In the beginning of the millennium when environmental proponents were deciding how to gain support and spread a message they turned to sustainability and efficiency. We do not have to look far to see their success. The green movement caught on and spread through buildings, company policy and consumer products. Recently the environmental lobby has shifted to focus more on global warming, believing it to be their ace-in-the-hole, but the tactic may be making them more enemies than friends. Those trying to add depth to the ranks of the environmental advocacy and speed up action may want to rethink how they are playing their hand.
Advocates of global warming continue to ramp up their efforts to try and shift cultural and economic norms. Their message comes with increasing levels of severity and apocalyptic predictions culminating to the latest meeting of Climate Scientists in Copenhagen that foretold of a worst-case scenario of carbon dioxide levels that could threaten humanity’s existence by the year 2100. This kind of news is distressing to some of us, but to a large portion of Americans it is simply tiresome. The recent Gallup poll shows that many conservatives have gotten more impatient with global warming claims, ultimately dismissing them as a liberal plot for allocating government funds and more regulation. They stand more than willing to call what they deem is the environmental bluff of a warming planet.
People are listening.
Naturally this only frustrates those who believe they are warning us of our self-perpetuating misfortune. More research only makes the calls for action louder which only makes the non-believers that much more skeptical. Soon it will not matter whether or not global warming is real or if our situation is dire. Opponents will believe they have won and go somewhere else to hash through war, terrorism or trade deficits. By then there will be so many lines drawn that bringing people back to the table will be a feat in and of itself.
In a consumer market a salesman with a product often gets more response than an activist with a cause and when it comes to sales, the pitch can be more important than the product. Selling ‘green’ effectively requires not only knowing all the cards you have in the deck, but knowing the right time to play the right card and still have one or two up your sleeve. We are not short on potential markets: companies, non-profits, homeowners, parents, children and of course the government, but none of them are looking for exactly the same thing. Each group can be linked to ways to accommodate their goals via more sustainable means. Failure to do so can lead to another danger: naysayers can be prone to believing that global-warming, environmentalism and sustainability are all synonyms, potentially souring them to valuable initiatives beyond cap-and-trade or greenhouse gas regulation.
The trick is that the case for environmental stewardship is not a one-card hand. One of the great things about sustainability is how many different ways that it addresses problems in America. Southern US cities suffering from drought would be attentive audiences for water efficiency. Businesses are eager to learn how using new materials or less packaging can reduce cost as it reduces waste or how greener buildings can increase productivity. Residents of Los Angeles and Phoenix should be avid listeners of air quality solutions. Northeasterners are more excited about high speed rail lines while other smaller cities may be more interested in streetcars. Most Americans are pro energy independence for our country. All of these things can be linked to sustainable goals and progress of our society as a whole. The more people become educated about specific options that directly affect their everyday life, the more opportunity they have to educate others.
The Product (RED) organization is a great example of commercializing a cause as a way to reach a capitalistic audience. “RED” companies like Apple, American Express and Starbucks link product lines sales to donations for combating AIDS in Africa. Although the organization does not release the amount of total donation funds to date, their success has been widely acclaimed. Critics of the program ask why do people have to pay more for a product instead of just donating? With all the advertising that our society fosters, Americans may just not be programmed that way. The marketing pitch helps a person feel like they get something for giving something. The LEED system is another example of taking the concept of building green and fitting it to Americans: making a recognizable and fashionable product.
We find ourselves at a key moment for two reasons: a time when environmental action is crucial and a time when we can decide how we want to emerge from this recession. Emerging with greater support in more arenas of the green lobby could be better than more resistance towards a concentrated call for stemming global warming.The thing we need to remember (and sooner or later conservative opposition will learn) is that in this game there is no giant pot in the middle that we are gambling for. Our goal is to make everyone better players. After all, when it comes to the environment if we are not all eventually on board we all end up as losers.
March 24, 2009 at 10:43 am
“Critics of the program ask why do people have to pay more for a product instead of just donating? With all the advertising that our society fosters, Americans may just not be programmed that way.”
I think you have an extremely valid point because I have learned through some sociology teachings that our self value (unfortunately) does not relate directly to the good we do but rather to what we own. I’m afraid that some of society does not donate merely because they have nothing to show for it but if there is a t-shirt or other item involved, they can show others that they are making a change. It is for more selfish reasons than just wanting to help. Of course, this is not true for all people (hopefully just a small number); however, I am worried that this is the case with some and it goes back to the way we are programmed.
March 24, 2009 at 11:14 am
Agreed. With consumer spending accounting for as much as 70% of our annual GDP we are a consumer nation, a country built upon buying “things”. I think image is also a concern for most Americans and if they see the opportunity to be a proud, t-shirt-bearing sponsor rather than an unsung hero without a garment they’re going to gravitate towards the former. It is a problem, but I would say that asking people to change their way of life to better the planet is already a big step for a lot of people so if a little bait can help, so be it. Maybe we can target detachment from material possessions and more genuine selflessness in the next century.
March 24, 2009 at 6:10 pm
This entry has confirmed my intuitions about the dominant belief system and peoples’ capacity to care about something so abstract and generations into the future. Really good points made here. I think that the current policy initiatives toward identifying the priorities, ie water for some, transportation for others, and energy conservation and sustainability for all is a good beginning for right now.
March 27, 2009 at 9:39 pm
The very key to the environmental movement in this country is making the movement less about the environment and focused more on the economic benefits to the “average Joe”. The environment is important, but the average American does have the time or concern to learn all the science needed to believe in global warming or the need to conserve. However, every American, this being the great capitalistic society it is, know the advantages of saving money, knows the advantages to being ahead in the times of technology, and knows the advantages of more high paying jobs in America. that is how this argument is won and how we convince more conservatives to fall in line with the green movement.
March 29, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Very interesting article. Seems to be a fine balance between getting out the facts without creating a sense of hopelesssness and also continuing to help people to find their own motivation to be a part of the solution.
I like the gambling analogy. Similar to give a person a fish vs. teach a person to fish.
March 30, 2009 at 9:21 am
What a nice news linkage.
God bless your hands.