“There is more than one way to skin a cat”
I would like my BLOGS to be an open, civil, logical, and most importantly, kind discourse regarding common goals. Hopefully we can maintain this decorum.)
PASSING THE BUCK
Solving the Environmental Movement’s Death-Wish Stagnation
I had been a professor of undergraduate biological sciences for 41+years before retiring in 2006/7. In class I always emphasized that we cannot legislate morality, environmental or otherwise. People must WANT to do something or there will be thousands of ways to circumvent the restrictions imposed by law.
Applying this idea to the environmental movement’s affect on changing people’s thinking: who really cares if there is a $100, $1000, indeed $5 million fine for littering? Has anyone really been caught littering? OK. “One”. Has anyone really changed their behavior because of a littering fine? OK. “One”. Every day I clean up Burger King wrappers from my driveway because my driveway is apparently the exact distance it takes to finish a burger and fries. The Movement hasn’t even begun to hit home with that person driving home from Burger King about to throw a burger wrapper out the car window.
It is precisely “this” person, at this time, doing this exact event (and the billions of other people at each and every moment of all their collective lives, doing all those seemingly insignificant, necessary,
”everyday” things, that contribute to environmental degradation and lack of sustainability that must be addressed, not the rhinos and elephants in Africa, and the Kirkland Warbler, and Spotted Owls, and whales, and manatees, and, and, and…. As I said, entire industries will develop to circumvent the issue! People are creative… ingenious!
IT IS EXACTLY THIS CREATIVITY, INGENUITY, DESIRE, AND DRIVE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS MUST TAP INTO IF THEY EVER WANT TO WIN THIS BATTLE.
Again: I don’t mean to degrade the attempts of the environmental groups at making change, however, their current approach is simply not working. The general public doesn’t care about the environment because to care means it would interfere with their lifestyle, and the few bucks that saves just isn’t worth it to them. The juggernaut has too much momentum to be handled in the manner usually used by environmental groups. So here in a nutshell is my optimistic solution to the battle that is obviously, presently, being lost.
The environmental movement needs a MASSIVE AND CONTINUOUS ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN SO WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC’S FACE AT ALL HOURS OF EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES…EVEN ACROSS GENERATIONS.
I’m not talking about one ad, for 30 sec. today, then not again for another week or two, then dropped altogether in a month, as has been the case in the past, or one billboard on this corner, when there are a “thousand” such corners, in a “thousand” such towns. Remember: 8.2 BILLION people have to see the ad.
We have to listen to business in this regard. Their agenda: sell their product at all costs. It obviously pays off. Watch any hour of TV. Listen to any hour of the radio. Use your computer. Look at the huge outdoor advertising billboards. (I just saw an accident attorney’s ad as a permanent visual on my radio’s dial under the station’s call name.) Do you really think businesses would continue their constant, obnoxious advertising barrages were they not gaining something positive from the ads? Those ads cost millions of dollars PER MINUTE media time. Not only are they paying off, but they are also tax deductible as a business expense.
Brilliant! Obvious! Simple! Elegant! Why aren’t environmental groups doing the same?
Again, environmental groups MUST BE IN THE PUBLIC’S FACE always with how they (the everyday people) address their lives relative to the environment. In Blog #1 I named a few everyday behaviors performed almost universally in today’s environment that are contributing to environmental instability. Most importantly, these behaviors are easily changeable if the people seriously want to do so. Re-listing them here:
- people who leave their house lights on unnecessarily.
- people who raise the heat in their houses to compensate for seasonally inappropriate clothing.
- people who open/close (repeatedly) their refrigerators without pre-planning what they want to get out of it.
– people who don’t plan their trips to the store to encompass multiple items.
– people who drive by themselves to work instead of carpooling.
- people who leave their cars running while in the store/at the filling station
- people who pre-wash dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.
– people who bleach their clothes.
– People who use a clothes drier instead of a clothes line.
– people who use pesticides on their lawns.
- people who cut their lawns excessively, or who use a gas-powered mower for a “city – sized lot”
- people who…..you name it…I’m sure you get the idea.
The advertising should use professional advertising corporations, “Madison Avenue”, to take every single convenience that our modern society presents to its constituency (actually it is pure temptation), and in clear, honest, concise, serious, funny, poignant, 15 – 60 second vignettes, demonstrate to everyday people that their actions have dire consequences, that there are new, viable, easy, fun, alternatives (which also have consequences – everything does, but significantly less), that are more desirable than the old way of doing things. This IS the 21st century! Certainly things have changed!
Indeed, the overall goal of my idea is to get everyday people to see that convenience is simply passing the buck. At some point, someone has to pay. There would, therefore, also be ads for who pays, how long into the future one’s moral environmental responsibility lasts, the effects/quality of life their children will inherit due today’s actions, etc.
EVERY convenience will be addressed EVERY moment of EVERY day so that eventually the EVERYDAY PERSON sees him/herself in this picture and begins to question whether or not it is really THAT inconvenient (in total) to do this, instead of that.
Upon saying this, I am immediately reminded of a very poignant ad about trashing the environment because of lack of personal responsibility that was on TV approximately twenty years ago. It showed a Native American Chief in full tribal dress including his headwear, sitting on his horse, weeping, as he looked at the lands of his forebears being overrun by civilization. It also brought me to tears because it was so powerful.
It ran for a few weeks at odd times, fairly infrequently during the week, then disappeared altogether, never to re-appear, nor to have another equally powerful ad replace it.
Although symbolic in part, and although hopeful on my part, I knew it would never amount to anything. It was too distant, far removed from the emotions and lives of the everyday person to which it was directed. Viewers couldn’t see themselves in that moment, in that man’s boots, on his horse, in that environment, with that degradation in front of them. More importantly, they didn’t want to see themselves “in his boots”. Most importantly, they were afraid to allow themselves to be “placed in his boots”.
Given this, many years ago Sesame Street took on the issue of juvenile obesity by having Cookie Monster eat proper amounts of nutritious foods, as well as cookies. After that they added autism to their list of social issues to approach with children. Do you see the implications here? Do you see where they are going? Do you see their approach, i.e. who they are addressing, how they accomplished it, and HOW OFTEN they did it? Brilliant!
You ask: where do the huge amounts of money come from to fund these ad campaigns?
Good question. I toyed with myself as to whether I should just tell you my ideas now in this letter, or wait until I hear from you with some of your ideas. I prefer this latter approach since I don’t want my blogs to just be a place where I dictate my ideas, as opposed to present the controversies I see, asking you to help me/us solve them.
However, beyond that as well, I think I’m going to let you hang on this for a while. Before talking about how environmental groups can finance the needed different approach I mentioned above, in my next Blog I would like to discuss some of my personal approaches to helping the environment.
As a start, contrary to how I began this series of discussions, I think you should know that I have always been a strong environmental supporter throughout my life and career. Besides my regular monetary contributions to their causes, I have already convinced many people to change their behaviors towards supporting the environment in just about everything they do. I have spent my entire teaching career doing exactly that…successfully.
So let’s talk, Please, let’s talk. I’ve got ideas.
Thank you for listening to me. I eagerly look forward to your response. Please write/call back so we can talk and finally finish a plan that will change the world’s outlook towards environmental responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q- What does “Madison Avenue” refer to?
A- Madison Avenue refers to a street’s name in an area of Manhattan, NYC that has been metonymous with the American advertising industry since the 1920s, and is therefore, devoted to the advertising industry. Corporations use Madison Avenue’s classic, novel, powerful, and iconic ads to bolster their products. Thus, the term “Madison Avenue” refers specifically to the agencies and methodology of advertising techniques that, according to William Safire, are the “gimmicky, slick use of the communications media to play on emotions to sell a product.”
Q- Can you name some environmental organizations I can contribute to?
A- Look up “environmental charities” for a list. They range from the more benign to more radical in their approach to change. Some: Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, National Parks, National Research Defense Council, National Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, Jane Goodall, National Wildlife Defense Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Rainforest Alliance, Earth First, Earth Now, Earth Liberation Front….
Q- How do environmental groups usually allocate their funds?
A- Contact any such organization to ask this question specifically. Legitimate groups will be happy to disclose their actions in this regard.
Q- How can I check out the legitimacy of any charitable organization?
A- As a start, check out “Charity Navigator”. There are several such organizations. Decide whether the percentage contribution to the actual cause you are concerned is fitting for your contribution intention. Among other factors you might want to view in such organizations are the percentage of the contribution that goes to member salaries, supplies, CEO salaries, pension funds, etc. Charity Navigator is well worth the read.
0 Comments