Melting Glaciers and Conspicuous Environmentalism

Irony lies somewhere between this news release (also this one) and this one.

The fact that Bolivia’s glaciers are melting at a phenomenal rate will have serious implications for access to drinking water and irrigation of crops for those living in the Andean altiplano. Ski resorts are easy to photograph, but the real suffering will occur among Bolivians who could never afford to go skiing anyway.

And now in the United States, people fear that attempts to lessen one’s environmental impact are a form of capitalist conspicuous consumption. I worry that we have lost sight of the fact that despite the supposed “debate,” environmental destruction is not abstract in many places.

We need more structural and political solutions to our resource addictions than simply selling more efficient products to those who can afford them (although that helps, certainly). It’s better to drive a high-fuel efficiency car. But it would be even better if more people could afford to live near where they work, and if public transportation were more reliable and extensive. While some individuals are willing to change their own lifestyles, we seem to still lack the collective political will to make real changes to our society.

One Response

  1. I just read this in the economist as well. On a related note, I woke up this morning to some CNN story about Whole Foods’ new “environmentally friendly” shopping bags. The irony? They cost $15, were “designed” by someone I’m supposed to have heard about, and there are thousands of these bags made. Couldn’t people use their own bags from home? Oh, and some people were injured by a crowd trampling to get some. Hurray for trendy environmentalism!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.