 "Photo:")
My friend recently confessed to me that he and six of his co-workers go through the drive-through at Wendy's on the way home from work, and when they're done eating they roll down the window and just toss the bags out as they're flying down the road. And this happens every single day, like a perverted twist to Hansel and Gretel.
Littering was something I learned was "bad" in elementary school. Advocating against pollution is a main part of the stereotypical environmentalist/tree hugger image, but I feel like we've moved on to bigger issues. We shouldn't still be dealing with the issue of litter in our communities, since our resources need to go to solving worse problems, like reducing our carbon footprint and implementing more sustainable energy solutions.
Changing attitudes has a lot to do with your economic situation. The expense of alternative greener products is often daunting and the time it takes to make more environmentally conscious choices about daily activities is too much if you're stretched too thin between work, family duties and school. Surviving is more of a priority than not throwing away your plastic water bottle, even though the livelihood of your posterity depends on your current actions.
The thing is you can't physically make people care about recycling or throwing away garbage in a trash can instead of along the road or even biking to work instead of driving. It demands a high level of responsibility for your personal actions in terms of how they affect the community and world around you, which requires people to hold themselves accountable. For some, making these kinds of decisions comes naturally as a result of an environmental ethic from childhood experiences or simply from a natural concern.
Changes in environmental policies are definitely issues that national and international governments are considering and putting into action. With the proposed climate bill in the Senate that would cut carbon dioxide emissions and develop clean energy incentives and the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December, significant upgrades to EPA standards will be made in the near future.
By restricting carbon dioxide emissions to lower levels, companies and businesses across the board will be forced to make changes in the way they operate. These changes will come at a personal cost to them. Equipment upgrades and alterations will come at a price, which will be reflected in the way employees are treated. Many workers in industrial facilities are not high on the pay scale and they have little time and money to spare for the higher-priced environmentally friendly products, organic food or separating out recyclables.
The people who will feel the strongest effects from the majority of environmental legislation in the U.S. are people who may not necessarily care about green issues or leading a sustainable, environmentally responsible lifestyle. However, the upcoming legislation will approach the issue of environmental injustice indirectly. Industrial facilities that provide substantial amounts of air pollution, lowering the quality of life and affecting the health of the surrounding community are often located in low-income population areas.
The dysfunctional relationship between the overarching positive change in emissions legislation and the negative impacts it will have on the jobs of the people who will be positively affected by it creates a paradox for people to consider. What's more important - cleaner air or being able to keep your house long enough to enjoy it?
