It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As environmentalism goes mainstream, corporations are marketing the word "green" as a panacea for the world's climate crisis. Today the word describes a set of prescribed, mostly consumerist actions: buy local, organic and fresh; go vegan; eat in season; skip the elevator, take the stairs. "Green" has come to mean shopping at Whole Foods and possessing a Prius. Meanwhile, leading corporate polluters like BP and ExxonMobil place commercials on CNN advertising their "green" practices.
It should come as no surprise, then, that "green" lifestyles don't resonate with low-income communities; being "green" involves a set of behaviors that are financially or culturally inaccessible to millions of Americans. This presents a major problem for the environmental movement. If it is going to be successful, environmentalism simply cannot afford to be demographically segregated or isolated from the pathos of economic disparity.
The environmental movement needs to do a better job of connecting issues of race, class, poverty and sustainability; in short, it has to become a broader social movement. And people of color need visibility in the movement. By that, I don't mean Barack Obama presiding over environmental policy from the White House or Lisa Jackson heading the Environmental Protection Agency during Obama's first term. I mean the recognition that sustainable survival practices in poor communities are just as significant as solar panels and LED lights. Ultimately this is where the citizenry of the planet can and must come together in order to move forward.
Sounds like some people have recognized the same issues I have the last few days ... the "green new deal" comes across as an attempt to fix these issues.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: neo96
I didn't say the green new deal would work; but I can understand the idealistic thinking behind it. The "New Deal" had to be coupled with "Green" if "Green" was ever going to brake out of the wealthy enclaves.
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: neo96
I didn't say the green new deal would work; but I can understand the idealistic thinking behind it. The "New Deal" had to be coupled with "Green" if "Green" was ever going to brake out of the wealthy enclaves.
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: neo96
I didn't say the green new deal would work; but I can understand the idealistic thinking behind it. The "New Deal" had to be coupled with "Green" if "Green" was ever going to brake out of the wealthy enclaves.
Idealistic thinking is NOBLE, it really is. But shouldn't 'unrealistic' trump those hifalutin fancyful notions usually coming out of drunken revelries?
Not sure, looks like they where correcting a typo in my OP.
Why is famed Kandinsky editing your posts?
vethumanbeing: Idealistic thinking is NOBLE, it really is. But shouldn't 'unrealistic' trump those hifalutin fancyful notions usually coming out of drunken revelries?
DanDanDat: It ought to; but as I said in the OP there is an insidious acceptance of "unrealistic" in many areas of this country. Here in San Francisco it is like a drug in the air.
vethumanbeing: Why is famed Kandinsky editing your posts?
DanDanDat: Not sure, looks like they where correcting a typo in my OP.