In “Why Bother?” an article published in the New York Times Magazine, commentator Michael Pollan questions the severity that contributes to environmental problem and how an individual should attempt to make an impact regardless of the miniscule effect it will have presently and in the future. Pollan discusses how an individual's endeavors remain unnoticed when taking into account the consequences of one’s environmentally friendly actions. The concept of being named a liberal is discussed and its correlation towards one's decisions in changing one’s manner. Implementing laws that would promote green behavior is a drastic step to help the environment, but they would be very simple so everyone can comply. The effects of cheap energy an how they have molded us to a generation that does not care to mind the outcomes of our actions.
As discussed in the article, Pollan cites an analysis stating that if an individual were to drastically change their daily routine to a more
…show more content…
I strongly side with the act of changing our habitats for the sake of helping the environment. I insist on helping our environment not because you achieve “a sense of personal virtue” (89). Too many times does one aim to create a monumental change without thinking, realistically, that our intentions are no better than those of someone who has no intent to change. Pollan begins to analyze when being environmentally aware of your actions became virtuous, noting writers from the Wall Street Journal to the New Yorker. He questions how doing the right thing in accordance to the environment’s well-being has now been labeled as a “mark of liberal soft-headedness”(89) This concept that surrounds the idea of leading a green lifestyle should not mark it off in a negative way. The act of anything being considered liberal causes people to stray away from a movement, this is the opposite of how the author wants us to view the