Friday, April 28, 2006

Planet v. Human

It's something I ponder now and again, but this recent post by Greg over at his blog brought it into focus for me a bit. His family (soon to number four) is buying a Honda SUV to transport the kiddies in. Greg writes that one of the reasons is due to the harping of the liberal elite. I don't quite know what that means, since I doubt he's taking calls from Arianna Huffington or Laurie David, but those who know him would not be surprised to find his photo here some day - and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

But there's a lesson here, that many environmental groups do their movement disservice in the way they make their cases. Nobody, no matter where one is in the world, likes being told what to do and what to think. Environmental organizations that tell people what not to buy, or assume that the average world citizen is a moron, will always be fighting at least some backlash. I support most of their causes wholeheartedly, but can't help but cringe at the way they present their arguments to the public. There is real scientific basis for great concern over the temperature of the planet, more species disappearing every year, and the cleanliness of the air and water.

The challenge is making these arguments more personal, but less condescending. It's a fine line to walk sometimes, for certain. But these are not difficult concepts for the most part, no need to get snooty when explaining them! The planet warms, ice melts, water levels rise, not that tough to visualize. It's human nature for people to be wrapped up in their own worlds, and to be thinking about how best to care for and protect their kids; the last things they're going to consider are global environmental problems (hell, most people in my neighborhood don't even recycle). The goal needs to be to make the arguments more personal, and make them respectfully. Shouting that the sky is falling is a big turn-off - even if it happens to actually be falling - and telling someone that they're a bad human being for making a certain purchase is the first, and biggest, step towards alienating that person to your message.

2 comments:

Jarriel Cook said...

Preaching doesn't usually get people enthused about doing something. It generally just makes them feel guilty or they dismiss the preaching as baseless, so they just avoid it.

I think sarcastic presentations would work well.

Like, say you make a tourism commercial for Glacier National Park where tourist are invited to try the latest outdoor sporting craze Mountain Water Skiing. As the glaciers in the park melt away, sporting enthusiasts are taking the lift to the top and barreling down the mountain on a flowing sheet of water. "Side Slides", "Wake Flip Full Twists", perform all the tricks you would perform on the lake. But better than the lake, no taking turns, take the runs together with all of your friends! Experience Montana!

Anonymous said...

I think the problem is that the environmentalists can't make responsibility desirable. Let's face it; global consumerism is built on advertising/branding to make you think you need something you don’t -- by making it seem convenient, sexy, or cool. Campaigns for environmental initiatives don’t have a message that can be marketed to people in a way they will enjoy and that will make them feel good about themselves. Environmentalists are always making us feel bad about ourselves because we really ARE raping the planet and dumping the problems of environmental stewardship on future generations. Their message is one of concern, responsibility, and stewardship. What a drag.

The only way to get movement on an issue like this in today’s political climate is to make us afraid or the consequences of our actions AND accept the consequences as our fault. We’ll have to start seeing some truly fucking wrath-of-god type symptoms of a dying planet AND have a smoking gun of scientific evidence to create the causal link to the human species. However, in a country where evolution is still “just a theory” to some, we might never get momentum from the populace on issues like global warming because disbelief is more conveniant.