From Miami…[Part 1]
I wasn’t born and raised in the most environmentally-friendly city in the U.S. That title might belong to where I now live- Portland, Oregon. Instead, the first 18 years of my life were spent in Miami, Florida. There, the extremely poor and desperate meet the extremely rich folk and yearn to be like them in style, substance, and consumption patterns. Although Miami suffers from significant racial/ethnic tensions, the most important factor in determining social status remains the amount of money one has. Listen to the hip hop music that Miami generates, and you’ll notice that what every person is supposed to aspire to is to live in a mansion on Star Island, to drive a Hummer, and to wear designer clothes and “be iced out”. Those who don’t are supposedly lesser persons. The consequences of stratifying a city by consumption goes beyond encouraging crime against property and persons- it also generates an enormous environmental footprint. Of course, not every resident of Miami has the means to participate equally in the “bling” lifestyle- but many, especially the young, put what little money they earn straight into their cars and clothes. I like to say that in Miami, all streets are a catwalk.
Development pressure also plays a role in Miami’s environment. From the supply side, corporations have a fairly easy time getting the political stamp to develop what remains of the Everglades. From the demand side (a factor that cannot be understated), Miami-Dade County receives new residents from the north (old folks entering retirement) as well as many thousands of immigrants from Central and South America. The area is far beyond carrying capacity, but the population continues to boom.
Although the city itself is not environmentally-friendly, and instead encourages a destructive lifestyle, my immediate family provided some balance. I was raised to recycle, turns off the lights when they aren’t needed, and to not litter, ever. My father especially encouraged the reverence of nature. He made it particularly easy by providing my family with a beautiful yard. In that yard he cultivated native species, minimized lawn, watered at the right time of day, minimized chemical inputs, provided bird houses and seed, and eventually built a pond (a great water source for wildlife). He also gave me a part in the yard. It wasn’t weed-pulling (that was him) or mowing the little bit of lawn we had (a chore for my older brother)- I raised butterflies. On any given afternoon you could find me looking after Monarch and Zebra Longwing butterfly caterpillars. I protected the host plant, pulling off aphids with my fingers and planting seeds. When an individual host plant looked like it was overcrowded by caterpillars, I would gently scoop some caterpillars up and move them to a fuller plant. Then, as each caterpillar went through metamorphosis, I guarded her chrysalis. When she emerged, I ensured that she was protected from predators until she had pumped enough blood into her new wings to fly. And when she did, she would join the others in a beautiful airborne dance that made me feel as if I had helped bring something special into the world.
My life wasn’t all flowers and butterflies, of course. My family was a southern steak and potatoes type. I am only half-joking when I say I was raised on donuts. We eventually had a car to each member of the family and were too hostile to one another to share rides. When I first became a teenager, I didn’t stop recycling or looking after native wildlife, but I did begin to try to lead a higher consumption lifestyle.
It wasn’t until I became more comfortable with myself in junior year of highschool that I realized the lifestyle I felt I needed so much - the sort of life that the popular, wealthy kids in my classes lived - wasn’t fulfilling me. I also began to receive my first formal environmental education when I enrolled in AP Environmental Science. There I read Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance and the book that truly opened my eyes, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Carson’s book drove me to seek positive change however I could, and it all snowballed from there.
Katie Clifford August 14, 2007 at 7:43 pm
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.