CAN'T SOMEONE else do it?" For "The Simpsons" aficionados, this slogan conjures up the episode in which Homer ran for sanitation commissioner and sang a parody of "The Candy Man" called "The Garbage Man." In many episodes, Homer represents mankind's flaws. In this particular instance, for example, creator Matt Groening used Homer to demonstrate laziness and irresponsibility. Yet a sense of entitlement, rather than just laziness or irresponsibility, is what really underlies thoughts such as "Can't someone else do it?" With Earth Day approaching, we should make an effort to bypass our Homeric self-interests in favor of being more pro-social, even if it results in a reduction of individual liberties.
Corporations, which are sometimes legally referred to as people, have been one step ahead of actual people in going green. Corporations are producing cars that are more fuel efficient, light bulbs that waste less energy and single-stream recycling that takes the work out of separating recyclables from trash. While these efforts are inspired by good intentions, they only increase our irresponsibility. Increased fuel mileage encourages additional personal car use, while cleaner alternatives such as walking, biking or taking the bus are becoming rarer. Compact fluorescent light bulbs decrease the monetary and environmental impact of forgetting to turn off a light, thus increasing our likelihood of doing just that. Single-stream recycling passes on the simple task of separating and sorting onto someone else.
While corporations inadvertently foster our irresponsibility, we convince ourselves of our entitlements. We are entitled to comfort- we need the extra leg room that a 12 miles-per-gallon SUV provides, we need the homely glow of an incandescent light bulb and we need the convenience of single-stream recycling. We convince ourselves that there is no harm done as long as we are willing to pay more for gas, more for electricity and more for sorting services.
The entitlement illusion has fogged our sense of reality. In reality, an individual consumer cannot compensate for increased carbon emission by throwing money at the problem; carbon is still airborne no matter how much we are willing to pay for our gas. We feel entitled to the immediate rewards of comfort while we strip future generations of clean air and water.
We can get people to sacrifice their lives for the livelihood of a nation during war, but we cannot get people to sacrifice menial comforts for the good of the planet during peacetime. Perhaps the problem lies in the perceived lack of urgency. A temperature change of two degrees over a decade is not as frightening as the Soviets taking over the United States. But framing environmental problems as a war will not solve them. There are still drugs after the War on Drugs, still poverty after the War on Poverty and still terrorism even with the War on Terror. If we were not already desensitized by these "war" efforts, a War on Pollution might have worked.
Then how do we go about changing people's behaviors? By limiting our choices. You cannot lose weight if there are cookies in the cupboard. You have to force yourself to eat vegetables regularly and fruit for dessert. In the same vein, we cannot reduce carbon emissions with SUVs in the driveway. We have to force ourselves to walk that half-mile to class or the library. Ultimately, we cannot rely on our will power. We need a stronger force, one that can enact and enforce strict, green policies and one that can punish any violations of said policies. If the government can agree to cut $38.5 billion from a multi-trillion dollar budget, it has the capability to enact a stricter minimum MPG standard and a maximum watt-per-light-bulb standard. If this rids the country of Escalades and Edison-era light bulbs, then that is the price we have to pay.
Are government limitations on personal choices anti-democratic and childish? Probably. Is such a drastic measure necessary at the moment? That is up for debate. One thing is for sure, though: If recent trends have demonstrated anything, then it is not to invest too much stock in our fellow man. The next time there is litter on the ground and you are thinking, "Can't someone else do it?" you should be aware that other people around you are thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, someone has to tell us what to do in these situations. If we cannot muster enough effort for the sake of the environment on our own, then the Nanny State should force us.
Hung Vu's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at h.vu@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | YesterdayThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 3 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
