The more worrying fact is that there is a large proportion of the population who claim to care about the environment, which have absolutely no idea about the current state of affairs. I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’d like to think my knowledge surpasses the average persons on this particular subject. This leads me to wonder how much it is that people actually know and care about the environment, but also why they only know or care that much. Is it because there is not enough information on the subject publically available, or is it because the information is not intellectually accessible to many people, or is it simply that there is so much attention paid to it that people stop listening, stop caring, and tune out the constant nagging of the local council to recycle your tin cans and plastic bottles?
Wednesday 6 November 2013
My Mission Statement
I am of the opinion that we are surrounded by
environmental crises. Not all are global in scale, some are irreversible, and the
majority - if not the entirety - are the fault of humans. Scientists and people
more ecologically aware than myself are currently debating whether or not we
have reached the tipping point of global warming, the tipping point being the
point of no return, i.e. the point where humans have ruined the Earth and its
atmosphere to such an extent that there is no way of reversing the damage. This
is a reality. The debate is not how many decades we are from reaching this
point; it is about whether or not we have already passed it.
The more worrying fact is that there is a large proportion of the population who claim to care about the environment, which have absolutely no idea about the current state of affairs. I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’d like to think my knowledge surpasses the average persons on this particular subject. This leads me to wonder how much it is that people actually know and care about the environment, but also why they only know or care that much. Is it because there is not enough information on the subject publically available, or is it because the information is not intellectually accessible to many people, or is it simply that there is so much attention paid to it that people stop listening, stop caring, and tune out the constant nagging of the local council to recycle your tin cans and plastic bottles?
The more worrying fact is that there is a large proportion of the population who claim to care about the environment, which have absolutely no idea about the current state of affairs. I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject, but I’d like to think my knowledge surpasses the average persons on this particular subject. This leads me to wonder how much it is that people actually know and care about the environment, but also why they only know or care that much. Is it because there is not enough information on the subject publically available, or is it because the information is not intellectually accessible to many people, or is it simply that there is so much attention paid to it that people stop listening, stop caring, and tune out the constant nagging of the local council to recycle your tin cans and plastic bottles?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As stated in my own blog, I believe the environmental crisis highly evolves around money - it has been manipulated in a way that government and companies are trying to make money out of the 'eco-friendly', thus will only 'help' the environment if they can make money rather than lose it for the long term benefits. If the government really did want us to make a change, they would provide more free services other than recycling boxes.
ReplyDeleteThere have been recent plans for ANOTHER bridge to be built over the Thames passing through my borough AGAIN which is going to cause major congestion and further demolish the natural landscape and historical sites. This is also along with a new port being built down the road from me which is going to lead to a ridiculous amount of lorries passing through my town causing major disruption. Why? Of course, just another means to feed the capitalist government!
I completely agree that it revolves around money, but I feel that this is something which goes beyond financial value. We are quite literally talking about life and death here, and not just human life. We as humans, the species that is destroying the Earth far less slowly than people believe, have a huge responsibility to the world around our to do everything in our power to fix, change, and make right everything we have broken, regardless of the cost.
DeleteIt is horrendous that we feel it is acceptable to decimate the natural landscape for our own purposes, that we are above the rest of the animal world. We are most certainly not above it, but we are a major part of it, the part causing the most significant problems.
If you haven't already, check out Lewis' blog, he posts about HS2 - I feel you two may agree on some things... http://lewisangus.blogspot.co.uk/
How would you say we resolve this problem then? As, personally, I see no real solution!
DeleteHi Lucy,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that we are surrounded by the environmental crisis but are made to believe that it is so far away that we are better off doing nothing which is such a shame.
I would like to suggest that people do have a slight idea of the state that the world is in but unfortunately it coincides with the one that the media have: the newspapers' views in particular. I feel it is such a shame that the majority of the information available to the public about the problems going on are written in a way to sell a story rather than to give people an accurate description (I am thinking of those catchy headings and subheadings given to articles which can be inaccurate). There is a certain ethical problem when you tailor your writing about a disaster that has happened in which houses have been destroyed and lives lost, for the sales of your newspaper rather than to educate people in an honest way. Flaws such as exaggeration, ambiguity and inaccuracy arise and makes one question the intention of the media. The British public then read that newspaper and develop a certain concept of the extent of the environmental crisis and the trouble is it may not be an accurate portrayal. This then raises the question in what ways could the British public grasp a clearer understanding on the environmental crisis in an accessible way? Would people want to read something that was more accurate but perhaps not as short and catchy? What would this look like?
Unfortunately it seems bad news sells and the newspapers use this to their advantage.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Hi Clare,
DeleteI'm glad that you agree with me, one less person to convince of the crisis we live in!
I agree that the concept of issues such as climate change that most of the general populous hold are informed by the media. Because of this the media needs to be more controlled in terms of what it prints, more accurate information and less scaremongering. I completely agree about the ethical ramifications of writing for profit about other peoples loss. I do feel that the information the public need to understand things like climate change is available to them, but because they would have to go and find it for themselves, they do not take an interest in it.I do feel that the information the public need to understand things like climate change is available to them, but because they would have to go and find it for themselves, they do not take an interest in it. The majority of people will not willing read into something they are not interested in, and people do not want to read about realistic doom and gloom. There is a massive difference in newspapers writing about environmental crisis and scientists and eco-warriors writing about it. And unfortunately, these categories of writing about climate change seem to be the only ones people know about.