For years, there has been a trend in America which isolates the deteriorating environment as being solely the problem of environmentalists.
While this is not necessarily true, the prevailing attitude is that a person who cares about the environment is automatically pigeon-holed into the identity of being an environmentalist, which is not a very flattering title in the view of larger society.
However, this has not deterred many from accepting the title and duties of being a so-called environmentalist.
The backlash from this has been a movement of “anti-environmentalists.”
These are people who take issue with the haughty and self-righteous stereotype which is almost synonymous with the title of environmentalist.
It is this group who boast about the supposed real american virtues of driving big cars, proving domination over nature (mostly by causing different levels of destruction to it), and by showcasing their indifference to whatever damage is caused by any person or group.
This form of catering to our current American cultural trait of over-consumption is a form of reverse compensation for our collective neglect of the land which we proclaim to love so dearly.
Instead of taking control of a situation which puts all of us at risk, we tend to make the issue of environmentalism a politically partisan issue.
What is meant by this is that even if a person does not have a political preference, or if they have one that is contrary to the ideal of conservation, they are placed into a social mold of “liberal,” “feminine,” or that of a fundamentalist ecological crusader.
Although environmentalism has become less marginalized because of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the collective realization that something is very wrong with how the planet is working, there is still a vast majority of the population which believes that it is either someone else’s duty, or someone else’s belief that will fix this problem.
There is a feeling that the opposing forces promoting either the environment or development will somehow develop into a pseudo-“checks-and-balance” system which somehow balances the two forces.
However, there is no such thing as a checks and balances system when it comes to our natural world. Human industry and progress must be made to accommodate nature, not to take advantage of it.
A static tension between two opposing forces of development and conservation will not help to prop up our society like some great ideological tent.
There are many laws already in place to protect the environment, and to promote conservation. To many, these laws are snorted at as being there to appease the environmentalists and so forth.
Just like with other crimes against humanity, it must be recognized and ingrained into the public consciousness that damage to the environment is damage to our society.
Murder, rape, burglary, arson, and embezzlement are all crimes because they are against what the majority of society has decided to be counter-productive to the cause of greater causes of social progress and togetherness.
Although this is a rather light description of what becomes a law, and how it does so, it is enough to make different levels of environmental disregard culturally significant.
The world at large, and especially Americans in our role as world leaders, needs to understand that these laws are not in place just to appease the environmentalists.
They need to not only understand the repercussions of environmental neglect, but they need to believe that it is every involved citizen’s duty to take care of their own share of the environment.
Every individual effort will eventually pay off in some individual reward.