Environmentalism is a Privilege

I’ve always been an environmentalist to at least some degree. I mean, my sixth birthday party was a protest to save orangutans (an endangered species) and their habitat (the jungle). As I grew up, I developed my own political views that didn’t necessarily jive with the stereotypical “tree hugger”. Though I’m fiercely liberal socially, at my core, I am conservative. It wasn’t until I worked at the US Environmental Protection Agency this summer that I really saw how the definition of “environmentalist” could (and should) morph to fit anyone’s political leanings. I actually believe that the most determining factor in this issue is socioeconomic status.

In the last decade, “green” has become not only an adjective describing color but a way of life. It’s a description of this environmental movement that has fallen into our laps. It’s a verb. The cause of “going green” has gone grassroots, allowing citizens to personally contribute to the activism. The sustainable management of our planet’s resources is affected by both public policy and individual behavior, making it particularly unique. Individuals can have a much greater impact on environmental consequences or successes than many other issues.

Someone recently asked me to “described why preservation matters to someone who doesn’t care”. Although I can now think of a million reasons, in the moment I was sort of stunned. Who doesn’t care? I am troubled by the thought that there are people who actually don’t care about our environment at all. And then I began to think about my experience this summer…

Environmentalism is a problem of privilege. Caring about the environment shouldn’t be politically stigmatized; it’s not inherently conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. Working to conserve resources and preserve our environment is something everyone should be conscious of… and yet, this isn’t so. This summer while at EPA I really had a chance to reflect on what a privilege it was to worry about the environment at all.

As I worked in the press office, I spent a lot of time pitching stories to news organizations about “going green” for different events. Saving water, saving energy, you name it. What struck me was that more often than not, we pitched to publications catering to middle-to-upper-class women with families and some expendable income. It really made me pause to think about who has time to worry about things like energy and water from anything but an economic perspective.

Not surprisingly, some of the greatest concentrations of harmful pollutants are in large cities that have large impoverished populations. “Going green” has potential to help inhabitants of these areas possibly in a more direct way than it could for anyone else. However, in the face of adversity, I can say in all honesty that the environment would not be my primary concern. In some cases, saving money and saving energy go hand in hand. However, many “green” updates are incredibly expensive. Again, not surprisingly, these are the ones we pitched to magazines like Women’s Health and Good Housekeeping.

Ultimately, the environment is something that everyone should care about. I am not sure what it will take for this to happen – especially because I, myself, waver sometimes. If results for “green” actions were more instantly gratifying, our society might accept them more excitedly. In the short term, we ought to work on understanding environmentalism as an all-encompassing issue that will impact us all in one way or another… some day.

Claudia Powell