Daily Green Dilemmas

  • Paper or plastic? Just one of the decisions we face everyday. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

Sometimes, the more choices you have, the more stress you feel.
That’s the case with some people when it comes to taking care of the environment.
As Karen Kelly reports, being environmentally aware can be a burden:

Transcript

Sometimes, the more choices you have, the more stress you feel.
That’s the case with some people when it comes to taking care of the environment.
As Karen Kelly reports, being environmentally aware can be a burden.

(sound of buses)

So I’m standing at a bus stop.
I’ve been shopping all day and my arms are
weighed down by bags.
It’s freezing cold and I face a moral dilemma.
Do I wait for the bus, where I will stand in the aisle balancing my bags?
Or do I slide into the comfy back seat of a nearby taxi?
Taking the bus is a better choice for the environment because it uses less fuel.
But taking a cab is the better choice for a lot of other reasons.

And that is the type of choice that we face all day long.
It seems that a lot of people here in Ottawa, Canada debate these choices – and often feel kind of guilty:

“Do you ever find that you’re agonizing over decisions in terms of how they might affect the environment? Yes, often… for example, I like to consume a lot of water, I take a lot of baths. So I find myself making compromises: if I take two baths this week, then I will hang my clothes on the clothesline as often as possible.”

Anything I wish I did better? I wish I would stop indiscriminately throwing stuff on the ground.

A litterless lunch. Is that hard to do? Yeah, because if you want to take a chewie or something, you can’t take it out of the wrapper, you just throw it away anyways…it’s hard.

Seriously, these issues are everywhere, and it can get a bit overwhelming.

June Tangney is a psychology professor at George Mason University in Virginia.
She says no one person can do it all:

“I think it’s a good thing, actually, that we’re that aware of so many different ways that we have an impact on the environment. But I think it’s better to consider it as a menu of options and then make informed judgements about which ways will have the biggest impact on protecting the environment.”

Tangney says we also have to decide what works in our life.
Do I have enough money for a hybrid car? It costs more.
But maybe I have time to walk instead of drive.
Now, some people argue that we should be feeling anxious about the environment, but Tangney says that won’t help us solve the problem:

“If we have a serious emergency on our hands, what we don’t want is a population that’s depressed, anxious, ashamed, and overwhelmed. We want people who are aware of the facts and psychologically able to make important decisions on how to best meet the challenges.”

Tangney suggests making trade-offs.
For instance, she used disposable diapers on her three kids.
Then her family volunteered for a clean water advocacy group.

She says there’s always another environmental choice to be made. You won’t have wait long.

For the Environment report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Debating Holiday Consumerism

  • Santa in a window display. Some families wrestle with the question of how much to give each holiday season. (Photo by Mark Brush)

A lot of people don’t want to get caught up
in the consumerism of the holidays. But often
family and friends expect to get gifts from loved
ones. Julie Grant spent time with one family where gift-giving is a real struggle:

Transcript

A lot of people don’t want to get caught up
in the consumerism of the holidays. But often
family and friends to get gifts from loved ones.
Julie Grant spent time with one family where gift-
giving is a real struggle:


Susan Testa is stuck in the middle between her sister and her husband. They see the
Christmas holidays very differently. Susan and her husband Matt try to teach their two
little girls to live in balance with the natural environment. That means at Christmastime,
Susan says her husband wants to put the brakes on buying gifts:


“I think if it was up to Matt, we would have nothing because it’s just too much
consumerism, too much waste, too much this, too much that. I want to balance that
with, well, let’s not go overboard. Let’s bring some green concepts, which we’re both
very interested in, into the tradition. However, let’s not be scrooges about the whole
thing either.”


But on Christmas Eve, Matt doesn’t have visions of sugar plums dancing in his head.
He’s got visions of wastefulness. He can’t stand to watch the wrapping paper pile up as
the relatives rip open gifts:


Matt: “It doesn’t sit well with me, this frenzy of ripping things open, where no one can
even be appreciated or it’s hard to link the gift to the giver because of the frenzy going
on.”


(Sound of child in background)


Susan: “Well, what do you want to do, say okay, everyone stop. Let’s take a moment to
realize the true meaning of Christmas. And just put your gifts down and open them slowly… what do you think needs to be done?”


Matt: “Less about the things, more about the act of getting together, of sharing and all that.”


Matt says at the very least, instead of mindless toys and gadgets, the family ought to
give smart gifts: educational gifts, savings bonds – or giving the holiday gift money to
charity:


“Oh, he’s such a killjoy. You know, he’s missing the whole point of it.”


That’s Susan’s sister, Pam Nervo.


On Christmas Eve, Susan and Matt take their family over to Pam’s upper middle class
suburban home for a gift-giving session. Unlike Uncle Matt, the nieces love watching all
the wrapping paper pile up on Christmas Eve, and they don’t want educational gifts, and
Aunt Pam doesn’t plan on buying them for Sue and Matt’s girls either:


“I’m not gonna be the aunt that gives the educational toys. Not gonna happen Matt, not
going to happen.”


Pam and Sue are sisters, but their families have different philosophies. While Susan is
concerned about celebrating the love of the season and the earth we live on, Pam thinks
Susan and Matt should worry less about the consumerism of Christmas and spend more
time celebrating the birth of Jesus:


“I think when you don’t have the religious aspect to it, you are stuck with the
commercialism of it. That’s what happens. When you don’t have religion as part of your
life, that’s all this is, it’s a show.”


Julie: “Unless what you see as sort of, I mean, I’m just playing devil’s advocate for Matt a
little bit… unless what you see as your moral center is kind of…”


Pam: “Are you saying, I don’t know. Do you really want
your moral center to be based on the ecology system here. Is that what we’re saying?
That this is your moral center? That’s kind of crazy. I can’t imagine that being your
belief system.”


As we said, Susan is stuck between very different philosophies between her husband
Matt and her sister Pam.


But the holiday with the extended family is just that one day. The important thing for
Matt and Sue is that they teach their children the holiday season is more than just the
holiday shopping season. They turn to their 5-year-old daughter Geanna, smiling, Matt
asks her about her favorite part of Christmas:


Matt: “What’s your favorite part of Christmas?”


Geanna: “Um, getting presents.”


Matt: “Really?”


Geanna: “It’s just fun opening up presents.”


Well, nice try Matt. So, for this year Susan says she’ll be buying gifts she thinks the kids
in her life will enjoy. Environmental or educational qualities are secondary.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Greening the Republican Party

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives, but Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America:

Transcript

Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America.


Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental whacko.” I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, food contamination, and oil drilling under the Great Lakes.


Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principle of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.


The funny thing is, when it comes to most social issues, I’m a fairly conservative guy. There are few so-called “liberal” ideas that I support. Yet, I often find myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.


I wonder why that is. Shouldn’t Republicans join the fight? After all, there are few things more “conservative” than trying to conserve our resources for future generations.


I know there are some members of the so-called “political right wing” – whatever that is – who feel as I do. REP-America, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment – and boost our economy at the same time.


But many Republican leaders don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species. What’s that all about?


Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more – not less – needs to be done. While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will bring greater benefits tomorrow, including greater economic performance?


You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard these natural resources – rather than fighting against the liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity.


Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.


Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”


Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental whacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time for another one – along with several others at all levels of government.


And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservatives.