To save Earth, environmentalists should improve their argument

Earth Day was this past Sunday. Across the country, children drew Earth on paper plates while learning to reduce, reuse and recycle.

Today’s relatively stronger push by the general population for a more environmentally friendly country can be attributed to more generations of Americans growing up and experiencing those Earth Day campaigns in elementary school.

Although more people may care about the environment, the world isn’t much better off than it was decades ago. Eighty percent of energy still comes from fossil fuels, more carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere than ever before in modern civilization and an underfunded Environmental Protection Agency administration refuses to even use the words “climate change.”

The lack of effectiveness in environmental campaigns originates from less impactful focuses. More people may care about the consequences of human actions on the environment, but they are misled to concentrate on movements that don’t maximize effectiveness. If scientists and policymakers want to see more success in movements to protect this precious planet, they must improve their argument as to what people should really focus on.

The three Rs are a prime example of a relatively successful environmental effort that falls short on impact. The U.S. recycling rate is five times higher today than it was in 1970, the year Earth Day began. Policymakers were successful in getting people to recycle, but let’s analyze the importance of increased recycling efforts from a scientific point of view.

One reason for the push in recycling is the mentality that Americans are running out of landfill space. If we don’t minimize the amount of trash we produce, we will soon see trash in every direction we look. In reality, according to Clark Wiseman, an economist at Gonzaga University, if Americans keep dumping trash into landfills at their current rate until the year 3000, landfill space would only amount to 35 square miles for all of the U.S.

Another misconception is landfills are polluting the environment, but landfills have been under strict regulations since the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was enacted in 1976. Landfill operators are required to monitor nearby groundwater for any leachate pollution, and the amount of methane emissions from the decomposition of landfill garbage is restricted by the Clean Air Act.

Now, it may seem as though any sort of environmental movement is successful despite its level of impact, but people can only exert so much effort in caring for the environment. According to a series of studies recently published in the European Journal of Psychology, a considerable amount of people hold strongly negative stereotypes about environmentalists, and those feelings reduce the average person’s willingness to adopt the behaviors environmental activists promote.

Basically, the average person cares about the environment as long as that concern doesn’t consume their lives, and environmentalists are currently wasting the average person’s limited attention on less important problems. Conditioned since childhood that recycling can save the Earth, people are given the false hope that throwing their trash in different bins is doing enough for the planet. On the other hand, there are other focuses that could have more impact on saving the environment.

Somewhere between the 1960s and today, the fundamental point of environmental protection got lost in translation. The point of environmental action is to save lives and promote health, things that any sane person can understand. Promoting clean air and clean water with pollution prevention and government regulations ensures access to necessities of life. If focus on environmental action intertwines with human health, environmental movements would become necessary instead of polarizing.

Environmentalists care for the environment because it’s the right thing to do. The average person isn’t going to buy that argument. If environmentalists really want to save the planet, they’re going to have to harness the limited attention of the average Joe. To do so, the focus of environmental movements need to concentrate on the fundamental importance of environmental protection.

Joshua Udvardy is a UF environmental engineer junior. His column focuses on science.