As I read Robert Gifford’s, “Apply Social Psychology to the Environment” I could not help but think that most of the answers to the environmental dilemma were right at my fingertips, right there in the chapter. It is expected that if we, citizens of the world, had a resource dilemma we would rally around one another to solve the problem, right. The optimist in me tells me the pragmatic whole of civilization will choose a viable solution and we will do what needs to be done. Unfortunately, the pessimist in me cannot be mollified.
The humanitarians among us have for hundreds, even thousands of years, looked out for all of us. For example, William Booth founded the Salvation Army. “In 1865, Booth and his wife began, The Christian Revival Society. This was an organization committed to helping the poorest, it involved giving food, shelter and clothes, but also seeking to save people spiritually” (Tejvan 2014). Booth once wrote, “Let the business of the world take care of itself … My business is to get the world saved” (Booth 1884). Fabien Cousteau, son of renowned oceanographer Jacque Cousteau founded “Plant a Fish”, a non-profit dedicated to repopulating sea life in areas such as the Florida Keys and the Maldives. Booth, Cousteau and countless others, mostly anonymous, have helped us and this planet along as best they could without a coalesced effort from the masses. In their own ways, they attempted to help and support humankind and the planet. To them we should all be grateful.
However, the pessimist in me sees an ever-increasing perilous, environmental condition and the fissures that divide people. For example, last summer wealthy people in California gave the local government the middle finger when asked to reduce water usage by not watering their lawns during a mandatory water use reduction because of a severe drought. Despite the request, water usage actually increased in the affluent areas. Stephanie Pincetl, who worked on the UCLA water-use study, said wealthy Californians are “lacking a sense that we are all in this together. The problem lies, in part, in the social isolation of the rich, the moral isolation of the rich” (Governing 2015). There were other instances where people made public statements that they should be excluded from the water restriction because they paid more in taxes. Regrettably, many California residents participated in tragedy of the commons. Whether it was apathy or selfishness, they fostered a public goods problem. I can see this type of scenario play out more often as resources become scarcer. A grounded theory analysis approach is needed to best levitate the situation in the United States, and the world.
Along with the water predicament, recycling should be addressed as well. The pessimist in me sees my neighbors’ garbage cans regularly overflowing with recyclable items but the optimist in my sees the recycling center I use busy the days it is open. One approach used in Tacoma Washington was the feedback condition. It was done by mailing residence informational pamphlets and indicating which neighborhoods recycled the most the previous quarter. This approach stoked the competiveness between neighborhoods and increased the overall recycling totals. Washington State is the sixth best recycling state (360.2015) in the US. The Seattle mandatory recycling law for residents and businesses helps bolster that standing. Recycling in Washington State is now an injunctive norm to the degree that neighbors are likely to notice if another neighbor does not recycle. Contrarily, in Georgia, recycling by residence is only thirty-eight percent despite having a recycling program since 1990. Georgians with recycling and wealthy Californians with water restriction may be linked by the boomerang affect. The boomerang affect is caused when people reject conformity and increase the undesirable behavior when normative information, a standard of correctness through prescribed norms, is provided (Schneider et al 2012).
In the pattern of William Booth and Fabien Cousteau but with earnest, we must heed the warning of how the world has changed. It will not only be the world’s water commons that will strain but other natural resources as well. Eighty-three million people are added to the planet each year and the world’s global environmental “footprint”, or depletion rate, now exceeds the planet’s capacity to regenerate by 30 percent. The countries with the biggest impact on the planet are the US and China, together accounting for some 40% of the global footprint” (Savage 2008).
The optimist in me believes we are not too far down the road to make substantive changes to save ourselves and save the planet. The pessimist in me whispers the earth has been here more than four billion years and will be fine; it is all of us who are doomed.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” -Genesis 2:15-
References:
Pettinger, Tejvan. “Biography of William Booth”, Oxford, UK – www.biographyonline.net . (August. 2014) http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/william-booth.html
Benge Geoff “William Booth: Soup, Soap and Salvation” (Aug 2002) YWAM Publishing, Edmonds Washington
Shyong Frank. “California’s Rich People Pretty Bad at Water Conservation” www.governing.com (April 8, 2015) http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/californias-rich-people-pretty-bad-at-water-conservation.html
(n.a.) “The 10 Best and Worst States for Waste Diversion, Reduction” www.waste360.com (May 7, 2015) http://waste360.com/recycling/10-best-and-worst-states-waste-diversion-reduction#slide-6-field_images-193911
8Savage Sam “Reckless Consumption Depleting Earth’s Natural Resources” www.ewdorbit.com (October 2008) http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1594776/reckless consumption_depleting_earths_natural_resources/#8rGAi8G7RQr0XZvk.99
Schneider Frank W, Gruman James A, Coutts Larry M “Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems” 2nd Edition” (October 2011) SAGE Publications Inc. Washington, D.C
You make some very valid points in how the concept of beta press with the individualized perception of actual environmental reality (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, pp. 314) is applied to environmental issues. In particular with the California affluent water usage increase. I believe perception is 98% of our understanding in environmental issues, if it does not directly “touch” us, we as individuals and often on a social scale fail to relate to such concerns. I would be curious to see if there were penalties actually upheld for what is deemed over usage in shortage situations how people would respond if they were actually held accountable for their actions? Would applying a consequence intervention (Schneider et al, pp.307) such as a hefty financial penalty be enough of a deterrent to get people to buy in to the idea that there actually is a water shortage? More directly cutting off what we have become accustom to as a right in having running water direct to our homes, the luxury of hot or cold showers and baths, the option to let the water run while we wash dishes, cars, pets, water our lawns… if one was to take this access away, and individuals had to pay per gallon and travel to get that gallon, how would water consumption be?
I believe the implementation of grounded theory though potentially resourceful would be biased by participant responses. How likely is one to admit excessive usage when their identity can be potentially made public? Of the individuals who responded as per your post that they paid higher taxes and should be excluded from the water restrictions, how many made this remark under direct public scrutiny or was it anonymous? The prospect of taking away the privilege of running water is one area I imaging would create considerable social unrest. However if we are to resolve the issues of abuse, overuse, non compliance on a community level it may be needed to apply more significant social implications to avoid the social norm ideal that if my neighbor is doing it so can I. Frankly the environmental problems we create today will not particularly doom us, but indeed future generations will be left to clean up what we set in motion now.
I think your article brings to light the need for improved conceptualization on the reality of environmental situations we all ultimately face.
Schneider Frank W, Gruman James A, Coutts Larry M “Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems”2nd Edition” (October 2011) SAGE Publications Inc. Washington, D.C
lawy3rsqu0t3s.blog.com
The earth will be fine; it is all of us who are doomed. | Applied Social Psychology (ASP)
I feel your post covered a good amount of what is wrong with our world. It’s interesting to think that 40% of the global footprint is from the US and China, though I could have guessed that it is a very large statistic. Considering all the other countries in the world, it tells something that both the US and China are impacting the environment that much. I agree with your optimism too, but what will really change? We have to make a huge societal change for the Earth to get back on track, and these changes may not come for decades yet. In the meantime, our planet is still in a downward spiral. Behaviors, ways of living, and thinking as a whole have to change for this problem to be solved. Even when we figure this out, the Earth has a lot of rehabilitation to do and will probably never fully recover. It’s a scary thought for our next generations, because at some point they have to face this reality. At some point, there can be no turning away.
I agree, there can be optimisms and pessimisms in regards to how the human race has and will deal with Earth’s condition. One can choose to look at the positive side of human efforts to help the environment, or one can decide to focus on the negative consequences of human abuse of natural resources. I believe one of the major factors that may be influencing our environmental crises is the world’s inability to both successfully and collectively solve problems regarding resource usage due to politics, the economy, and hunger for power and control. Other influences may include overpopulation, variety of cultures with opposing views, and greed, but this list is not exhaustive.
Despite all of the overwhelming issues related to the environment, I do not believe we are completely doomed. We may not be able to solve all environmental problems in one day, a week, or a year, however, we can still have hope (even if it is faint) and time. It’s important that we continue trying to save our planet Earth and not give up, for if we abandon this pursuit entirely, we really will be doomed. I do not know exactly what our future or generations in the future will look like, but with each individual’s conservation effort the world’s future may look better than if we did not try at all.
Interesting blog post, I did not know about Washington State being awesome recyclers! I did however, realize that where I lived in NJ, one would notice if there was recycling in neighbor’s garage. Actually, I had a neighbor who would scour the neighborhood garbage cans looking for recyclables and then point you out for not recycling. I recently, within the past year, moved to Virginia. There is no recycling here. The closest recycling plant is over two hours away. What a strange difference! I pointed out to a local non profit, who takes care of stray cats, that if she collected people’s cans, she could use them for money. Our town now has two drop off locations for cans!