So you think you are an environmentalist
Fighting for a cleaner planet is a worthy cause, without a shadow of a doubt. However, it is not worthy to adopt attitudes that are in clear conflict with one’s own convictions. Perhaps not by chance, those who embrace certain ideas with an intransigent approach tend to be affected by heavy cognitive dissonances, behaving in a way that they blame in others. And certain (self-styled) environmentalists are an example of this.
The extract below was taken from a report by the EEA (European Environment Agency), which addresses, among other things, the growing problem of the environmental impact of air travel.
To date, developing more sustainable travel policies by attempting to change cultural or societal practices has primarily targeted road transport rather than aviation and commuting and business travel rather than leisure activities [Holden and Linnerud (2011)]. This is illustrated by a continued high level of air travel among individuals otherwise defining themselves as ‘pro-environmentalists’, who do not abstain from air travel despite a relatively high awareness of environmental issues [Alcock et al. (2017)].
The problem of cognitive dissonance mentioned above is quite clear. Taking the plane to visit any place we can think of is a first-world luxury, fed by that weird belief that traveling is like collecting football stickers: the more you have of them, the more you feel fulfilled. Beyond your own personal opinion about it, such a lifestyle is definitely not green.
Leisure (air) traveling is just an example of the contradictions that characterize certain environmentalists. Another one is online shopping, often considered as a green alternative to traditional shopping: Amazon has implemented a massive marketing campaign to reassure customers about the environmental impact of its operations. And it succeeded, by simply using specific keywords, such as ecological packaging. The greedy buyer needs little to silence his/her conscience; after all, a more thorough inspection could lead to the renunciation of the object of desire. The environmental impact of Amazon’s shipments is a fact. Plus, the more the buyer is not willing to wait to receive the item at home, the higher the environmental impact of the Amazon shipment.
Food is another field where too often personalism and ideologies emerge, which are not that worthy. The stigmatization of meat consumption is abused and careless, for in most cases the issue is not addressed scientifically and data is misinterpreted. For instance, moderate consumers of quality meat are judged to be the same as frequent McDonald’s and KFC visitors. But once again, visceral incoherence is the real problem. The dramatic increase in the consumption of quinoa has a devastating impact on biodiversity and on the environment, as well as on the conditions of Bolivian and Peruvian farmers who grow it. The same goes for avocado and other green foods, or presumed green foods. Many vegan, green, organic products do not have a limited environmental impact at all, mainly because 1) they are based on ingredients that travel thousands of miles before arriving on our plates, 2) require a large use of resources and 3) their production is linked to significant emissions. This article addresses these points very well.
Those discussed here are just a few examples of the contradictions that characterize some environmentalists. The road to a cleaner planet cannot disregard a massive change in our way of life. This is clear to many people. What should perhaps be reiterated is that this rule applies to everyone, environmentalists included.
