If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Tbh though, the fact that the film was shown in British cinemas says something about how it has attracted attention and that people watched it. if there was no interest, then it wouldn't have been profitable to show it.
I disagree about the green issue being 'middle class', that sounds like a cop out to me... Unless you mean teh language for it?
Yeah... Like when I've been to People & Planet meetings in central London, it tends to be the most (stereotypically) middle class universities who are most active. I guess that goes with a lot of branches of activism, it's the people who have the best access to resources who tend to get involved.
I think though, that shunning environmentalism for being 'middle class' is missing the point entirely, when you look at how it'll be the world's most poor and vulnerable people who will be suffering. Granted, middle class people are doing most of the damage.
The way it's communicated though... As I've already said is very classist and ethnocentric, at least that is what I believe from being exposed to it first hand (maybe I'm missing out on the working class side?).
There are, however people who are working with ethnic groups, many of who are from more deprived areas.
How do you think it could be made less 'middle class'?
I think the fact that he was an Ex Vice-President and Presidential multi-millionaire runner has more to do with the fact the film was shown than general interest from the public.
Grass roots community activism is the best way forward, it seems to me that these groups are just individuals who share the same causes and meet up in their wee groups to discuss this. Change comes from within the community.
Of course but it's not connected, there is no networking going on.
I agree.
There are several 'classless' groups (in many forms, from freegan to the types of people who chalk on pavements, run centres to raise awareness or who lobby governments), but grassroots groups about there, but the networks are different, especially as many of these groups are so radical.
They are still part of the green movement though, some of them will be involved with say... CCC.
Tbh, I think more 'right wing' people, especially who are adament supporters of capitalism are possibly scared of losing a deal of what they've got materially? Also, there's the fact that I guess if you're a right wing business man, you might not want to spend time in a group you feel might be full of 'hippies'?
Or maybe caring for the planet comes hand in hand with caring for people and being more compassionate about our impact on our fellow (wo)man?
I mean from a global perspective, not family.
The Sun has.
Not that I'd touch either...
However, both the Guardian and the Indy are read by middle class people and have loads on it.
What I'm saying is, the newspapers are unlikely to slag off their own readers. People are not likely to buy something that says their lifestyle is wrong and evil. It would be like a black man going to the BNP's party conference, or a Jewish reporter asking questions to Ken Livingstone. Oh, hang on a second...
I think the bigger risk for a newspaper like The Mail is the risk of upsetting their real audience: the advertisers. Putting an article about climate change next to a full page advert for BMW's latest 4x4 isn't going to do them any favours. That's why you need to change middle class consumer demand so that something like The Mail can be profitable by having adverts for economical cars. I don't expect the Daily Mail to be a leader in this, that would involve having some principles beyond your next paycheck, but they certainly won't want to turn their noses up at all of that lovely new middle class advertising revinue from the likes of Sainsbury's or Waitrose.
To be honest, I think that consuming less is better than eco-chic type stuff.
Plus, I think that political activism, if anything is the only way we can really get a whiff of a chance for lowering our emissions on a bigger scale.
Ah well fuck that idea then. Not a chance that any newspaper, even the most eco-friendly ones, will go too heavily on the whole idea of cutting down consumption. That's their livelihood.
It's adverts for green holidays... Fly to Ecuador to plant trees... wtf?
You don't always have to be perfect though.
Flying to ecuador to learn more about the environment and plant some trees will do better than flying to ecuador to go offroading.
Having said that, I'd probably do the second. In fact, I've been off-road quadbiking in three continents now. Rainforest in Thailand was the best though, it was the day after heavy showers and we had to make the route up as so many trees had fallen over.
Or how about people NOT flying so far (if at all)?
The issues I have with some of these companies and eco-consumerism altogether is that they market themselves as green, when consuming less is a million times better. People may argue, it's better to consume green than not to... It is. It's also better to punch somebody in the stomach rather than the face, it does less damage and hurts less... But you're still punching somebody.
We need to be looking towards forming new habits, not perpetuating old ones by slapping an often misleading green label on them. Also, a lot of this 'green' and ethical business is over-priced.
I mean not everyone is able to have a carbon neutral footprint, I think the little things do help.