing Iran further into debt and poverty. He retaliated against anyone who had supported Mossadegh, including the clergy. A young Ayatollah Khomeini was among those ostracized. His later role in Iranian history is well documented, and the revolution in 1979 had Anti-American rallying points focused on Mossadegh.
Even now, Mossadegh’s importance in Iran is officially mild (as he was against creating an Iranian theocracy), but his importance, and the importance of American infiltration into the politics of the region, remains very current. In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her reflection upon the ousting of Mossadegh: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."
After all of this, there are many conclusions that can be drawn. The most glaring to me is one of missed opportunities. America in the 1920s was well-loved by the Iranian people, as much as they hated the British. We were seen as champions of democracy, harbingers of good futures, justice and the triumph of people over aggressors. In less than 30 years we had reversed that position in the minds of the Iranians 180 degrees. Now we were the suppressors; we were the greedy people aiding the colonial ambitions of Britain. It was a hard lesson for the Iranian people, one they have never forgotten. Now all of our actions regarding Iran are skewed by this instance. We even re-enforced this opinion when the US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Another missed chance to help be the true spreaders of peace and democracy. Then in 2003 with the final deposing of Hussein from Iraq’s throne. Still no democracy.
And now this saber-rattling from Iran in the face of American opposition to its policies? Is it any wonder Iran questions our motives and our abilities in the region? Is it any surprise that they feel the need to stand up against us now, as they once stood against Britain? Is it a shock to find them still angry by this betrayal, inflamed by the theocratic rhetoric of the current leaders? But this time it is not oil that is the dividing issue, it is something much more terrifying. I am not debating whether a nuclear Iran is a good or bad option for the world. Rather, I would like to counsel how we once had the influence in the region for good, and we threw it away for short-termed gains. How we squandered the opportunity to be the guiding light in this region that has brought so much trouble to modern times. It is the aim to gain a bit of perspective as to the current thought trends in that troubled country, and to hopefully remind Americans we once stood for positive ideals which won us admiration and respect the world over, two attributes we are sorely lacking as a nation right now.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Humorous, yet Sad
The greatest error a democracy can commit is to forget its liberties. To allow that which they have fought for to fade into oblivion, through legislation, authoritarianism, or neglect, is intolerable.
This link, while attempting to be funny, also highlights what could be a growing problem. What happens when you no longer recognize the right to vote? What happens when you are allowed to be led blindly down alleys you have no clue as to their end?
I hope that this link was humorous, that all participants were prepped for their roles in the farce. I doubt that this is true, however, and that makes it all the more disheartening.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=71AT1Fu5TCA
This link, while attempting to be funny, also highlights what could be a growing problem. What happens when you no longer recognize the right to vote? What happens when you are allowed to be led blindly down alleys you have no clue as to their end?
I hope that this link was humorous, that all participants were prepped for their roles in the farce. I doubt that this is true, however, and that makes it all the more disheartening.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=71AT1Fu5TCA
Monday, April 03, 2006
The Rational Environmentalist: Economics as a Tool
sorry for the long post this week...
At first it seems a contradiction in terms. Rational environmentalist. Environmentalists, who for decades have been associated with impassioned speeches and desperate acts of heroism (some would say stupidity) in the name of saving the environment, but very few people would make the leap to call them rational. I think that this irrationality on the part of the environmental movement is a large problem, one that will undermine their future effectiveness as protectors of the natural world. For too long have the public waded through shock therapies designed to jolt us into a compassionate viewpoint of the world, and steel our reserve to do all things necessary to prevent degradation wrought by other groups. However, there are far too many who do not respond with the arduous vigor that was hope, and yet environmentalists continue to bray into the wind. Even the Democratic Party, long a stalwart supporter of the environmental movement, has begun to take steps away from the green fringe. Why? Because they have lost their touch with reality, in numerous ways.
Ask anyone to describe an environmentalist and the response is uncannily similar: a hippie-ish figure opining fervently about some nature issue, or about the evils of an industry, company, or individual. Large, grandiose gestures on the part of the environmentalists have become a major perception of the entire group. Groups like Greenpeace have furthered this image, throwing themselves into admirable yet ultimately futile gestures. Chaining themselves to trees, blockading bulldozers, rafting against oilrigs and tankers, these scenarios have become so banal they now fail to arouse the least bit of curiosity in the general public, let alone a zealous response of indignation. These tactics, while once persuasive, have lost their effectiveness in the face of modern society.
So what recourse do environmentalists have? To where should they turn when the irrational spew they are so accustomed to churning out is lifeless? I would postulate that moving in the other direction would be the best course of action. By rationalizing their pro-environment arguments, they will strengthen their positions as well as widen their own listening base, and in turn raise their own coalition to a new level. For too long has the heated rhetoric isolated those people who are most important to the environment’s cause. Because everyone has the possibility to play a part in this issue. It is not merely a white problem, or an atheistic problem or a rural problem; the health of the environment, and all the trappings that go with it, is everyone’s concern. That is a challenge to environmentalists: to engage all sectors of our society. And loud speeches or futile displays are no longer sufficient. We need to reach them on a level they can relate to and empathize with. And this involvement will open them up; bringing the issues closer to home will establish beyond a shadow of a doubt why the everyman must also champion the environment.
The inevitable question that follows is where do environmentalists find that common language, the means with which they will reach out and rally others to their cause? The answer lies in the language of all modern societies: economics. The very power environmentalists are accused of disrupting could prove to be a powerful ally.
For years, it has been assumed that the environmental movement is counter-economic growth. A common viewpoint is that it is necessary to utilize our natural resources to their fullest extent at the risk of losing out in economic development against the rest of the world. It is apparent even in today's politics, when our president refuses to join the Kyoto Protocol because it would endanger American businesses and would impose too great costs to our federal budget. Ditto for his decision to weaken mercury emission requirements despite EPA reports suggesting otherwise.
In this world, and especially in a capitalist-driven country such as this, a great number of times, the dollar is the bottom line. And it is to this that environmentalists must also address when they are enhancing their communication with other factions of this nation. Environmentalists need to highlight the practical nature of strong green policy; that it makes good economic, as well as social, sense to protect the wilderness. Overly aggressive harvesting of our natural resources is an economically unsound policy that will drain our economy faster than we would like to believe.
A very relevant article appeared in the March 2005 issue of Outside magazine. In this article, it went on to describe several examples of how economics can work to benefit the environment. One such example: when New York State had allocated $8 billion to construct and $300 million annually to maintain a new water purification system. Instead of building an entirely new treatment plant, they decided to spend $2 billion of that improving the health of the Catskills Mountains, a natural watershed for the state. The state found, after this restoration, the watershed alone was purifying the water enough so they did not have to alter any additional existing infrastructure of their urban system. In effect, preserving the Catskill Mountains saved New York State $6 billion plus the annual costs. This, in effect, makes those mountains worth in excess of $6 billion in assets just for water purification. This does not include recreation, possible carbon sinks, quality-of-life improvements, a plethora of other points that healthy ecosystems add to an economy. It is an interesting article to read, and this is just one example they give. Another example is the CAFE standards put in place by Carter in the late 70s. While reducing foreign oil imports by 87% and raising the fuel efficiency of the American fleet by 6mpg, the economy still grew by 27%, greater than 4% a year. And in 1995, the US Forestry Service studied the value of their land holdings and discovered the national forests of this country create nearly $94 billion in recreation-based economic activity annually. In comparison, these lands generated less than $20 billion in timber and mining revenue combined.
Economics is predominant in the minds of Americans, whether the environmental movement wants to believe it or not. One of the greatest issues facing them now is addressing these concerns, and making the general public realize it makes sense, economically as well as environmentally, to preserve the land for long-term use. It will have benefits that are far-reaching. With this new economics coming to bat for us, we have a new weapon we can use to educate and illuminate others to our cause.
The use of economics by the environmental sector is more than an educational tool. While the numbers, figures, and charts can work towards convincing people that the environment matters as much as their pocket books matter, the principles of economics provide the green movement with a new weapon. As money is the blood flow of the world, its constriction or dilation by organizations can prove useful motivation to achieving an end. And by applying this pressure judiciously, wilderness organizations can reap large benefits geared towards achieving their goals. One of these economic tools is an effective boycott.
You must qualify a boycott as effective because it has become another nominal threat from the environmental community. In response to any number of perceived slights, the environmental community jumps into action, calling for “boycotts” of the offending member. Whether these slights are real or not is not the subject of this article; the fact is that they are begun, word is spread to a few similarly-fervent people, and it ends up a 5pm news story at the boycott site. However, it rarely makes any sort of difference to the individual or company or industry that they are trying to impact. Why is this? To investigate what makes an effective boycott, we’ll examine one of the most influential boycotts in American history: the 1955 boycott of the Montgomery bus service after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. What attributes of this boycott made it so prominent in the American psyche, and had such far-reaching effects for the civil rights movement?
The first aspect that becomes apparent of the Montgomery boycott is the size. Contrary to many of the more modern, half-hearted boycotts, the Montgomery bus service witnessed a drop-off in a large number of riders. The scope of the boycott took the bus service, and the country, by surprise. And a boycott requires such a force in order to make itself truly effective. A boycott carried out by a grand total of a few dozen, maybe even a few hundred, is not able to put a dent into the economics of major organizations like the bus service. It needs a mass of people willing to carry out the boycott en masse.
The second noticeable difference that the Montgomery bus boycott possessed compared to modern boycotts is the duration. There have been some people who have called for oil boycotts, to demonstrate the public’s displeasure of the oil industry and their tactics in pricing or environmental stewardship. However, most of these boycotts ask for a measly week’s worth of boycotting. The problem with this is that people will effectively countermand their own boycott by stocking up before or immediately after the week-long boycott. People reason, “I’ll boycott, but I still need to drive, so I will fill up the tank before the boycott starts, then I can participate.” The oil company does not feel it is in any danger, for it knows that fact. Deferred purchases do not make any sort of impact against these mega-corporations. In contrast, the Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. This length brought the bus company to its knees, depriving it of a great source of revenue and eventually forcing it to capitulate to the boycott’s demands. This length serves two purposes. One is to systematically work against the aggressor financially, and the duration is necessary for the company to feel the effects of what you’re trying to achieve. And with the distinct large-ness of modern corporations, it has become a longer timeframe in order to effect these realizations. The second aspect of the time length is to grow the boycott. A week’s boycott is difficult to educate enough people and have enough participants to make it effective. There had actually been bus boycotts before the 1955 one; they lasted from one week to three months, but never had a significant influence in achieving their ultimate goal: desegretation of the bus system. However, as the time goes on, and people become attracted to the cause, they can join and multiply the effects to an even greater magnitude. Yet another reason for an effective boycott to have a long duration is psychological. Being able to abstain, to put the cause above petty personal desires, reflects the deepness of the value which one places in the actions they are espousing. It is easy to pick up a boycott for a week, and then go back to a normal life without a second thought. More difficult, and much more impressive, to maintain a boycott for six months. It proves that this is something cared about ardently enough to sacrifice for long periods of time. It is this which gets attention, and helps drive media frenzy around a boycott to educate even more possible participants and grow the boycott to maximize efficiency.
There is one facet of an effective boycott that makes it impossible to fail: the dedication of the participants. This will be discussed at some length in a later article, but it is necessary to have the boycotters committed to the cause. There is a need for a measure of personal sacrifice on the part of the participants. Boycotts, and making changes, does not come easy, and with the time involved, can impose some hardships on the persons involved. In the continuing example of Montgomery, it resides in the inability for a great number of people to use personal transit in order to get to their jobs, schools, and daily errands. But this was endured, and the results speak for themselves. I seriously doubt any of the boycotters would look back and feel that it was a waste of their time and inconvenience. (In an interesting, ironic twist, the iconographic environmental boycott of refusing to buy gasoline would require people to subsist on public transportation, rather than shunning it.) But this sacrifice, this resolve, is an integral part of a boycott, something without which no action would bear fruit.
There are other aspects of economics that can be utilized to help bring about changes to existing environmental conditions. A lot of these also involve economics’ twin brother, politics. Tax subsidies/penalties, mandatory standards of emissions/quality control (mostly political, but can still have wide-spread economic consequences for the companies involved), even something as simple as a refund for aluminum can recycling has economic implications for the betterment of the environment. These are economic powers that can be positive or negative, depending on the influence one wishes to implement. But they still constitute a broadening region that the environmental movement can make use of to expand their own interests to great effort.
However, the sword that stands to be inherited by environmentalists is double-edged. While it can be used with great possibility to force change in industries that have thus far proved to be beyond governmental control (either by campaign contributions or sheer brute political force), economics also will force the environmentalists to evaluate their own priorities and better focus their efforts. The economics that drives the world brings the priorities of a society into sharp relief. These will invariably be industries that are more or less valuable to the economy, just as these sectors will have varying levels of negative environmental impact. While it is a natural desire to eliminate all of the evils the environment is currently facing, in an economic sense it is not possible to address all issues simultaneously. The environmental movement must prioritize their agendas, though this may seem counter-productive. By using economics they are able to evaluate where their efforts would yield the greatest returns. This article is not about enumerating these choices; rather, it is about the necessity to implement this method of thinking. A lot of environmentalists have unrealistic expectations of large, sudden changes in a given society’s growth and/or consumption patterns. But the truth is these adjustments must always be gradual. Nothing can really be achieved overnight. By looking at all the implications of a particular industry’s errors and the measures necessary to redress the problems, the environmentalists can work towards effective yet also realistic accomplishments. To ignore the other facets of reality leaves the movement as a whole out of touch and ultimately sterile. An example is the forest industry. There are a great number of activists who decry any use of timber in modern society. They would prefer to close down all major forest harvesting projects. The reality is that lumber, paper, and other forest products are vital portions of modern living and consumption. It is impossible to grind all that to a halt immediately. And since there is this high demand for their products, shutting down American forest harvesting will only shift the problem elsewhere in the world, moving to new possible suppliers. Rather, the gradual management and reduction of logging will elicit a greater result, be easier to motivate other citizens to follow, and generate greater acquiescence from industry. Investing their energies in recycled paper products, alternative building technologies/materials, and sustainable harvesting management plans will produce gradual yet continuous positive improvements. This is the way that, thankfully, a lot of environmental organizations have chosen to follow, and I sincerely hope they use this judicious evaluation and attack process towards all of their endeavors. It remains that the fringe needs to get with this program, for it is their unusually harsh and loud voices that are creating detrimental roadblocks for progress.
If this sounds like an MBA talking, that is good. The people environmentalists are most directly working against are business leaders. The public is secondary in this matter. The public always states, in pre-election polls, that the environment is high in their minds and electoral considerations. But when the day actually arrives, more practical concerns take over their minds. The economy, foreign trade, job growth, federal budget and deficit, all preoccupy the citizens’ collective interest when the ballot is cast. For too long has the environment been viewed as antithetical to economic prosperity. For too long have companies and governments used financial statistics to beat down environmental policy. The tide is turning; those same statistics are beginning to prove the point that wilderness and consumption patters matter. And in order to make the argument stronger, iron-clad, environmentalists need to trade the soapbox for the cost-analysis study. By becoming rational environmentalists, we inherit the power to make our most irrational dreams come true.
You can find the Outside magazine article on the internet at http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200503/money-and-the-environment_1.html
At first it seems a contradiction in terms. Rational environmentalist. Environmentalists, who for decades have been associated with impassioned speeches and desperate acts of heroism (some would say stupidity) in the name of saving the environment, but very few people would make the leap to call them rational. I think that this irrationality on the part of the environmental movement is a large problem, one that will undermine their future effectiveness as protectors of the natural world. For too long have the public waded through shock therapies designed to jolt us into a compassionate viewpoint of the world, and steel our reserve to do all things necessary to prevent degradation wrought by other groups. However, there are far too many who do not respond with the arduous vigor that was hope, and yet environmentalists continue to bray into the wind. Even the Democratic Party, long a stalwart supporter of the environmental movement, has begun to take steps away from the green fringe. Why? Because they have lost their touch with reality, in numerous ways.
Ask anyone to describe an environmentalist and the response is uncannily similar: a hippie-ish figure opining fervently about some nature issue, or about the evils of an industry, company, or individual. Large, grandiose gestures on the part of the environmentalists have become a major perception of the entire group. Groups like Greenpeace have furthered this image, throwing themselves into admirable yet ultimately futile gestures. Chaining themselves to trees, blockading bulldozers, rafting against oilrigs and tankers, these scenarios have become so banal they now fail to arouse the least bit of curiosity in the general public, let alone a zealous response of indignation. These tactics, while once persuasive, have lost their effectiveness in the face of modern society.
So what recourse do environmentalists have? To where should they turn when the irrational spew they are so accustomed to churning out is lifeless? I would postulate that moving in the other direction would be the best course of action. By rationalizing their pro-environment arguments, they will strengthen their positions as well as widen their own listening base, and in turn raise their own coalition to a new level. For too long has the heated rhetoric isolated those people who are most important to the environment’s cause. Because everyone has the possibility to play a part in this issue. It is not merely a white problem, or an atheistic problem or a rural problem; the health of the environment, and all the trappings that go with it, is everyone’s concern. That is a challenge to environmentalists: to engage all sectors of our society. And loud speeches or futile displays are no longer sufficient. We need to reach them on a level they can relate to and empathize with. And this involvement will open them up; bringing the issues closer to home will establish beyond a shadow of a doubt why the everyman must also champion the environment.
The inevitable question that follows is where do environmentalists find that common language, the means with which they will reach out and rally others to their cause? The answer lies in the language of all modern societies: economics. The very power environmentalists are accused of disrupting could prove to be a powerful ally.
For years, it has been assumed that the environmental movement is counter-economic growth. A common viewpoint is that it is necessary to utilize our natural resources to their fullest extent at the risk of losing out in economic development against the rest of the world. It is apparent even in today's politics, when our president refuses to join the Kyoto Protocol because it would endanger American businesses and would impose too great costs to our federal budget. Ditto for his decision to weaken mercury emission requirements despite EPA reports suggesting otherwise.
In this world, and especially in a capitalist-driven country such as this, a great number of times, the dollar is the bottom line. And it is to this that environmentalists must also address when they are enhancing their communication with other factions of this nation. Environmentalists need to highlight the practical nature of strong green policy; that it makes good economic, as well as social, sense to protect the wilderness. Overly aggressive harvesting of our natural resources is an economically unsound policy that will drain our economy faster than we would like to believe.
A very relevant article appeared in the March 2005 issue of Outside magazine. In this article, it went on to describe several examples of how economics can work to benefit the environment. One such example: when New York State had allocated $8 billion to construct and $300 million annually to maintain a new water purification system. Instead of building an entirely new treatment plant, they decided to spend $2 billion of that improving the health of the Catskills Mountains, a natural watershed for the state. The state found, after this restoration, the watershed alone was purifying the water enough so they did not have to alter any additional existing infrastructure of their urban system. In effect, preserving the Catskill Mountains saved New York State $6 billion plus the annual costs. This, in effect, makes those mountains worth in excess of $6 billion in assets just for water purification. This does not include recreation, possible carbon sinks, quality-of-life improvements, a plethora of other points that healthy ecosystems add to an economy. It is an interesting article to read, and this is just one example they give. Another example is the CAFE standards put in place by Carter in the late 70s. While reducing foreign oil imports by 87% and raising the fuel efficiency of the American fleet by 6mpg, the economy still grew by 27%, greater than 4% a year. And in 1995, the US Forestry Service studied the value of their land holdings and discovered the national forests of this country create nearly $94 billion in recreation-based economic activity annually. In comparison, these lands generated less than $20 billion in timber and mining revenue combined.
Economics is predominant in the minds of Americans, whether the environmental movement wants to believe it or not. One of the greatest issues facing them now is addressing these concerns, and making the general public realize it makes sense, economically as well as environmentally, to preserve the land for long-term use. It will have benefits that are far-reaching. With this new economics coming to bat for us, we have a new weapon we can use to educate and illuminate others to our cause.
The use of economics by the environmental sector is more than an educational tool. While the numbers, figures, and charts can work towards convincing people that the environment matters as much as their pocket books matter, the principles of economics provide the green movement with a new weapon. As money is the blood flow of the world, its constriction or dilation by organizations can prove useful motivation to achieving an end. And by applying this pressure judiciously, wilderness organizations can reap large benefits geared towards achieving their goals. One of these economic tools is an effective boycott.
You must qualify a boycott as effective because it has become another nominal threat from the environmental community. In response to any number of perceived slights, the environmental community jumps into action, calling for “boycotts” of the offending member. Whether these slights are real or not is not the subject of this article; the fact is that they are begun, word is spread to a few similarly-fervent people, and it ends up a 5pm news story at the boycott site. However, it rarely makes any sort of difference to the individual or company or industry that they are trying to impact. Why is this? To investigate what makes an effective boycott, we’ll examine one of the most influential boycotts in American history: the 1955 boycott of the Montgomery bus service after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. What attributes of this boycott made it so prominent in the American psyche, and had such far-reaching effects for the civil rights movement?
The first aspect that becomes apparent of the Montgomery boycott is the size. Contrary to many of the more modern, half-hearted boycotts, the Montgomery bus service witnessed a drop-off in a large number of riders. The scope of the boycott took the bus service, and the country, by surprise. And a boycott requires such a force in order to make itself truly effective. A boycott carried out by a grand total of a few dozen, maybe even a few hundred, is not able to put a dent into the economics of major organizations like the bus service. It needs a mass of people willing to carry out the boycott en masse.
The second noticeable difference that the Montgomery bus boycott possessed compared to modern boycotts is the duration. There have been some people who have called for oil boycotts, to demonstrate the public’s displeasure of the oil industry and their tactics in pricing or environmental stewardship. However, most of these boycotts ask for a measly week’s worth of boycotting. The problem with this is that people will effectively countermand their own boycott by stocking up before or immediately after the week-long boycott. People reason, “I’ll boycott, but I still need to drive, so I will fill up the tank before the boycott starts, then I can participate.” The oil company does not feel it is in any danger, for it knows that fact. Deferred purchases do not make any sort of impact against these mega-corporations. In contrast, the Montgomery bus boycott lasted over a year. This length brought the bus company to its knees, depriving it of a great source of revenue and eventually forcing it to capitulate to the boycott’s demands. This length serves two purposes. One is to systematically work against the aggressor financially, and the duration is necessary for the company to feel the effects of what you’re trying to achieve. And with the distinct large-ness of modern corporations, it has become a longer timeframe in order to effect these realizations. The second aspect of the time length is to grow the boycott. A week’s boycott is difficult to educate enough people and have enough participants to make it effective. There had actually been bus boycotts before the 1955 one; they lasted from one week to three months, but never had a significant influence in achieving their ultimate goal: desegretation of the bus system. However, as the time goes on, and people become attracted to the cause, they can join and multiply the effects to an even greater magnitude. Yet another reason for an effective boycott to have a long duration is psychological. Being able to abstain, to put the cause above petty personal desires, reflects the deepness of the value which one places in the actions they are espousing. It is easy to pick up a boycott for a week, and then go back to a normal life without a second thought. More difficult, and much more impressive, to maintain a boycott for six months. It proves that this is something cared about ardently enough to sacrifice for long periods of time. It is this which gets attention, and helps drive media frenzy around a boycott to educate even more possible participants and grow the boycott to maximize efficiency.
There is one facet of an effective boycott that makes it impossible to fail: the dedication of the participants. This will be discussed at some length in a later article, but it is necessary to have the boycotters committed to the cause. There is a need for a measure of personal sacrifice on the part of the participants. Boycotts, and making changes, does not come easy, and with the time involved, can impose some hardships on the persons involved. In the continuing example of Montgomery, it resides in the inability for a great number of people to use personal transit in order to get to their jobs, schools, and daily errands. But this was endured, and the results speak for themselves. I seriously doubt any of the boycotters would look back and feel that it was a waste of their time and inconvenience. (In an interesting, ironic twist, the iconographic environmental boycott of refusing to buy gasoline would require people to subsist on public transportation, rather than shunning it.) But this sacrifice, this resolve, is an integral part of a boycott, something without which no action would bear fruit.
There are other aspects of economics that can be utilized to help bring about changes to existing environmental conditions. A lot of these also involve economics’ twin brother, politics. Tax subsidies/penalties, mandatory standards of emissions/quality control (mostly political, but can still have wide-spread economic consequences for the companies involved), even something as simple as a refund for aluminum can recycling has economic implications for the betterment of the environment. These are economic powers that can be positive or negative, depending on the influence one wishes to implement. But they still constitute a broadening region that the environmental movement can make use of to expand their own interests to great effort.
However, the sword that stands to be inherited by environmentalists is double-edged. While it can be used with great possibility to force change in industries that have thus far proved to be beyond governmental control (either by campaign contributions or sheer brute political force), economics also will force the environmentalists to evaluate their own priorities and better focus their efforts. The economics that drives the world brings the priorities of a society into sharp relief. These will invariably be industries that are more or less valuable to the economy, just as these sectors will have varying levels of negative environmental impact. While it is a natural desire to eliminate all of the evils the environment is currently facing, in an economic sense it is not possible to address all issues simultaneously. The environmental movement must prioritize their agendas, though this may seem counter-productive. By using economics they are able to evaluate where their efforts would yield the greatest returns. This article is not about enumerating these choices; rather, it is about the necessity to implement this method of thinking. A lot of environmentalists have unrealistic expectations of large, sudden changes in a given society’s growth and/or consumption patterns. But the truth is these adjustments must always be gradual. Nothing can really be achieved overnight. By looking at all the implications of a particular industry’s errors and the measures necessary to redress the problems, the environmentalists can work towards effective yet also realistic accomplishments. To ignore the other facets of reality leaves the movement as a whole out of touch and ultimately sterile. An example is the forest industry. There are a great number of activists who decry any use of timber in modern society. They would prefer to close down all major forest harvesting projects. The reality is that lumber, paper, and other forest products are vital portions of modern living and consumption. It is impossible to grind all that to a halt immediately. And since there is this high demand for their products, shutting down American forest harvesting will only shift the problem elsewhere in the world, moving to new possible suppliers. Rather, the gradual management and reduction of logging will elicit a greater result, be easier to motivate other citizens to follow, and generate greater acquiescence from industry. Investing their energies in recycled paper products, alternative building technologies/materials, and sustainable harvesting management plans will produce gradual yet continuous positive improvements. This is the way that, thankfully, a lot of environmental organizations have chosen to follow, and I sincerely hope they use this judicious evaluation and attack process towards all of their endeavors. It remains that the fringe needs to get with this program, for it is their unusually harsh and loud voices that are creating detrimental roadblocks for progress.
If this sounds like an MBA talking, that is good. The people environmentalists are most directly working against are business leaders. The public is secondary in this matter. The public always states, in pre-election polls, that the environment is high in their minds and electoral considerations. But when the day actually arrives, more practical concerns take over their minds. The economy, foreign trade, job growth, federal budget and deficit, all preoccupy the citizens’ collective interest when the ballot is cast. For too long has the environment been viewed as antithetical to economic prosperity. For too long have companies and governments used financial statistics to beat down environmental policy. The tide is turning; those same statistics are beginning to prove the point that wilderness and consumption patters matter. And in order to make the argument stronger, iron-clad, environmentalists need to trade the soapbox for the cost-analysis study. By becoming rational environmentalists, we inherit the power to make our most irrational dreams come true.
You can find the Outside magazine article on the internet at http://outside.away.com/outside/features/200503/money-and-the-environment_1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
