I AM SURE some of you are sick of hearing about environmentalism. We have all been bombarded with evidence about how pollution leads to global warming and ecosystem destruction, and we have all been told that we need to do something about it. I do not think many people, though, are aware of the inherent discrimination that exists within the environmentalist movement.
Recently, former White House official Carol Browner came to the University to speak on the subject of environmental policy. According to the Oct. 28 Cavalier Daily article, "Ex-White House official talks climate," "[Browner] said a central problem in changing these [environmental] shifts is the unwillingness to act." Such unwillingness is a concrete roadblock in reversing climate change, and Browner's statement definitely applies to politicians and those who can afford to convert to practices that drastically reduce their carbon footprints. But what about those who are in situations of economic instability, and who cannot necessarily afford alternatives?
In my course, USEM 1570, "Contemporary Perspectives of Social Justice Movements, Action and Change," I went on a scavenger hunt with two classmates to find two University employees who ride their bikes to work. We asked 12 people whose places of work included a coffee shop, a library, a department office and two who were working outside raking leaves. Most told us they live too far away, with one person remarking that "none of us can afford to live close enough to ride our bikes." The two people we eventually found who did ride their bikes to work were professors.
The unfortunate reality is that some people cannot afford to adopt some of the practices that are promoted as part of the green movement. Owning property close enough to one's workplace to use a bike instead of a car is one example, but a more significant one is the price disparity between products that are advertised as environmentally friendly and those that are not. For instance, the 2012 Honda Civic Hybrid has a listed base price that is $8,245 more than that of the Honda Civic Sedan.
Moreover, when I went to the Charlottesville Harris Teeter last week, a pound of organic Gala apples cost $2.99 while a pound of the non-organic Gala apples cost only $1.99. The situation was the same at Kroger, where products from eco-friendly brands such as Seventh Generation and Green Works cost significantly more than their store-brand counterparts. The Seventh Generation 40-pack of diapers was $12.99 while a 42-pack of Pampers was only $9.88, and the Green Works 32-ounce bottle of all-purpose cleaner was $3.49 while the Kroger brand was only $2.49. If these differences do not seem significant, keep in mind that these price differences will add up throughout a year's worth of shopping trips.
This pricing trend suggests the environmentalist movement encompasses primarily those who have the money necessary to purchase eco-friendly products. I am not saying that the car companies, food suppliers or environmentally sustainable brands are at fault here. It is great that they are providing environmentally friendly options for consumers. The movement toward sustainability, however, needs to be available to everyone, not just those who can afford to spend the extra money.
Therefore, the environmentalist movement should focus on environmentally friendly practices that cost little or nothing, such as hanging laundry instead of using a dryer, unplugging electronics when they are not being used and turning off the lights when leaving a room. Because practices like these do not involve spending extra money, it is more important to promote them than to encourage cash-strapped consumers to purchase expensive hybrid cars or organic food.
The environmentalist movement can do so by taking its cues from non-profit organizations such as the Sierra Club rather than for-profit companies that are mostly concerned with their earnings. Of course, advertising expenses make it difficult for non-profit organizations to promote their practices as extensively as for-profit organizations promote theirs. Yet it is essential that non-profit environmentalist groups speak with a voice that is just as loud as that of the business sector. A healthy and clean environment is something from which everyone will benefit, so everyone should be given a chance to pitch in.
Katherine Ripley's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at k.ripley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | 1 hours agoIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
