As indicated above, urban life is intimately connected with disease and the environment. It seems it would serve us better to focus on increasing our health and allowing this to function as a mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, rather then the current scare tactics various organization are employing.
For example, Buckner posted of the ForestEthics blog that (1):
“I joined at least a thousand people at the Civic Center, all converging for a public forum to demand a humane response from Chevron and the City of Richmond. Our demands included basic health care, compensation for damages, perhaps even a promise to address critical structural issues at that Chevron refinery.
After all, only a few days prior, Chevron’s Richmond refinery had exploded. Negligence to fix corroding pipes resulted in a catastrophe that sent 15,000 residents to the hospital.”
Clearly, Chevron is directly responsible for negatively affecting the health of 15,000 residents. Perhaps it would serve us better to focus on how dangerous the company is and the imminent risk that surrounds the people who live near it, rather than condemning it for refining oil. Obliviously the two are closely related but perhaps this change in perspective will reduce public apathy. Since recent research has demonstrated that the public comprehends climate change and that their apathy stems from a conflict of interest, I believe shifting the issues away from controversial socio-political issues to the basic human right of health could alleviate this (2).
Although, an interesting article in Forbes would disagree with me. The author suggests that American’s are aware of climate change and think it is an issue that governments, political groups and scientists are working jointly on and does not necessitate individual response (3).
“In a Gallup survey from 1989, 35% of respondents told interviewers they worried a great deal about global warming. In its March 2009 poll, nearly the same number, 34%, said they did. Further, the issue ranked dead last–20th of 20 issues–when the Pew Research Center asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress. In an ABC/ Washington Post poll on the same topic, global warming ranked 11th out of 11 issues.
The issue sprang to life in the late 1960s, and it soon became clear from the polls that Americans wanted a clean and healthy environment and were willing to take reasonable steps to achieve it.
The environment became a core value. When we as a nation agree on the goals policy should serve, we usually step back from the discussions about the means by which those goals should be achieved. Most of us are busy, and we don’t have time to read the latest reported changes in water quality or global temperature over the past century.
In other words, we follow debates casually. As a back-handed compliment to our system of representative democracy, we are content to let competing interest groups, political parties and others debate the next policy steps, reasonably confident that good policy will result from the clash of interests. This understanding of how public opinion forms explains why global warming isn’t a top priority.”
Regardless of the source of apathy, I believe it is important find a mechanism that inspires individuals to change their current way of life and promote a healthy environment that is not only based on the natural world but also the international cultural world.
(1) Buckner, E. (2013, Aug 2). This Saturday, the San Francisco Bay area says ‘no’ to tar sands refining in Richmond. ForestEthics Blog.Retrieved from http://forestethics.org/blog/saturday-san-francisco-bay-area-says-no-tar-sands-refining-richmond
(2) Braman, D., Kahan, D.M., Mandel, G., Ouellette, L.L., Peters, E., & Wittlin, M. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732-735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547
(3) Bowman, K. (2009, April 20). American apathy and global warming. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/global-warming-earth-day-polls-opinions-columnists-environment.html