The Colby Echo

Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Opinions

Suzanne Merkelson

The environment is something about which I care deeply. I really do care about climate change, about endangered species (especially baby pandas), about desertification in Africa, about the destruction of the Amazon, about the increased homogenization of the national landscape, etc. etc. There really is a lot to care about.

And I try my hardest to do something about it. I recycle. I actively try to limit my consumptive purchases. I don't use trays. I'm a vegetarian.

Still-although I'm an environmental studies minor, although I own two pairs of hemp shoes, although I think actively about environmental issues when deciding for whom to vote, although I teach marine ecology every summer-I feel wrong calling myself an "environmentalist." The word has too many connotations, many of them, unfortunately, negative. And, frankly, I'm too much of a hypocrite to be saddled with that label.

I get lazy and drive my Corolla to and from the Gardens. When I lose my travel coffee mug (which happens often), my caffeine addiction trumps my tree-hugging and I eagerly pay up for a paper cup. I'm well aware of the fact that my current lifestyle depends upon electricity, petroleum, extractive forestry, water pollution, sweatshop labor and the Wyclef song "Sweetest Girl." I'm too human to be an environmentalist. But aren't we all?

This is my problem with last week's debates over traylessness. Despite the fact that the entire issue is kind of, well, silly, it highlights a more pervasive and less obvious issue. Yes, it's hard to dispute that climate change is going to be one of the most significant problems yet to face humankind. But the problem is not yet perceived as one of humankind's. Instead, it's left up to the environmentalists. The environmentalists (whoever they are) are seen as the stewards of the earth; the rest of us live on a different planet, Planet Starbucks, Planet Too Much Homework, Planet Drive to Shaw's to Purchase Some Highly Processed Food Product. This isn't reality; this is an us versus them mentality, and it's fostered by both sides.
I think there shouldn't be any sides. It's not about the stoic hippies versus the rest of us who need our luxuries. It's about actually giving a shit about something. Through most of my experiences over the past three years, in the classroom and out, I've found one thing to be entirely true-everything is connected. If you care about anything-your family, your dog, skiing at Sugarloaf, the Red Sox-you should care about the future of the planet. And do something about it.

A recent NY Times op-ed by Michael Pollan is entitled "Why Bother?" Pollan, although somewhat elitist in his environmentalism, makes a good point. Merely changing the kind of lightbulb you use is not enough to significantly alter the human impact made on the planet. Immense lifestyle changes are in order, whether voluntary or not. This makes the aforementioned perfunctory environmentalism even harder. It's clearly difficult enough for some not to use trays in the dining hall. It'll be even harder if it comes down to having to grow our own food.

Which is why we need support from each other, not senseless arguments on the (un)Civil Digest. While most of the encounters I've had with EnviroCo have been positive, the club needs to exist to support and teach, not impose or condescend. And the rest of us need to listen. Either you're with us or you're with...us.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools