Think about not having access to the vast mobile industry in spreading this vital message! We could argue that the good outweighs the bad, but how so? Consider voting, where each constituent or citizen has a single vote, yet cumulatively they decide the outcome of a federal or general election and possibly the course of history — every bit counts! Unfortunately, there are no truly green ways to spread the messages of global warming and greenhouse effects. The very distribution of pamphlets and brochures on climate change arguably promotes deforestation. The use of recycled material for this purpose precludes its use in and availability for a potentially more globally significant problem. The whole process of creating products from recycled material itself is not fully “green,” if examined through unfiltered lens. If environmentalists spend decades advocating and soliciting support for green initiatives, could it be a case of taking two steps forwards, but one step backward? They are getting the messages out and people are rallying on hearing and realizing the truth—but there is a price! Primitive approaches cannot suffice to reach the billions of people who must get involved to change the trajectory of the planet. Yes, word of mouth (viva voce) is very effective today in advertising, but even so, there has to be support and there has to be enough media reference to ensure the message spread is not being distorted—one of the main problems with anything spread by word of mouth! We know how important it is that we as a people of the world start doing our part to reduce our footprints (wastes, deforestation, emissions, etc.) on the environment. But how do we strike that critical balance so in fact we’re always moving forwards!
The Green Dilemma