Envrionmental Education

For all its positive attributes and ideological importance, mainstream education about the environment, including in the media, schools, and society in general, is lacking. The consumerist attributes of modern society do not allow much needed environmental change to occur, shifts that may literally one day save our lives. Through both intentional and incidental means, the capitalist model dulls the blow of the environmentalist message, sometimes even using its ideals to meet profitable ends.

The main way this happens is through the institutions providing temporary fixes, which give the appearance of solutions to the problems. This takes the focus of the real reason there are problems in the first place. The symptoms may be treated, but the systemic problems are left unscathed. One example of this comes through the idea of recycling. According to “The Story of Stuff,” the production of a product uses seven times as many resources as the final product contains. So, the video says, even if one recycled every bit of waste one produced, there would still be seven times that used in the production stages. Recycling is undeniably important, but it is not helpful that it is presented as an easy and fun way to save the earth, ignoring the glaring other, more systematic problems such as consumerism. An article by David Adam of The Guardian highlighted this fact in his article entitled, “Green idealists fail to make grade, says study.” He found that the people who were the most environmentally minded, who were acutely aware of the issues and lived “green lifestyles” also had high incomes and so travelled much more than the average person. The study Adam cites states that any benefit they created by cutting down on waste (some had achieved a “zero-waste” household) and saving electricity was completely “swamped” by the amount of jet fuel they used in travelling around the world. Recycling is very important, but as a relatively simple piece of the problem, it is often taken as an answer. Recycling will help, certainly, but changes in many more aspects will have a much larger impact.

There is also an observable tying of brands to environmental issues (this has also happened with many social issues). A company simply changes its marketing and advertising strategies to have the appearance of being more “green” when in reality it all amounts to about the same function. In this way, people are made to believe they are making a big difference by simply buying a different product. The marketing industry is not shy about this strategy either. One article found on a marketing website, entitled “Consumers Would Partner with Brands for Social Change, Environment,” details the fact that surveyed consumers would be willing to change their habits or even promote a product if it gave an image of being for a “good cause” of some sort. The fact remains, though, that the purpose of the product and its sale is to make money. The business sector has even gone so far as to create consultancy firms (goodpurpose was the one detailed in the article) to help shift the image of a company’s products to link them to environmental and social issues (not necessarily putting a high value on those issues). In the end, it is all done to sell more stuff to consumers. The choice to the consumer really ends up being a choice to buy a product that makes claims like this or one that does not. These “compassionate” companies will do what it takes to ensure it is their product or service that the consumer chooses. The choice never given, however, is to not buy anything at all. Manish Jain of Shikshantar, whom I spoke with on multiple occasions, once also discussed how in many ways, the market gives something value. For instance, if the “green movement” can be commoditized, it becomes valuable and a part of our everyday system. Things that are not in the market, such as products produced at home or day spent free from earning or spending money, are given a low value and labeled as part of the past. When companies link their products to environmental issues, whether to intentionally sell more product or they are actually well intentioned, they are doing harm.

In my high school economics class, I remember talking about how technology would keep up with our consumption and new technologies would emerge when either the consumer or the conditions demanded it. No governmental or social institutions were necessary. Daily, I would read in the papers about such new technologies and things that would allow us to live better and longer. There was never a choice or a thought given to not buying something and to keep living the way that has kept one healthy and happy, or any consideration given to the fact that a new technology would not necessarily be absolutely good for humanity. Indeed, in our system, the fact that business and economics and money-making should come first is taken as common sense. Often this is the foundational premises upon which we base our lives and education. Those who would challenge that are written off as “extremists,” “tree-huggers,” and “hippies.” In silencing these voices, which is done mostly by the fact that our system is set up in such opposition to these opinions, we are not left with any real choices (or questions) about how we want to and how we should live. As long as it makes the right people money and perpetuates the system, it is good and desirable.

Fortunately, though, this is not the way all people operate. There are plenty of examples of people “waking up” to these realities and making true, significant changes. Here in Udaipur, I worked with an organization called Shikshantar, which works on many environmental issues in a way that is completely different. Indeed, their vision is not to be a big, powerful organization that teaches the masses how to live correctly, but to have a smaller and smaller budget every year, letting the community and the people they work with provide mutual support. Additionally, they live the values they promote, and welcome anyone who has similar thoughts or wishes to discuss them. One doesn’t have to travel all the way to India to find people like this, though. Even in mainstream media, there have arisen dissenting voices, such as Kim Severson’s article in the New York Times, “Be It Ever So Homespun, There’s Nothing Like Spin,” where she talks about her move into awareness of corporate “greenwashing” and companies changes in advertising to make themselves look “organic-ish,” as she says. Additionally, she also sees this as a passing trend, and is optimistic that people will wake up to these tactics and ask deeper questions.

Increasing and nurturing the inquisitive nature is of primary importance in truly educating people about the environment and the importance of the choices they make in living their lives. Policy changes can also have an impact on the sorts of messages people are exposed to, and these policies can help make companies responsible for what they say. For example, Alister Doyle of Reuters, wrote an article about Norway’s new advertising laws, which will not allow car companies to make claims about the environmental nature of their products, as the government believes people should be given a fair and fully accurate description of the product. This is next to impossible with these cars, as much of the environmental damage comes in the production of the car, rather than the driving of it. Additionally, it is absolutely crucial that we support a decrease in the consumerist nature of society. This is the primary cause of environmental degradation. People should know they have the choice to not buy, and that this choice is often the most “environmentally friendly” one available. One step in accomplishing this goal is supporting the removal of the emotional attachments that people have to brands, as discussed earlier, and get back to minimal, factual, and practical claims about our true needs.

Education on environmental issues in schools and in society is of the utmost importance. Currently, the mainstream sources “miss the mark” in many ways. At the same time, there is plenty of hope. One simply needs to take an active look around his or her community to find like-minded people who live the changes and work together to find ways to raise awareness and make real change happen. Indeed, hard work and a questioning attitude can ensure this world remains habitable for the future generations.