. . . if they are sending out hard stock glossy mailers? Maybe they’re printing with soy ink, and maybe the stock is 10% post-consumer waste, but that’s still a lot of paper and power generation. How does a proponent of the environment and environmental issues get their message across without contributing to the very forces they are ostensibly attempting to defeat?
Phone calls are intrusive. Door-to-door campaigns are time-consuming and perhaps dangerous. Are there enough voters on the internet regularly that banner ads could be sufficient? What should they do?
Stand at street corners carrying (or wearing) signs that say “Repent, the world is at it’s end!”
Seriously, few seem to be paying attention to the fact that there’s something going on in the environment, short term or long, but more are beginning to listen, and willing to do something to thwart it. The shame is in how long it’s taking, but, beyond that, I think multiple natural disasters and the near end of society as we know it will get some attention.
As far as saving resources whilst doing the near impossible, internet dissemination of information and word of mouth comments such as “Damn, it’s hot today, I think global warming is kicking in.”, and “Never used to flood around here before, wonder if it’s that global warmin’?” are the least environmentally impacting methods of spreading the word.
It’s not an easy thing to do, no doubt. The one who makes the attempt has to utilize the resources available to him/her to get the information out to the public at the least amount of cost or else the message won’t get to the masses. Think fast food, cheap, and convenient is what appeals to the public and what they eat up. The packaging of information has to appeal to the McDonald’s generation, so glossy and bright and drenched in fat is the only way they’ll look in the first place.
Perhaps, if you infuse an easily biodegradable paper with a french fry smell, you may be able to get someone to look at your message before they salivate all over your salutation. I know ending up in traffic behind the car that runs on recycled fast food grease gets my mouth a waterin’.
I don’t necessarily mean getting the environmental message across in general.
What I’m referring to are politicians who are currently campaigning for public office (general election is 6 Nov) as the “green” candidate. I might like to vote for someone who would try to further the “green agenda”, but is the campaign who says they will act in accordance to preservation and conservation really going to follow through on that if they aren’t even thinking through their campaign strategy in an environmentally conscious way?
You present a conundrum, at least for the moment. Even Gore has difficulty presenting himself as “green” even though he’s made every attempt at trimming and living his life in a “green” way. You would almost have to creep into your potential candidates home and see if he/she uses the recycle container, or uses a foam cup more than one if they should have accidentally bought foam cups.
The cost of the supposedly environmentally friendly materials for advertising is more expensive than the gloss and I think a candidate who really is trying to get to the most really is in a dilemma when choosing the delivery of their message and agenda, that’s why I focused on advertising in my response.
Things may change in a few years. People who have a history of conservation will have better documentation of that fact because they know it matters, but this movement towards “greeness” is only starting to get momentum now, even though it’s been possible for far longer. What I’m afraid of is that it’ll be another trend, not an actual change for the better, and that the candidates that present themselves as good for the environment are really just good for adding hot air to global warming.
Another thought provoking question. Good job. 🙂
I just assumed this whole “green” fad would be over in 2008. After that, I hope Pogs will make a come back.