Raising Awareness? - 1994
Earth Day's leading proponents cite the date's theme of environment as a great "awareness-raising" tool - that it interests people in nature generally and educates them about specific threats and proposed solutions to those threats. This was Earth Day's original mission.

However, the reality today is far different than during its 1970 introduction. Generation X certainly didn't seem to get the message. Many of them smoke, most are not politically active. Big clunky gas-guzzlers are popular with this segment of society, because they are considered cool, and they even made auto racing popular again.

The grassroots base Earth Day had in the beginning has been all but co-opted by big business seeking to greenwash corporate images and others seeking a free and easy attachment to a popular day to celebrate nature. Earth Day today often serves primarily as a marketing tool for selling products, government programs or policies, and the latest "deliverable" by environmental non-profits seeking to appear credible to their money-sources.

As Earth Day is in the public domain, business and industry wasted no time in using it for their own purposes. Nearly every major corporation sponsors its own Earth Day-related event. Usually these take the form of a company picnics and often known or local environmentalists are tapped as speakers to lend an air of credibility to the proceedings. Attendance is usually pretty good as it means not actually working during that time period, or none-too-subtle hints are dropped by superiors that attentdance would be a good idea if the event is off-premises or after-hours. The companies want a good turnout so it looks good for the news cameras or in-house video.

Business and industry have money grassroots organizers do not to fund and advertise their Earth Day efforts. Often the successes which are mentioned by business are merely examples of excessive waste which has been reduced. Government, from the local to the federal level, uses Earth Day as a p.r. tool, to promote its latest environmentally-themed campaign for the news cameras. But how effective can awareness-raising be if many people are only hearing the official company line or government agency's angle? If the oil company polluting the local water supply or air have the most prominent Earth Day message because they can afford to splash their logo all over their Earth Day booth at the public Earth Day fair or private company function, what is the message received by the public? Do they associate say, Exxon's cute furry animal ads in their "People Do" campaign, or Ford Motor Co.'s outdoorsy/nature imagery for their SUV's with positive environmental efforts?

Clearly corporate business advertising seeks to trick the public, and in corporate sponsored Earth Day events, they get to associate positive environmental rhetoric and activity with their respective company logos and names. The average person cannot or does not make the effort to tell the difference between genuine efforts and simple greenwashing.

Grassroots groups and campaigns simply cannot compete with the multimillions of corporate greenwashing, or easily get trampled in the commercialization of Earth Day. Various persons who have led national or prominent Earth Day efforts over the years have never built a viable network out of the local organizers to give them a united voice [until present efforts such as the Clean Energy Campaign by Earth Day Network]. Many grassroots Earth Day and environment groups are non-profits and many compete for the same foundation dollars - Earth Day becomes in some instances a fundraising tool - and make-work campaigns are created so that a "deliverable" can be created so the money-giver can see where the money's going. For many many years Earth Day has become mired in the program-oriented, product-oriented, overly commercial approach even by environment and Earth Day organizations. The programs, such as a school district community clean-up last for one Earth Day, have t-shirts and other items produced which will ultimately make their way into the waste stream (and took materials and energy to create), and occur with minimal frequency, small impact, and like a light sprinkle of rain in the desert on a hot day, don't provide for much life-sustaining nourishment to long-term efforts to protect nature.

More Than A Walk In The Park - 1994
Every Earth Day organizer needs to consider carefully the impact of their efforts. The vast majority of Earth Day activities are "fairs at the park." Is a fair at the park the best way to have an impact on lessening environmental destruction?

There are environmental costs to nature in having such a fair. Pollution emitted by vehicles bringing people and materials to and from the fair (not to mention the energy consumed in doing so). Energy consumed and pollution created in manufacturing objects and food for consumption by fair participants (all of which will find its way into the waste stream). And how many people will actually attend such a fair? What will they learn there they don't already know? What action will they take as a result of going to the Earth Day Fair? Aside from the once-in-five-years anniversary Earth Days the largest events draw how many? A few thousand? A few tens of thousands?

Most media coverage of Earth Day shows these fairs in the park, but how many people are ultimately reached with the "message?" A few million or tens of millions out of a country of 270 million? And out of those, how many have been introduced to a new technology or new idea that they adopt and then actually change their behavior to lessen their impact on the environment? And what can they see at an Earth Day Fair that they haven't already seen on Discovery Channel, or in science and environmentally-themed periodicals?

The simple fact is that these fairs in the park reach an audience (or market if you will) that already agrees with the aims of Earth Day and probably practices fairly responsible environmentally-sensitive behavior in the first place. Such fairs preach to the already converted. The rest of the fair-goers were brought along to hear the free music or to spend a day in the park and are not likely to give more than a passing assent to the messages and technologies presented there. And this is the fundamental problem Earth Day faces.

Organizers need to reach a wider audience and seem relevant to them, and, most importantly, involve them.

Of course the media finds these fairs easy and pleasing to cover, and they certainly convey the benevolent aims of Earth Day. Who doesn't adore images of children dressed as animals? Or tree-planting? Or a free outdoor concert? But if these events are once-a-year, and often for the specific purpose of getting a news camera to capture it, how effective is it really? How is the awareness raised translated?

There are many logistical nightmares involved in putting together a large Earth Day fair, not the least of which is funding. Usually corporate or business donors are found [as of this writing in 1994] to underwrite the costs of some or much of a given fair, in a trade which allows them to advertise heavily at the fair and on banners and printed materials. Less sophisticated fair-goers can become confused when they see solar ovens and "save-the-whales" next to corporate logos of companies that pollute. Which message gets through? The slick logo in an eco-friendly setting, or the message of the legitimate environmentalists? More importantly, which will be remembered?

Fairs in the park are certainly fun and can be useful, and do provide a pleasant setting in which to "raise awareness," but it is incumbent upon the fair organizer(s) to do everything possible to mitigate environmental destruction (energy use, air pollution, solid waste) in presenting their fair. No one wants a repeat of the millions of tons of trash left by Earth Day celebrants at 1990's Central Park Concert to mark the 20th anniversary observance.