Protecting the environment has become a major cultural topic in the United States during the past few years. Whether we have made any sort of significant strides in this arena is debatable, but it has become very fashionable to “be green.” Big companies are taking every opportunity to show the public how eco-friendly they are, most of the proof accomplished through advertising. It reminds me of how cutting edge companies in the mid-to-late ‘90s would stick a great big website address on everything they produced. If you had the savvy to create a presence on the ‘net, you made sure everyone knew about it.
Popular culture is a great vehicle for accomplishing significant things in the United States. This is one of the great ironies of American culture. We sometimes have a hard time seeing the significance of something like global warming until famous people explain it to us. Watchdog groups can work for twenty years generating interest in a cause, and not reach the same audience as a single thirty-second commercial with the likes of Paris Hilton. But that sort of attention comes with a price.
[Note: I can see the Paris Hilton global warming commercial now. It starts with a shot of Paris wearing something typically scanty, and with a coy little smile on her face. She says: “You know I’m hot, but do know what else is hot? The Earth. In fact, because of people driving cars and flying airplanes, it’s too hot.” Then cut to a picture of a polar bear balanced on a tiny sliver of floating ice, looking depressed because of how many fossil fuels you burn each day. I think it would work.]
Concern for the world around us is not new: the environment has been a topic of discussion for years. Theodore Roosevelt, who was President of the United States from 1901 to 1909, is widely considered to be the first person in that office concerned with long-term needs for environmental conservation. He has been followed by many executives and legislators who have fought for the same cause. It is a frequent subject in the American political realm, in other words.
Nor is this a new thing in the scientific community. After pooh-poohing the concerns of possible global cooling in the 1970s, most scientists in the field have been promoting the idea of a warming trend, most likely accelerated by an increase of greenhouse gasses. The world at large has marginalized or misunderstood this information. It doesn’t help that the warnings don’t sound very frightening (imagine if it was called “global death heating” or “evil choking gasses”), but information from the scientific community is often taken as alarmist. We are not used to scientists being figures with any real authority.
With all of this in mind, it’s easy to ascribe the recent rise in interest to more attention in popular media. Al Gore’s well received movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is one of the obvious examples of this (along with his promotional tour of national talk shows), although things like celebrity magazine photos of movie stars driving around in hybrid cars contribute as well. Now we can find eco-aware characters spouting “green” dialogue in popular television shows, and high-visibility companies promoting their environmental efforts.
The trend trickles down. Politicians have realized that people are now interested in their environmental record, and are either bragging or controlling the damage. The scientific community has been infused with new authority, and every new finding is reported on CNN. Clever publicists are coaching their celebrity clients on how to ride the latest wave of interest. It’s a slow process, but the wheels are turning.
This brings us – as Americans and as world citizens – to a crossroads. The attention is finally there, the sense of importance has been established, but what will we make of it? The new-found interest in the environment has a vague sense of being very trendy, and we are not long-suffering to trends in Western Culture (remember the Macarena? Break Dancing? The Pet Rock? Ugg Boots? The Atkins Diet? Kaballah? Mullets? Disco? The Spice Girls?).
Global warming is a much more serious subject than off-beat entertainment phenomenon, but we still tend to lose interest in things if they are subject to big, initial pop-culture saturation. The famine relief efforts in Ethiopia during the early ‘80s are one example of this. Between the Live Aid concert, the music singles (“Do They Know It’s Christmas?”, “We Are The World”, and “Tears Are Not Enough”), and the media coverage, there was a great deal of attention and help brought to a horrific problem. But there are still droughts and famines in Ethiopia, along with massive deforestation, corrupt government officials, and an frighteningly bad economy. Some good things have happened, and progress has been made, but the problem is not solved.
We must figure out how to bridge the gap between fashionable water-cooler talk and genuine concern. It hasn’t happened yet. We have not seen a drastic increase in use of public transportation, or a constant stream of angry letters sent to Congress demanding higher fuel economy standards. Sales of the Hummer SUV remain solid. There is a lot of rhetoric, plenty of promises being made, but not much action.
Americans are enduring the opening moves of a Presidential election right now, and all of the leading candidates are on the record about the environment. I’m not certain that’s a good thing, particularly if the environment becomes a big subject in the campaigning. Not only would that emphasize global warming over other equally important subjects, but if there is ever a point of declared victory (like the election night acceptance speech of an environment-minded President), the momentum will be lost and public attention will disappear.
The goal may be to keep generating excitement and continue to build passion for change, but never let the interest reach a climax. I am not trying to say that Ethiopia would be a world power right now if there had never been a Live Aid, and I certainly don’t think the efforts in 1985 were wasted. But imagine what good could have come from 25 years of sustained interest, rather than one big, shining moment.
The National Park Service in the United States was established in 1916 with the goal of conserving properties with natural or historic value. However, this landmark organization came to fruition over seven years after the first environment-friendly President left office, and 44 years after the creation of the first designated national park (Yellowstone National Park). Can our collective attention span hold out long enough to endure seven years of political debate (not to mention 44)? If it’s important enough, most certainly we can.
There are questions still to answer. How can the believers convince the doubters that environmental conservation is important, even if the situation turns out to be less dire than predicted? Are we all willing to sacrifice some of our conveniences in the process? Will the zealots be willing to listen to all the other voices, so everyone is represented? Of course – can we change this from a political stance/activist soapbox/celebrity cause to a globally acknowledged concern?
If we find the correct answers to these questions, we may be able to change the world. Only, really change the world this time, not just get a bunch of celebrities to sing about changing it. (Hey, no disrespect intended. I bought the single, too.)
[[author_nate]]
Post a Comment