Not that I can think of… the reason why people are environmentalists is because they care about people (all people, because the issues of environmental degradation, global warming, over-consumption, food shortages, and the like are truly global — they effect each and every human being and living creature on this planet) so what could be the flaw to a philosophy that suggests you should care for and protect everyone you possibly can? Unless you subscribe to a hedonist (selfish, pleasure seeking, gratification at all costs) school of thought, your beliefs and morals will probably lead you to one form of environmentalism or another.
People who oppose environmentalism say that the economy would suffer if everyone was to suddenly be green instead of just talking about it. This may or may not be true over the long run. However politicians are more likely to win if they choose short-term economy gains over the enviornment (whose benifits are always long term). These two are usually not compatable because it takes time to change businesses to more green.
I do think there is a flaw. I think the environmental movement doesn’t take socio-economic discrepancies into account often enough. The education and resources needed to be a participant are not readily available to marginalized people. I recognize that the movement has all people at the core of its mission, but how to most effectively involve everyone in its furtherance is still frustrating for me. It is this shortcoming that makes environmental issues seem to belong solely to the middle and upper classes.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC