Putting a damper on the ensuing euphoria from the Time’s Person of the Year honor are two online articles, in addition to my puny voice of dissent here .The first one felt that nature has eclipsed the most important species on earth, Homo Sapiens, in terms of changes sustained and the change implications, and thus should merit precedence over the latter, even though the very nature of the change affecting nature could be anthropogenic in origin.
A renowned NewYork Times columnist and the author of the popular book, The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman put up a convincing case that Time would have run the headline "Color of the Year", if he were the editor calling the shots. And he would have bestowed that honor to the color GREEN.
The article, And the Color of the Year Is ... by Thomas Friedman, appears on the Dec 22, 2006 issue of New York Times, but I saw the online version here. But before that, I first read about it in print in today’s Tampa Tribune, under “Other Views” (p. 13 of Nation/World), with a slightly altered title, And the Color of the Year Is … GREEN.
Corporations are now embracing green policies where it matters most: profits. But it’s not only the share-holders who benefit, the beneficiary includes the customers, and the environment too. Citing the case of WalMart, Friedman writes, “…But the world’s biggest retailer lately has gotten the green bug — in part to improve its image, but also because it has found that being more energy efficient is highly profitable for itself and its customers.”
How? A wide range of innovations really, though some are still at the experimental stage: alternative building materials, lighting, power systems and designs (e.g., , “big wind turbine in the parking lot”, “solar panels on key walls”, “the cooking oil from fried chicken that is recycled in its bio-boiler and heats the store in winter”, and “the shift to L.E.D lights in all exterior signs and grocery and freezer cases”.
He concluded his article with a dire caution that “the tipping point on climate change and species loss is also fast approaching, if it’s not already here. There’s no time to lose.”
I hope that Friedman’s clarion call for action could serve notice and rally bipartisan action in the US Congress where others, such as the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore, have not seemed to garner substantial support for change.
The second article is more direct, and argues that the honor should have gone to “them”. Written by Dante Chinni, the article is entitled “'They,' more than 'You,' are revolutionizing media” and appears in the Dec 26, 2006 issue of the Christian Science Monitor.
Chinni’s premises echo my view, though his was framed with much more citations. Not mincing his words, Chinni writes that Time’s premise is flawed and claimed “that only a small percentage of Americans are really contributing to the Web in meaningful ways - or even at all.”
“Of the small percentage of people who actually blog, tens of thousands post to blogs that have an average daily viewership of ... one. In other words, the scope of the Web's populist revolution shouldn't be overstated; it should be understood,” Chinni continues rationally. And he ends with a sober reminder to all lurkers: “As for you, don't feel too bad. You can still proudly display the latest issue of Time, lousy mirror image and all. And don't feel bad if you don't go out and start a blog tomorrow.
If everyone did, who would have time to read it all, anyway?”
Makes sense to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment