While walking to McBryde last week, I noticed what some would describe as a “groovy” Blacksburg Transit bus in front of Burruss Hall, complete with flower power designs and wavy block letters. Something straight out of the ’70s.
As happy as it made me to see the bus’ advertisement of its hybrid transformation, making it less environmentally damaging to operate, I wondered why it had to be presented in such a way. Why couldn’t we appreciate a bus that more simply publicized how it emits far less toxins into the atmosphere and contributes to lowering our dependency on oil?
Tree-huggers, granola lovers, hippies — whatever you call them — we have an array of words to describe people known to have the withering state of the environment close to their hearts. In attributing these names to people aware of the undeniable pressure human existence is putting on the biosphere, we force an “us” and “them” dynamic between the tree-huggers and non-tree-huggers.
Those who willingly identify under these terms thrive in a bubble of awareness of what they believe is the true state of the planet, while the others are deemed ignorant, clueless and lazy. On the flip side, tree-huggers are seen by others as over-the-top fanatics who don’t shower and eat leaves.
As a result, the perception of environmentalism as a fad or something a minority of the population cares about is hindering its progress. It appears as though in order to appeal to the masses, environmentalism has to be gimmicky and equally hippie-ish in order for the rest of us to interpret and accept its message.
Similarly, thinking of it as a liberal ideal may incline liberals to feel inherent affinity for the issue, while it may cause conservatives to dismiss its importance. The dichotomy involved in this rationale is flawed and not only propels closed-mindedness, but also hinders the incentive to alter our everyday lives to lessen our collective impact on the environment.
On many occasions, my friends have jokingly teased me for recycling, with the typical “Oh, you would recycle, you’re all environmental science-y.” What strikes me is at this point in time — and at this state of the environment — most would agree that recycling is no longer a luxury for few but rather a necessity for everyone if it should prove to make a difference.
Therefore, it is important to lessen the stereotypical and dichotomous nature of how we think of environmentalism and its followers. In doing so, we would be able to realize each and every one of us has a stake in ensuring sustainability — whether in terms of gas prices, health as a result of water and air pollution or availability of food as fertile farmland grows increasingly scarce.
At times I like to think even those not devoted to environmental issues by major, such as engineering and business majors, are still exposed to environmental issues and feel the need to make changes as simple as recycling.
A version of this article appeared in the Oct 6 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 4 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
I am as conservative as they come politically, but I still recycle and try to do the right things to protect our environment. We as a society believe too much of what we read and see on television about groups instead of looking at the individual.
Reply to this Top
Good article Noor. You're absolutely right there are some serious stigmas attached to environmentalism. Messaging is a big part of the problem. For me I see no difference between labeling someone an environmentalist and a concerned citizen. Who amongst us isn't for clean air and clean water and a less toxic world for our children.
Reply to this Top
It's not that people are against "clean air and clean water and a less toxic world for our children." It's that generally when people start talking about solutions or steps to mitigating our environmental impact, it involves actions that conflict with people's principles or have unintended consequences.
Reply to this Top
Sure people aren't against a healthy surrounding, but nobody said we could have it without consequence. The status quo conflicts with people's principles and has unintended consequences as well. I would argue more so than the unintended consequences of a cleaner option. Either way we do need to get people of all walks of life, class, and race together on this.
Top