I grew up under a hole in the ozone layer.
Australians have an extraordinarily heightened sense of danger — being geographically situated away from global security issues but close to poisonous animals probably accounts for this national characteristic. From an environmental perspective, Australians deserve every right to be hyper-sensitive. In addition to the persistent UV rays, there are constant droughts, an unstable ecosystem and a necessarily high level of greenhouse gas emissions. I remember a childhood filled with water bans, stigma against plastic bottles and Styrofoam, and obsessive-compulsive recycling.
At Brown, I have been scoffed at by my peers for making suggestions that they turn off the bathroom taps while brushing their teeth —"Why do you care so much about saving water anyway? I didn't know you were an environmentalist!"
I suppose I missed out on the moment when "environmentalism" became just another negative "ism" word, when "environmentalists" were to be detested for their tendency to impose their own values on others. These words have evolved such that the simple act of expressing a concern about running water can lead to accusations of radicalism.
We tend to put "environmental issues" under a big umbrella of politically- and activist-charged debates, encompassing anything from the belief of the existence of global warming to the international competition and security concerns around ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, from researching renewable energy sources right down to separating our domestic trash and recycling.
To be an "environmentalist" today contains the (mostly negative and sometimes inappropriate) connotations of loud activism, culminating in incidents such as Brown's very own Thomas-Friedman-and-pie affair in the spring of 2008. The Greenwash Guerillas, responsible for the procurement and creative use of the pie at New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's talk on environmentalism in April 2008, criticized his legitimacy in calling himself an environmentalist because of "his influential support of U.S. wars for oil in the Middle East."
It is as if being an environmentalist is only permitted after fulfilling rigid socioeconomic and ideological criteria. Does environmentalism always come in a package deal with political liberalism and a fanatical willingness to engage in activism? Does being relatively privileged automatically account for a disregard of sustainability?
Conservative political parties in many Western countries are typically those against lowering greenhouse gas emissions through restrictions and sanctions, and parties based on a "green" agenda more often than not align with the liberal spectrum of policy debates.
These stereotypes are troublesome: When we incorporate a seemingly objective and standard social value such as caring about the environment with a larger picture of political debates, we are taking the focus away from actually helping create a sustainable future. It is using environmentalism as an excuse to further other political causes, and I don't believe that environmentalism deserves to be treated thus.
Let us think back to our childhood, when we watched Free Willy and learned about saving endangered animals and how to dispose of our trash properly. We should have experienced the natural progression from learning about wildlife and nature to liking wildlife and nature (and who didn't love Willy?) to wanting to help the environment maintain its existence. Somewhere along the line, unfortunately, we ceased to care about Mother Earth except when there is the possibility of some other type of gain.
How to care about the environment should not be a debate involving morals and ideology. It should not be so sensitive, nor should it be so contentious. Being sustainable is not about activism or imposition of values — it's about common sense.
In order to help the environment (which is what environmentalists should be concerned with, above all else), I can think of many logical and practical measures that everyone can take, regardless of what political alliance we choose. Simple and undeniably efficient practices, such as making sure faucets are not running needlessly or turning off the lights when leaving a room, should not be clouded by personal political stances or ideology. These are things that young children are taught in households and schools early on, and just because these ideas are elementary does not mean that we, as adults and mature political thinkers, should set them aside in search of larger, arguably "more important" goals.
It is a shame that much of our youthful idealism toward preserving wild animals and saving trees has disappeared in our adolescent journeys in a politically realist world, because, unlike many other childish beliefs, the one about the environment is not far-fetched, unrealistic or impractical. A small dose of common sense is really all that anyone needs to become, by my own definition, an environmentalist. I don't believe that this requirement should be in any way difficult for students at Brown. There are absolutely no benefits that can be attained from leaving taps running or lights on, and attempting to remedy these faux pas does not inconvenience anyone.
We need to think of the "environmental" before we add all the unhappy thoughts that come with the "ism." It wasn't that long ago that we wanted to free Willy, and there should not be anything preventing us from holding on to these ideals.
Sarah Yu '11 drinks tap water and has great teeth because of the fluoride. She can be reached at xia_yu [at] brown.edu.
