January 2009

Do you ever worry that you’re not doing enough to “go green,” or improve the environment? I will admit, that sometimes I do; I feel guilty when I forget my SIGG bottle and have to buy a plastic bottle of water (even though I recycle), when I forget to bring my reusable bag to the grocery store, or drive instead of walk. We’re not alone, many people are now overcome with angst and guilt that they’re not doing the right things, or that it’s not good enough – even when they are taking important steps to reduce waste and use less energy.

So what’s a girl to do?

Something…anything…nothing? I am of the opinion that something is always better than nothing, but I am also not delusional that most of what I am doing will have very little effect on the environment. Why not? Because I live. I like being alive, and while I do appreciate nature, and clean air, I also appreciate office buildings, factories, cars, train tracks, highways and technology. The simple fact is that as “man” has progressed over time, we have always sought to “control” or manipulate our environment; if we hadn’t, we would still be cave dwellers.

We are where we are today because of our desire and need to shape the environment to fit our needs: we converted open fields to farmland, we re-routed rivers, we built homes and other buildings, we even genetically modified plants and animals to be more efficient and produce more.

That said, I don’t think it’s pointless to try and reduce the amount of waste we produce and be more energy efficient – both when using electricity in our homes, and by altering driving habits; We have become much too reliant on disposable products and containers, most of which are simply not necessary and produce an enormous amount of waste, and don’t even get me started on cars. But to nitpick about every little thing and how it impacts your carbon footprint, is excessive in my opinion. Again, I like having a carbon footprint, it means that I’m ALIVE and productive.

This article by Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Rights, puts it all in (rather simplistic) perspective:

Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being, every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.

And exposes environmental extremism for what it is: Anti-Human (in his words)

The only way to leave no “footprint” would be to die — a conclusion that is not lost on many green ideologues. Consider the premise of the nonfiction bestseller titled “The World Without Us,” which fantasizes about how the earth would “recover” if all humanity suddenly became extinct. Or, consider the chilling, anti-human conclusion of an op-ed discussing cloth versus disposable diapers: “From the earth’s point of view, it’s not all that important which kind of diapers you use. The important decision was having the baby.”

He concludes with this important point:

The only rational response to such a philosophy is to challenge it at its core. We must acknowledge that it is the essence of human survival to reshape nature for our own benefit, and that far from being a sin, it is our highest virtue. Don’t be fooled by the cries that industrial civilization is “unsustainable.” This cry dates to at least the 19th century, but is belied by the facts. Since the Industrial Revolution, population and life expectancy, to say nothing of the enjoyment of life, have steadily grown.

I do realize this is a little extreme, and he comes from a very strict objectivist, individualist, capitalist perspective (with which I agree adamantly), but in my opinion, the main premise cannot be argued with: as long as you live, and thrive, and are contributing to society, you will have an environmental impact, no matter how much you try to reduce it.

But like I said before, that’s a little simplistic. The author mentions the trade-offs you face when choosing to use compact fluorescent light bulbs over incandescent (the CFL‘s contain mercury) and the fact that cloth diapers use an enormous amount of energy and water to clean, as reasons to not try at all. Yes, every action has a reaction, and a consequence, and there is always going to be a reason not to do anything. But he doesn’t really acknowledge the behavioral side of the environmental argument: the impact of simply walking instead of driving, turning off lights when you leave the room, or just choosing to consume less – these are all powerful ways to affect change.

What I’m saying is be reasonable (reason is one of man’s highest values) in your efforts, and do what you decide is effective and helpful in your life and community. I do what I do because I know it’s the right thing to do.

Why do you do what you do?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Diapers exposed: Disposables are greener than cloth? (greendaily.com)
• Environmental Working Group Study Shines Light on Best and Worst CFLs (treehugger.com)

{ Comments on this entry are closed }