A recent National Geographic survey ranked the environmental impact of consumer habits and lifestyles in 14 countries.
The U.S. ranked last.
People in Brazil, India, China, Mexico, Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Spain, Japan, France, and Canada were judged to be more environmentally responsible than Americans. Yes, you read that right. India. China. Mexico. Et cetera. All more proactively concerned than we are about saving this planet for our children and our grandchildren.
But this should come as no surprise. Whether we can blame it on ignorance, apathy, arrogance, or just laziness depends on the person, but I see it every day. Americans talk about global warming and they sound concerned. But that's as far as it goes. Talk is cheap. And so they continue to be part of the problem.
They grumble about high gasoline prices even as they continue to drive their big, bloated SUVs. They must have their status symbols.
They see themselves as heroes for recycling case after case of empty Aquafina bottles each week, perhaps not knowing (or perhaps not caring) that the production and transportation of their bottled water more than cancels the environmental benefit of their recycling. And, ironically, they don't seem to realize (or care) that many brands of bottled water actually come from the same source as public tap water. If you pay for it, it must be better than the free stuff. They must have their status symbols.
They congratulate themselves for turning down the thermostat when the weather gets chilly, but they use a wood-burning fireplace to compensate, perhaps not knowing (or perhaps not caring) about the fact that fireplaces contribute to pollution (and human respiratory problems). They must have their status symbols.
So I decided to do some first-hand research into the American consumer psyche. I asked an acquaintance why she clings to her SUV despite the soaring gas prices and despite the global warming crisis. "I like being up high when I drive," she explained.
So that's it. That is her priority.
And, when I tried to appeal to her sense of survival and responsibility, she rolled her eyes and drove away.
And I think this so perfectly illustrates the problem: Americans are spoiled. Americans like things the way they are accustomed to. They like to have what they want, and they don't want to sacrifice. They've never had to sacrifice much, and change is discomforting. And they don't want anyone suggesting that they change their ways.
In most cases, it is not a malicious thing. It's just the way it has always been.
And so here we are. Last place. Below India. Below China. Below Mexico.
And it's going to take more than a movie and a rock concert to make a difference.
But there is a good side. With the high price of gasoline, people are driving less, and SUV sales are down. People will change their habits when their wallets are affected. But it will take much, much more, and our elected officials must do their part.
We need strong incentives for the development of renewable energy alternatives.
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
It is anecdotal, but in general every test that is made is failed by someone. Your "friend" failed by virtue of driving an SUV, and there was probably no answer that she could have given that would have been acceptable. You set a standard for others to fail by, and then remark on your "discovery."
Bush did the same thing regarding Saddam and Iraq. Nothing the inspectors could have discovered would indicate that Saddam was in compliance. Bush had already decided Saddam failed and was looking for an excuse to attack. You have done the same things with words. You want to attack SUV drivers and Americans, but there is no way for anyone to pass your self-righteous "test."
Then you close with "our elected officials must do their part," which is almost comical. Where did this come from? What did they not do? It is a new criticism which just arrives out of nowhere.
Mind you, I don't disagree that our bad habits pollute the environment. (How could I? Should I blame non-humans?) But since progressives generally believe everyone should be "equally rich," that also implies that everyone will equally pollute, too. How do we maintain a good standard of living and live in balance with each other and the environment? That is the real question. Blaming SUV drivers doesn't really promote any solution. It is the same as blaming a race or religion for all the world's ills. Fascism comes in a lot of flavors, and "blaming the rich" is just one of many.
What do you expect or want politicians to do? I'm running for State Rep. I have some ideas on how to fix things, and I would like you to hear your ideas. If you have some concrete proposals of how "politicians must do their part," I would love to hear them.
The blame game, however, is the road to nowhere.
thanks,
steve
by
Steve Consilvio (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM
Steve!!! If you are running for office you should be very certain of the definition of the word "fascism" and use it appropriately. Fascism is the exercise of controlling political power by government and corporate interests. It is certainly not fascist to be among those who "blame the rich". In some cases, such as when 1% of the population has more wealth than 90%, and when 98% of incumbents are reelected, it is fair to suggest the rich are at least quite possibly the beneficiaries of fascism....
What other "flavors" does fascism come in? Right wing pundits like O'Really and Limbaugh have tried to obliterate the true meaning of the term and call liberals "fascists" at every name calling opportunity. Clearly they make this concerted effort to redefine the word among their radio listeners because the reality of American political life is a truth they would prefer to distract potential citizens from recognizing.
It appears that you have been victimized by their redefining of the term. I have looked through your other comments on this list and found the following:
"A fascist is somebody who is willing to protect the "State" from "evil." Of course, who or what is evil is the thing subject to interpretation. There are fascists of the Left, Right, Theological, Racist, etc."
"Fascism comes from below, not from above. It is the toxic combination of fear and pride."
"The rebel gains power and becomes a fascist. The only way to "stop" fascism is to make peace between the high and the low in society. Peace is not the same as swapping places between those with and without power, which democratic politics is based upon. Democracy is inherently fascist, since it is based on the majority and the belief that might equals right."
"Fascism isn't about who is in charge; it is about what people believe, particularly their belief that they are a victim somehow, no matter how strong they become."
I think your definition is way, way off base,...and that is too bad because the concept is very important to any discussion of current affairs. It is hard for me to believe that you could be running for office and call a progressive a fascist.
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 5:47:19 PM
Steve, you seem very focused on the phrase "playing the blame game". This isn't the first time you've replied to a writer and claimed they were "playing the blame game". Usually the writer is discussing a situation or problem, and attempting to shed some light on how it came about. Your use of this phrase comes across as dismissive, and it reminds me of how often the GOP uses this when they are trying to avoid political fall-out from their actions, or lack thereof (like Katrina, for instance). No successful solutions to any problem can be found unless a clear understanding is reached about how the problem originated in the first place. It's an essential part of the process.
This is Mary's point of view, based on her experiences. She is also sharing her frustration with the current status quo. It may not be your viewpoint, but that doesn't warrant the trivialization of her statements.
by
annavanz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 6:52:19 PM
Fascism is the use of violence for political reasons. The "rebel" is just as fascist as the government he is overthrowing. Is that not true? How is one man's violence "good" while another person's violence is "bad?" That is a double-standard, isn't it?
In general, a fascist has a gun in one hand and a piece of paper in the other. The fascist George Washington used The Declaration, Osama uses the Koran, Hitler used Mein Kamph. It doesn't matter what the piece of paper is, you can use one you wrote or one somebody else wrote. Lincoln used the Constitution. Fascism comes in a lot of flavors, but it is always based on violence and self-righteousness. "Pre-fascism" is blaming others, according to some "test" of virtue.
Unfortunately, my definition of fascism works. It is objective and non-partisan, and simply explains the workings of HOW we have political conflict.
I realize that nobody wants to wake up one morning and discover they are part of the problem they have been fighting. The mirror is a treacherous place. (Been there, done that.)
If the "statistics" said America had the best rates, would driving a hybrid SUV be okay? Would the compounding effect of pollution be benign because we were first in the ranking? Would improvement beyond first place no longer be necessary?
My point is that the "ranking" is irrelevant, except as a way to make a self-righteous claim, which the attack on the "friend" who owns an SUV demonstrates, except it is at a personal level. The statistics were collected for the purpose of judging others, since the collecting of statistics has no other purpose. Measuring the problem will not solve it, no matter how many times we measure it. Neither will blaming others. The essay is based on both.
As I said, I agree there is a problem, but we need a better approach if we are going to slove them/it.
Unfortunately, georip, just as there are immoral moralists and authoritarian libertarians, there are also regressive progressives. It's like the anti-war movement today and in the 60's. They were anti-war but pro-hate of the administration, conservatives, etc. So how is one side's hate different than the hate of the opposing side? Remember 1984? Each country was exactly the same, full of self-adulation and hate. Our politics is based on the same dichotomy. Progressives love themselves and hate others, the same as conservatives, etc. To love one and hate another is to lack balance.
Know thyself.- Plato
by
Steve Consilvio (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Monday, May 12, 2008 at 6:48:31 AM
"And it's going to take more than a movie and a rock concert to make a difference."
BTW, I agree 1000% with the above statement. We cannot use consumerism to solve problems created by consumerism. It's illogical. It's like borrowing to get out of debt.
by
Steve Consilvio (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Monday, May 12, 2008 at 6:52:27 AM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
