The problem with environmentalists is that, for the most part, they preach* to a receptive audience. In many ways it is similar to a religious minister preaching hellfire and damnation from within the safe confines of his own church. Presumably only religious people attend church, which would suggest they already know and understand the theology. That is not to say that such Sunday morning gatherings are not useful in maintaining the flock – by all means environmentalists need to keep networking with other like-minded folk. If it helps to keep the faith, then so be it.
What interests me more is the need for “environmental missionaries” to get out there and create converts. We need to see the hardcore faithful taking extended leave to doorknock bogan** heartlands, to attend schoolies week and hand out green lolly frogs in the name of the planet, to hold stalls at V8 car races and get the climate change elephant on the scene of any Cronulla-style race riots as they unfold. The “save the planet” message needs to move beyond the pseudo-educated masses and head on down to drop out land. Because that is where the real change needs to happen.
The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC – UK) has had a look at who says what when it comes to the environment – I’m assuming Australian studies would say the same thing. They found “people fall into four categories of environmentalist - committed, mainstream, occasional or non-committed.” If we consider it as an environmental continuum, we can assume that the first three groups are somewhere along the way to doing the right things already. The last group, also called the “non-environmentalists” are the ones who really need a kick in the pants to get started. In brief, what did the ESRC find out about these environmental heathens?
Non – Environmentalists:
· younger (lower mean ages than other groups)
· male (more-so than other groups which were roughly sex balanced)
· renters, either private or housing commission equivalent
· low income earners
· uneducated (large proportion with no qualifications)
· non-voting (in the UK – so probably our donkey kings)
The gist of it is that these aren’t the people out there buying books on “green living” or borrowing them from local libraries. These are the edge of society that many of us prefer not to think about. While committed environmentalists are already acting and voting Green, these non-environmentalists could really benefit. The policies of the Greens that relate to taxing the rich and providing more extensive free health and dental-care would appeal to these bogans, if they could be interested in politics. I’m sure that “affordable housing is a human right” would also interest them – if they could ever afford their own small piece of land to care for, maybe it would give them an insight into caring for the earth as a whole.
I don’t know how big the bogan voting population is. But I do know they are currently the perfect fodder for the fear mongering of both major parties on a variety of irrelevant issues. What the Green movement needs is dedicated missionaries heading into deepest darkest bogan-land to convert the natives. Because preaching to the converted can only ever maintain the status quo.
*I’m not saying that environmentalism is a spurious belief or a “church” of any kind. But a church is a common social construct representative of a group of people, and as such, an appropriate analogy.
**I use the term “bogan” in the most loving sense possible. Coming from a bogan district myself, I understand that there are “bogan environmentalists,” but nothing sums up this stereotypical group of people better than the word “bogan.”
PS.
Read the ESRC report into Environmental Action - Linking Attitudes and Behaviour
