There is an old saying -
‘too much of anything is not good’. Too much of sunshine dries the
crops and too much of rain drowns it. We certainly acknowledge the
existence of many similar symbolic examples like these which are
explicitly relevant to many other aspects of our daily lives. In our
daily affairs, one of such aspects has certainly drawn huge attention –
‘green consciousness’, which has become vogue for governments,
businesses, civic societies and by and large normal public for last more
than three decades. Is it fair to say ‘fashionable’ or ‘necessity’ the
appropriate word to describe the green consciousness? There is often a
dichotomy between what is popular at a particular time and something
that you need in order to fulfil one’s basic life requirements. In due
course, we will pick up this argument as we approach in this article.
The origin of green consciousness is not new. It grew during the
early stages of Industrial revolution when 'smoking stacks' were
considered as the pride and symbol of industrial activity, success and
affluence. From the chemical industries, emissions of highly repulsive
waste gases especially hydrochloric acid and hydrogen sulphide from the
Leblanc soda process were so high that authorities in England had to
introduce environmental legislation Alcali Act in 1864. Smoke and ash
abatement in Great Britain was considered to be a health agency
responsibility and was so confirmed by the first Public health Act of
1848 and the later ones of 1866 and 1875 (Stern, 1984).
During the last thirty years, green consciousness has grown even
stronger than ever. Society is now more conscious of pollution
prevention, resource conservation and recycling, reduced new extraction
of fossil and raw materials, more use of biomass materials, using clean
sources of energy and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Not
just widespread green consciousness among public but the green movement
and green political ideology also played a very important role. But,
what is the real driving force behind this? It may be quite opposite for
many people, who would rather call it 'green hysteria' or
'scaremongering'.
Society always reacted towards the natural and anthropogenic
disasters once it destroyed people's livelihood, immediate environment
and killed many people on the way. Aftermath of an incident associated
with BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico 2010 (by far it has been the
largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of petroleum
industry) has showed how public outcry and political willingness can
change the future environmental, health and safety policies and
strategies on how petroleum industries should behave and take the
responsibilities for their actions. Increasing customer expectation,
supply chain pressure, pressure from the local community, ethical
investment and plethora of environmental legislation will continue to
underpin the green success and tackle environmental degradation.
Let us forget the impacts of global warming and climate change for a
moment. Reducing the needs for new resources and make greater use of
recovered resources ought to be the inherent culture, otherwise the
risks of resource scarcity that may stall industrial progress to
manufacture more goods and services that we all depend on. In this
regard, green consciousness marches steadily uphill which is undoubtedly
welcome for the future survival of the planet and the people. But any
false or overstated green claims e.g. false Green PR or false Green
Marketing will be not only damaging for the reputation of businesses,
but also the gravity of the real cause for green agenda will probably be
lost.
On the dichotomy of ‘fashionable’ and ‘necessity’ arguments in green
consciousness where I believe that the necessity cannot be fashionable
or fashionable cannot be necessity. In general, as a global citizen we
all are entitled to be obligation-conscious of environmental
conservation. Overwhelming evidences exist in environmental degradation
driven by man-made pollution, consequently many experts are repeatedly
calling and re-emphasising the importance to protect and improve the
environment where ensuring both human beings and the environment can
coexist. Environmental degradation is one of the ten threats to humanity
identified by the High Level Threat Panel of the United Nations in
2004. Therefore, it is an urgent issue where something that we all need
to fulfil for our planet’s basic life requirements.
Coming back to the maxim - ‘too much of anything is not good’! Too
much emphasis is given on green consciousness without pointing out the
measurable benefits, which is counterproductive and that is why it is
not surprising when we see timid and inadequate public reaction towards
green agenda. Sceptics have always capitalised on the opportunity by
saying - ' the green agenda is about getting rid of as many humans as
possible', 'green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism',
'green house effects have been falsified', we didn't have global warming
during the Industrial Revolution', 'Al Gore's hockey stick is broken',
'record snowfall disproves global warming', 'mercury thermometers cannot
measure within tenths of a degree' and the comments go on.
People from all strata of the society generally accept that mankind
are to be blamed for exhausting many of planet’s precious resources for
growth and development. We always read and hear the bad news.
Particularly in the news media, it barely points out the benefits of
humanity’s growth and development, for example availability and
varieties of food, health, education, improvements to living standards
and comfort, security, recreation and human mobility as a whole.
Tremendous progresses have been made on biodiversity and environmental
areas such as pollution prevention, resource recovery, recycling,
finding alternative materials to avoid the exhaustion of raw materials,
advancement in green technology, and the major
technological changes in agriculture e.g. alternative farming methods,
conservation on biodiversity and so on. Green consciousness is good and
will be well accepted by the general public when they will see a balance
in both sides of the debate – on one side ‘the causes of environmental
degradation and destruction of the eco systems’, on the flip side
‘benefits of growth and development’ on society while maintaining the
sustainability obligations.
