Pressing questions

In my opinion, the most pressing environmental issue today is not an environmental issue at all. People have this fallacious conception of how social, political and economic change. Essentially, most people have this tragic notion that politicians have some magic wand and conduct the countries affairs like a conductor in an orchestra. This is not true, especially in today's times. In keeping with contemporary events, "change" has been a major theme in this country's new political renaissance (I say this because more people are becoming active). While I regard this new found enthusiasm for reforming our state as the best possible scenario, there is one thing out of place. The vociferous crowd that catapulted Obama into the hot seat at one of our most desperate hours in history thinks that they have done their part in fixing our country. Better stated, people think " We got you, a black man for crying out loud, into the most powerful office in the world, now the ball is in your court Obama!". I know I am not alone when I posit this, for only moments after receiving his nomination, Obama confessed that he alone can not repair America, that we must all be a part of this process. After riding on a wave of prophetic promises, this was the first time he hinted that maybe he wasn't the "end all", just merely a means. This effectively demonstrates how many Obamians may have a passive attitude towards taking ownership of their government because their "leader" issued a heavy caveat only minutes after winning the historically exhausting presidential race. People act as though Obama will make some clever political maneuvers and Boom! Problem solved. In reality, change can only occur when the people take ownership of the problem and make earnest efforts to remedy it. When inflation occurs, its not some calculated government stimulus that stabilizes prices but the individual person deciding to spend more of their savings and inadvertently contributing to an aggregate boost in GDP figures. The same is true for most every other problem. For us to even consider whether we can handle the challenge posed by environmental degradation, we need to ask ourselves whether we can remember to unplug appliances not in use, eat less meat, consume less "stuff", take time to recycle properly, cut back on showers, ride bikes/walk/take mass transit when its available, choosing a smart car over a safe gas guzzling SUV, or just being willing to question someone elses consumption habits. Big corporations NEVER ask themselves whether the material the choose has any environmental side effects or whether its part of a sustainable practice. The government does not regulate this. People need to understand that they bear a lot of responsibility for the environmental damage that is caused by the oil companies and Apple because they are demanding those goods with all the eco-woes that they entail. If this were a command economy, then one could divert blame away from themselves. To conclude, the biggest obstacle to environmental recovery is that the individual relies on the politician to remedy their problems, when in fact they the only ones who can save themselves. When millions who voted for Obama in 2008 elected him, they weren't nominating a solution, fore they are the solution themselves. My fellow compatriots took their first big step towards changing the world when they choose Obama, I only hope they maintain their stride.

In response to the second question, I think that there are businesses that are trying to target a guilt-tripped market. Many products make claims that either can not be verified or are so ambiguous that they don't mean anything. Terms like "natural" and "organic" and "eco-friendly" are absolutely relative and mean less than the average person ascribes to it. I think that a lot of the environmentalism in the US is a superficial fix to a guilty conscience (like indulgences) or just fad that says loudly "I'm political and attentive" whether its true or not. I think the government should retain the rights to terms like "natural", "sustainable", "environmentally/eco friendly", "organic" and others. The purpose being that they can regulate who is allowed to make these claims so that consumers aren't duped into buying goods that don't live up to their name. A third party certification could also work, but not as well because fraudsters could produce similar looking images that might mislead a careless buyer. This way, the government is making it easier for citizens to make everyday decisions that are eco-conscience. For those who might cite the need for "laissez-faire open markets" against my proposal, I would counter that by having the government regulate the use of these terms on products, information asymmetry (the only natural predator to the free market) is eliminated in the most effective fashion and buyers can make truly rational decisions in the marketplace. I think part of Fish's frustration is that he wants to practice eco-friendly behaviors, but that its so difficult to know what is safe to use and that what is safe to use is never cheap or easy to get. We can't expect every citizen to be an expert at determining the relative carbon footprint of any given product, so me must create a system that effective decision making easier.