Cav's Place

The sad thing is that it didn’t seem to have the expected impact. There was significant media coverage during that day, certainly, but a few channels focused on it while most others only mentioned it after the supposedly more important local news, though how can anything local be more important than the whole world is beyond me. And if that’s how things were Saturday, the aftereffects are even less noticeable.
Another problem is that a good part of the existing coverage focused on the concerts and artists themselves instead of the cause. Pardon me if I’m wrong, but I thought the purpose was to get a message about protecting the environment across, not one about how many artists performed in how many places and in front of how many people! But, of course, the media focuses on what the people want to see, hear or read…

And that brings us to the next issue. I keep saying that those who are interested in these issues already know what they need to know and are already trying to do something about it, while those who aren’t interested now won’t become interested if somebody tells them once again that there is a problem. Those will probably only go straight from disbelief to despair when something will happen to make them realize the gravity of the situation, missing that crucial middle position where they’d actually do something about it.
My point is that such an event should be the end of any attempts to inform people on a large scale. If this didn’t do it, nothing will. As for those who haven’t heard about it, it’s unlikely that they’ll hear about any other national or international campaign either, so the only way to reach them would be to send people directly to those villages and small towns to spread this information person to person.

But what can the rest of us, those who already know what’s at stake, do? One idea would be that expressed in this month’s Romanian edition of the National Geographic Magazine by the editor-in-chief, Cristian Lascu, “Environmentalists and adepts of the so-called sustainable development encourage us to “think globally, act locally”. But all we can do right now is think, be informed, try to understand the complex relationships between phenomena, estimate the effects mankind’s actions have on the environment in our immediate vicinity, and only then will we be able to act.” But is there still time for such a careful approach?
I couldn’t answer that question with any degree of certainty, and I doubt anyone can, but anybody who is even somewhat aware of the state of things will be able to tell you that we shouldn’t wait to find out. We already have a lot to repair, so better prevent further damage even if we will eventually be able to repair all of it. You must always think before you act, but what’s stopping us on acting on one issue while thinking of another, taking one step while thinking of the next?

We must first make the average person want to do something for the environment. And most people think firstly of their pockets, then of their comfort level and the degree of social acceptance they enjoy.
Therefore, a first step would be to tax products according to their environmental impact (energy/fuel consumption, average lifespan, recyclability, biodegradability of what’s not recyclable, what resources and materials are used in manufacturing, etc.). The least harmful, and especially those that would somehow aid the environment, should be subsidized with the money earned from taxing the rest, so people will end up buying them more.
Next, we should encourage research towards finding ways to make environmentally friendly products create the same level of comfort as those that are not. It’s certainly possible, but such research projects require a lot of funding and large companies have no interest in financing them because they base their profits on the current state of affairs, so why would they want to change it?
As for social acceptance… I think events like Live Earth do all that can be done on that matter. Despite the fact that I’m bothered by the very concept of “cool”, I find it quite refreshing when it starts to be “cool” to be “green”.

“Ok,” you’ll say, “but all of that is for politicians, CEOs, managers, artists and other such people to decide, what does it have to do with me?”
The answer is: Everything! The more consumers will demand such products, the more companies will need to manufacture them and governments will need to support them. The more voters will demand such programs, the more politicians will need to focus on them and companies will need to finance them. And the more people will care for such causes, the more entertainers will add their voices to the calls.
True, initially it won’t be because most of them actually care, but just for creating a better image of themselves, but does that really matter? Does why it gets done matter as long as it does actually get done? I find it really refreshing to see that being “green” is slowly starting to be good PR, and even good business. This means that, sooner or later, people who actually care for the environment will make it through the ranks, because they will become really useful in gaining customers, votes or fans.

So how do you do that? Shop around and buy the most environmentally friendly products. Be as “green” as you can at home, at school/work and on the street. Sign petitions, take part in protests, write directly to people in positions of authority and encourage others to do the same. Demand better fuel efficiency standards, better public transportation, energy efficient lighting on streets and in public buildings, more parks, less deforestation, cleaner power plants, bigger penalties for anything from minor littering to large scale industrial pollution, subsidies for “green” businesses and environmentally conscious citizens, better access to recycling centers or, dare I say it, especially population control.
Pick any or all of those if you want, pick something else if it appeals to you more, just do something, anything! Because nothing’s more important than the whole world…