Over break, I got into a conversation with my roommate about the human impact on environmental change. She knows I'm an environmental studies major, and since we disagree on some fundamentals of environmentalism, she tends to moderate her own opinions and avoid arguments on the subject. This time we discussed the ability of technology to compensate for human impact. This debate is complex, I even know some environmentalists who believe technology is the answer. As the conversation evolved, it turned more specifically to alternative energies, which made me realize that though we disagree fundamentally, we both have the same goals. We both want to move away from dependency on oil. I promote alternative energy because of the negative impact of fossil fuels on the environment. She promotes it because our gas is expensive. Same end goal, different motives.

In all, perhaps one of the most essential techniques in environmental advocacy is framing the debate. Environmental issues effect every aspect of life: social justice, economics, politics, education, culture... the list goes on. The more flexible environmental advocates are when framing the discussion, the more we find common goals. We may have different reasoning for striving for these goals, but these differences should not distract us from getting things done.