On Value Systems and Environmentalism
By Karina | February 20, 2008
Jenn and I have had a few conversations lately about different environmental issues, and how important they are to each of us. For example, there’s the plastics issue: Jenn is concerned about the chemical leaching issue, while I’m not, really. I would rather avoid using plastics because I think we use way too many plastics today. It’s a disposable product right now, and I don’t think it should be. Plastic is an incredibly useful material, but it should be used carefully and thoughtfully. In my opinion, when you consider plastic as a commodity that has been made from petroleum, in terms of energy waste every piece of plastic that goes into a landfill is like pouring gasoline on the ground.
So you see? this is the perfect example of an issue that we both feel strongly about but each have very different reasons for action. We’ve got different priorities and different values. I touched on it a little bit in the “what makes an expert” post.
I don’t want to assign motives onto her actions, but I think it’s admirable that, as we are all faced with so many potential environmental toxins, Jenn is taking a stand and trying to reduce her exposure to them by removing as many plastics from her life as possible. I mean, colloquially it really seems like more and more people are being diagnosed with cancer, you know? and who’s to say what the cumulative effects of all of the environmental toxins are on our bodies.
But I’ve got different priorities than Jenn does. I am not as concerned about environmental toxins. I work in a field that teaches me a lot about environmental toxins, and maybe it’s caused a cavalier attitude, but I know generally what my risks are. And of course, I’m not responsible for any other life forms than lil’ol’me. no kids to worry about. And that affects my action as well.
So you see how we’re working with different priorities, and different value systems. And I think every single one of us has a wildly different value system. They may appear to be the same on the surface, but odds are that each one of us has been formed by our past, our present, what we know about things, and our general personality type. This all factors into our value system. And I say this a lot about politics, and I’ll say it about the environment too. It’s more important to me (ok, just a little more important) that someone is able to discuss what they care about, than they care about what I care about. [Even on issues where I’m right, like the environment ;)] It’s totally OK that we disagree, and it’s totally OK that we each take information from the same source and interpret it according to our own value systems. What’s important is that we are thinking and evaluating and caring.
But really, I think the most important thing is that we all feel empowered. Environmental problems are so big that they SHOULD be tackled from every angle. And if I’m reducing my plastic use because I think it’s a waste of an energy source that should be conserved, and if Jenn reduces her plastic use because she’s minimizing the potential for toxins to enter her body, well… we’re STILL both reducing plastic use. We’ve just got different reasons for making our tiny choices.
What do you think? can a bunch of independent thinkers like us throw together from different perspectives and effect true environmental change?
Related posts:
- Blog Action Day: Poverty (and Environmentalism)
- Remembering our First Environmentalism
- The Big Pacific Plastic Patch
- When environmentalism may not be “pretty.”
- An Open Letter to Peets
- What makes an expert?
- Tiny Choices Weekly Roundup
Topics: Activism |
Awesome post, Karina!
I wholeheartedly agree with your belief that we take way too cavalier an attitude towards plastic, and that the price we pay in dollars for a plastic object is far less than the amount of damage done to the environment for said object. And you know that your analogy of plastic waste being akin to pouring gasoline on the ground gets me every time.
And, I do think that a group of independent thinkers can effect true change, even when coming with different major motivating factors– because while our primary reasons may vary, everyone generally agrees on all the points on the list– plastic is a major problem because it’s a finite resource being used blithely, and because it’s a personal toxin, and because it never biodegrades and thus will continue to mess up the earth for eons, and on and on. It doesn’t matter which reason is the primary motivator, as long as we’re on the same team. You know?
I know! go team tiny choices!
I think this is what makes for working democracy and powerful change — think about the coalitions springing up between say, people religiously motivated to be good stewards of the earth and people who are animal rights activists who want to preserve habitats. I think it is quite useful to harness disparate points of view in search of common enviro ground. Interesting post.
definately! and if everyone enters the conversation from a position of respect, then hopefully the partnership will be strong.
Interesting. My cousin is active in certain environmental issues and when he was trying to get a bottle deposit law passed in his community he ended up partnering with the NRA. Hunters shared his interest in keeping the woods clean and the Assoc had the money to get the word out. Very different motivations, same goal. However, I had (and have) mixed feelings about this partnering. The primary result of woods without bottles everywhere is laudable but the possible side effects (e.g., warm and fuzzy image for NRA) make me a little queazy. Divergent motives may work out in service to a common goal, but both sides need to be aware of their differences and set up ground rules for what the limits on their cooperation should be.
that’s an interesting comparison. actually, most early conservation efforts have been driven by hunters, did you know? and I may talk a big talk, but I haven’t brought myself to read newt gingrich’s book about compassionate conservationism yet… though I really should.
I have to agree with Kari, sometimes I think that as environmentalists we forget or maybe don’t understand that the individuals and groups that pay licensing and registrations fees are the ones who support many conservations projects. There are no surcharges on hiking boots, kayaks, snowshoes, etc… The money for trail improvement and outreach often comes from those we seem to be at odds with. Just because they have a different perspective on how to use a natural resouce it doesn’t mean it is wrong. It took me awhile to get to this point, but now I embrace outdoorsmen (and women). They are a valuable resouce to everyone.
I really enjoyed this post. What was not stated but perhaps implied was the element of “judging” that some in the green community display. We all have different priorities and different ways of going about things….but people are quick to be “greener than thou.”
Lynn
http://www.organicmania.com
thanks Lynn! it’s true - and that’s one of the dangers, I think, of allowing oneself to feel that one is doing the Absolute Best and Most Right thing.
[…] quite some time ago) about taking a clearer role on environmental stewardship. We touched briefly in the comments over here about the varied types of people who espouse environmentalism - and I am pretty excited that even […]