Greening the Public

So many environmental problems, so little public attention. Even so, a few good green campaigns over the years have caught people's imagination, and some have even influenced behavior. The Monterey Bay Aquarium sponsors the handy Seafood Watch card, listing which fish are endangered and which make up part of a sustainable diet. The card is now distributed throughout the US and Canada, and is familiar to a growing number of consumers. Consider also that now nearly ubiquitous notice, sponsored by the American Hotel and Motel Association, encouraging hotel guests to re-use towels and sheets, in order to help conserve water. But if you could choose just one green message to convey in this gloomy era – gloomier than ever after a US presidential campaign in which environmental issues were hardly mentioned – what might it be? The Ecological Society of America may soon be making just this choice. Based on a key recommendation of the Ecological Visions Committee, the Governing Board are considering undertaking a campaign to spread the word about the need for a more sustainable future. The first step will be to decide on a specific message and audience. “The goal is to foster understanding of the value of ecosystems among the American public–although we probably won't use the word ‘ecosystems’ ” says Nadine Lymn, who as ESA's Director of Public Affairs will help lead what could be a multimillion dollar campaign. She says ESA's Board members hope, within a 5-year timespan, to significantly raise public appreciation of the links between healthy ecosystems and public well-being. Campaign tactics might include anything, from public service announcements on TV or radio, to banners on buses, or drinks coasters in bars. Beginning this February, Governing Board members will start a search for ideas by contacting groups that have run similar campaigns, including Environmental Defense, WWF, SeaWeb, and NASA, as well as corporations such as British Petroleum and Toyota. Charles Alexander, a former environmental editor for Time magazine, has long been thinking along similar lines. Two years ago, he wrote up a plan for a campaign for “natural security”, which I described in the first of these columns (February 2003), although I did not mention his name. Alexander felt it was time for a broad advertising effort that would lift the issue of preserving the environment above partisan politics, where it never belonged. He envisioned a slogan that no Democrat or Republican could disagree with – something like, “We have only one earth. Let's pass it on to our children”. Just like famous campaigns for consumer items – think, “Got Milk?” or “Coke: It's the Real Thing” – it would appear on TV, radio, and in newspapers, and with any luck find a permanent place in the public consciousness. Alexander's plan was to make such a slogan the first step in a broader educational effort, backed by a website informing readers where their elected representatives stood on key environmental issues, and encouraging them to promote sustainability where they work and live. Sadly, his plan never got past the fund-raising stage, something Alexander blames in part on the failure, so far, of environmental groups to cooperate for the greater good. Like Alexander, the ESA may eventually pool efforts with other organizations, including perhaps the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy organization that has long lobbied policymakers and the public. The problem is that many scientists have strong doubts about undertaking a stronger public advocacy role, unwilling to risk the distrust of policy makers. On the other hand, what might be called moral anxiety is growing among scientists and environmental journalists, both of whom traditionally prize objectivity, and occupy the frontlines of information gathering. As they accumulate evidence on an unprecedented rate of extinctions and the looming risks of a changing climate, the case for challenging traditional values grows. Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature recently noted how environmental devastation may eventually transform the job of journalism, from the current situation, where reporters cover “manageable” problems like budget shortfalls and pollution, to one of trying to cope with unmanageable, chaotic situations, including changes that could radically alter civilizations. Quoting McKibben's work in a recent, heartfelt speech, respected public TV host Bill Moyers said, “The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free – not only to feel but to fight for the future we want.” Increasing numbers of scientists are beginning to agree with this view, convinced that the times present a moral imperative for public advocacy. The more united and non-partisan they can be, of course, the better. And, by the way of slogans, they might keep in mind the words of the wise first century Rabbi Hillel, who, in reference to people's need to consider other life around them, famously asked, “If not now, when?” Katherine Ellison

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.