Many individual consumers are just a miniscule drop in the ocean when it comes to preserving the environment, especially in the sense of mitigating anthropogenic climate change. It is not that they have absolutely no ways they can contribute or express a concern for the environment. It is that they have little to no overall impact on the world's health on their own. Only in masses can consumers have a more direct influence on such things, and even then, while philosophical emotionalism or apathy might stop some consumers from caring, they would not be as "responsible" as the corporations that recklessly spew emissions while only focusing on financial growth for the next quarter, that lie about their environmentalist measures [1], or that do not take sustainability measures sooner rather than later.
There are ways individuals can in some fractional way help. This could include turning off lights when not in use rather than leaving them on and gratuitously using more energy. They might walk or bike short distances instead of driving cars to reduce their carbon "footprint." It could mean using bar soaps instead of bottled ones, with their plastic packaging. It could entail taking care of one's physical belongings so that they do not need to be replaced as frequently, or intentionally purchasing items that are supposed to be made from recyclable materials so they can be reused. Green products like the latter might still be expensive enough to deter some people who would otherwise choose them. Financial accessibility is a part of making "green" options more attainable, commonplace, and desired.
Yes, consumeristic purchasing of unnecessary items and the improper discarding of them does not help the environment, but it is only as a collective, as in at an national or organizational level, that many people would truly have the power to quell destructive emissions or counteract them. The general way that certain societies, which are constituted by individuals and yet have a far greater environmental impact than one average consumer alone, are structured would have to change to stabilize net emissions. A country with primary reliance on fossil fuels would need to supplement some of that energy usage with renewable energy sources which do not release more carbon into the atmosphere. A community that gleefully indulges in overfishing needs to shift their diet to an extent. A company that does nothing to offset the carbon dioxide it releases needs to take advantage of carbon sinks.
A standard consumer's efforts in America to minimize waste will not clear the air pollution in China, prevent corporate stupidity like Apple shipping phones and chargers separately to "help the environment" (which is indeed worse than shipping them together), or remove the plastic already in the ocean. Others who do not care about sustainability for humanity's sake or for nature's will likely not be promoted to adjust their worldview. He or she could nonetheless make choices that marginally produce less waste (such as less plastic to bury or put in the seas), buy products strategically to involve less shipping and thus smaller overall emissions, and so on. They will still have a minimal impact left to themself. More than the habits of one typical person need to change to thoroughly benefit the environment, but there is not nothing at all that one can do as a single person to contribute.
No comments:
Post a Comment