Author: Melissa Rudberg
One could say that environmental issues are fashionable right now; there are definitely haves and have-nots. I don’t have anything against saving the environment. I think it’s a good cause. I don’t think recycling is going to do much to save the world, but I try as hard as I can to do it. However, I grow impatient with a movement that places emphasis on relatively insignificant issues such as recycling, when there are much greater issues at hand and greater avenues to pursue for ‘saving the planet.’
Also, within the limits of being ‘environmental’ as I’ve seen it popularly advocated, I don’t feel as though I can do much to help. I recycle, but that is where my contribution stops. I could stop eating meat, but it would require much more planning to get adequate nutrition—time that I don’t have. I could get my engine changed to run on bio-diesel, but I don’t have enough money. What I find about being environmental is that it takes time and it takes money. Looking at it this way, one can see that being environmental in the fullest sense is a luxury that not everyone can afford.
I see the environmental movement as unfocused when there are even privileges for people who are able to buy environmentally friendly cars! When I go to Fresh and Easy and see the front row spaces reserved for hydro-electric cars, I can’t help but feel a sense of inferiority as I park in the back with my beat-up ’95 Ford Aspire.
Similarly, it almost made me sick when I heard a radio show on my favorite station, KPFK, praising the city of Beverly Hills for vowing to become emission-free by 2030. Its not that I don’t think this is a good thing, but I don’t think that it should be praised. People with loads of expendable money should be expected to contribute to such causes. If Beverly Hills was doing something to help the poor inner city with pollution, that might be praiseworthy.
All that this Beverly Hills contribution does is follow the same pattern that occurs in the greater L.A. area. Poorer neighborhoods are more polluted and well-to-do areas are cleaner. I learned this interesting fact from geology Professor James Sadd, Ph. D., who gave a presentation of his research at a URC luncheon about pollution by geographical area in L.A. and found that pollution was greater in poorer neighborhoods. Asthma is a common result of all of this pollution, and being exposed to pollutants is shown to lessen school performance. The social implications for the further disadvantage of those who are poor are large.
Global warming and pollution are not going to be reversed by one small town becoming emission free, a few people being vegetarians, or those with more money driving hydro cars. It would help if everyone could stop using oil, but few have the money to do this, and oil and car companies want to ride out the use of oil as long as possible so that they don’t miss out on any possible profit. I feel powerless to stop them.
Individual efforts to quell the effects of global warming do not seem sufficient, but how do we surpass this in a culture with highly idealized individualism, and one in which corporations have a high influence on what is produced? The only other avenue that I can think of is governmental action, but I have little faith in our government’s willingness to bring about change, especially when corporations aren’t on board.
Melissa Rudberg is a junior Politics/Philosophy major. She can be reached at mrudberg@oxy.edu.
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
