Most decisions involve a tradeoff between two factors that are in opposition. Saving money vs. saving time. Inexpensiveness vs. quality. Doing some quickly vs. doing something correctly.
The solution always involves knowing how important one factor is compared to the other. This differs from person to person and changes over one's lifetime. For example, kids choose saving money over saving time, but adults will hire help when time is scarce and money is plentiful.
So why is this reasoning rarely applied to environmentalism? In most cases there is a tradeoff of time/money/pleasure for saving the environment. Saving water vs. clean hotel towels. Reducing carbon footprint vs. international vacations. Recycling vs. saving time.* The list is endless. These issues are rarely presented as tradeoffs. Why not?
Environmentalism shouldn't be dogma. It should explain the benefits and the costs of working to preserve the environment, so that each person can make an informed decision.
* Of course it is possible to do things more efficiently so that personal loss of time/money/pleasure in negligible. But after you've squeezed all the wasteful inefficiency out, you eventually have to face a choice between personal time/money/pleasure and further perserving environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment